[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Modern warfare trades overwhelming firepower for soldiers lives, and whenever one is dealing with firepower, the cost of mistakes is huge. If we're taking enemy fire from a house or farm, I'd much rather send in an artillery round than a Canadian soldier.

We all agree that civilian casualties are tragic and coulter-productive, expecially when their fed back to the us ad-nasium by the Canadian media. One casualty undoes a lot of the good work we are doing there. That's why it's critical to speed up the Afghan police so they can identify and remove these terrorists before it gets to open war.

I'm quite happy to discuss this matter but I'm pretty sure his is just another topic that you don't care about and only want to use to beat the Tory government with.

Who is beating up the tories? Other then you bringing them up nobody was. My topic (assuming you meant me) is about how are allies over there are every bit as bad as the Taliban and yet we are the people training them, supporting them, and installing them often over the objections of the locals who tell us to our face things like this:

$1:

The Scotsman's Jerome Starkey quoted a shopkeeper in the city of Lashkar Gah, not far from the headquarters of the British and U.S. marine contingents in northern Helmand Jul. 16, as saying that the Taliban "were good for the welfare of ordinary Afghans, for poor people like us." The reason, he explained, was that, "[i]n Taliban times, there was punishment for criminals."

$1:

Anger over those police abuses runs so high that the elders in Babaji just north of Laskgar Gah warned the British that they would support the Taliban to get rid of them if the national police were allowed to return to the area, according to a Jul. 12 report by Reuters correspondent Peter Graff.

[ridenrain]

No Derby. That was addressed to Praxius.
I'll call on you when I need a Non Sequitur.
.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

We are in NATO to defend against the USSR. Everybody had a clear goal and good reasons to work together. Beyond that things are murky. This never should have been a NATO thing.

No longer derby. The USSR is no more.

The 2004 'Instanbul Declaration', of which Canada's then PM Jean Chretien signed, agreed to expand NATO's role to deal with terrorism and 'failed' states, in particular Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan we are honouring our agreements within NATO and previous govermnents, rightly or wrongly put us there. This government agreed, as did Parliament and a majority of Liberal MP's, to stick with the mission until 2011.

Personally I think it's time we let the weak-kneed Euro weenies such as Italy, France and Germany do some of the fighting and dying and we should let our boys go drinking and whoring in Kabul like the Euro's are doing instead of fighting.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

No Derby. That was addressed to Praxius.
I'll call on you when I need a Non Sequitur.
.

He'll call you when he needs prime example of hypocrisy. Afterall, why should I get all the fun of exposing you.

[Praxius]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Modern warfare trades overwhelming firepower for soldiers lives, and whenever one is dealing with firepower, the cost of mistakes is huge. If we're taking enemy fire from a house or farm, I'd much rather send in an artillery round than a Canadian soldier.

To me, it depends on the type of mission and information about the compound.

Considering our track record with our troops coming in, very few of our troops have died during actual combat, and overall, I feel the benefits outweigh the risks, which our troops agreed to when they signed up.

Several Taliban can be in that house or farm, but then again, it most likely is just 2 or three Taliban with several civilian family members stuck inside as body shields or at the least, propaganda for the media to cling onto when those civilians die from the house or farm being vaporized.

Call in the sniper and pick them off one at a time until the guns stop.... then move in with a LAV and aim it right into one of the windows, ordering everybody to get the hell out or die. Then bring in the troops to secure the surrounding area.

I'm not saying that'd be standard procedure or even the best option, but it's a hell of a lot better then trying to PR the aftermath of dead civilians and trying to explain it to the locals.

$1:

We all agree that civilian casualties are tragic and coulter-productive, expecially when their fed back to us ad-nasium by the Canadian media. One casualty undoes a lot of the good work we are doing there. That's why it's critical to speed up the Afghan police so they can identify and remove these terrorists before it gets to open war.

Agreed.

$1:

I'm quite happy to discuss this matter but I'm pretty sure his is just another topic that you don't care about and only want to use to beat the Tory government with.

I take it that's not directed at me, lol.

Back on the training of police and Army, Canadian forces have been reporting recently that the army and police have improved dramatically (the one's we train anyways) and most missions recently involved the Afghans leading the charge and taking control, while our forces stay behind unless needed.

To be honest, if they're getting this good, then I don't see a need for us to remain beyond 2010 in a combat situation anyways if we keep training and recruiting until then.

It's time the other nations start tightening their belts and focus a little more and start training their groups of afghans a lot better and give them the equipment and pay they need to do their jobs.

[Praxius]

ridenrain ridenrain:

No Derby. That was addressed to Praxius.
I'll call on you when I need a Non Sequitur.
.

Funny, I don't remember directing anything towards Liberals or Conservatives in this topic for that to apply to me.

I just said our Government in general, which the majority voted to remain until 2010, which I agree with, but no longer.

When did I take a stab at the Cons in this debate?

Added:

Oh wait, yeah it's 2011... my mistake. Somehow 2010 popped in my head from something else.... Olympics, that's it... I knew something was happening then.

[Praxius]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ridenrain ridenrain:

No Derby. That was addressed to Praxius.
I'll call on you when I need a Non Sequitur.
.

He'll call you when he needs prime example of hypocrisy. Afterall, why should I get all the fun of exposing you.

Ok both of you silly Libs and Cons, don't put the little ol NDP'er in the middle of your marriage squabble

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

DerbyX DerbyX:

We are in NATO to defend against the USSR. Everybody had a clear goal and good reasons to work together. Beyond that things are murky. This never should have been a NATO thing.

No longer derby. The USSR is no more.

The 2004 'Instanbul Declaration', of which Canada's then PM Jean Chretien signed, agreed to expand NATO's role to deal with terrorism and 'failed' states, in particular Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan we are honouring our agreements within NATO and previous govermnents, rightly or wrongly put us there. This government agreed, as did Parliament and a majority of Liberal MP's, to stick with the mission until 2011.

Personally I think it's time we let the weak-kneed Euro weenies such as Italy, France and Germany do some of the fighting and dying and we should let our boys go drinking and whoring in Kabul like the Euro's are doing instead of fighting.

Of course it is and expanding NATO's pervue was a mistake. Thats why our allies are being insulted and their contributions maligned as insufficient.

They don't feel as we do and in the absence of the common goal the USSR presented you will find thats what happens.

I'm sure the best way to get more of an effort from the above nations though is to call them names. It certainly worked for the Americans calling into question our Nations bravery and terrorist appeasement over Iraq.

[DerbyX]

Praxius Praxius:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ridenrain ridenrain:

No Derby. That was addressed to Praxius.
I'll call on you when I need a Non Sequitur.
.

He'll call you when he needs prime example of hypocrisy. Afterall, why should I get all the fun of exposing you.

Ok both of you silly Libs and Cons, don't put the little ol NDP in the middle of your marriage squabble

If you are a Dipper where is your symbol? I like you, just not enough to get into some weird 3-way with you and riden.

[Praxius]

DerbyX DerbyX:

If you are a Dipper where is your symbol? I like you, just not enough to get into some weird 3-way with you and riden.

I dunno, it's shown in my profile, but not in threads.... I can't even get my hockey team thing going and still haven't heard boo about how to fix either.

[DerbyX]

Praxius Praxius:

DerbyX DerbyX:

If you are a Dipper where is your symbol? I like you, just not enough to get into some weird 3-way with you and riden.

I dunno, it's shown in my profile, but not in threads.... I can't even get my hockey team thing going and still haven't heard boo about how to fix either.

Thats is strange. You must not have something enabled. Bring it up to trev here:

canadaka-net-f4/a-little-problem-with-your-forum-trev-t18797-1020.html

[ridenrain]

Prax: My point was that all western forces use firepower instead of people. When casualties are a political grenade, it's better to send in a shell before sending in a man. The US gets the brunt of the blame for air power casualties because their really the only one providing that service.

This directly illuminates the difference between the purpose of soldiers and that of police. Now that the taliban for the most part, have gone underground, the police are the tools to identify, isolate and kill them, with NATO support if nessesary.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

DerbyX DerbyX:

We are in NATO to defend against the USSR. Everybody had a clear goal and good reasons to work together. Beyond that things are murky. This never should have been a NATO thing.

No longer derby. The USSR is no more.

The 2004 'Instanbul Declaration', of which Canada's then PM Jean Chretien signed, agreed to expand NATO's role to deal with terrorism and 'failed' states, in particular Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan we are honouring our agreements within NATO and previous govermnents, rightly or wrongly put us there. This government agreed, as did Parliament and a majority of Liberal MP's, to stick with the mission until 2011.

Personally I think it's time we let the weak-kneed Euro weenies such as Italy, France and Germany do some of the fighting and dying and we should let our boys go drinking and whoring in Kabul like the Euro's are doing instead of fighting.

Of course it is and expanding NATO's pervue was a mistake. Thats why our allies are being insulted and their contributions maligned as insufficient.

They don't feel as we do and in the absence of the common goal the USSR presented you will find thats what happens.

I'm sure the best way to get more of an effort from the above nations though is to call them names. It certainly worked for the Americans calling into question our Nations bravery and terrorist appeasement over Iraq.

Nobody is officially calling them names. I just have mates from the CF and the UK Mil that have been there and called the other NATO 'allies' out themselves.

[SprCForr]

I'm thinking the Battle Group will be pulled out, but the PRT and OMLT effort will remain past 2011.

[KorbenDeck]

I wish Canada would stay. We have fought since day one, we stepped up to take on the tough jobs, suffered heavily fighting when many of our allies wouldn't leave their bases if it wasn't safe. Leaving before the job is done seems more like caving to the Left and running when the going gets tough to me.

Personal opinion.