Commitment in Afghanistan

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
slowpoke said:
Thanks for that link though it isn't very encouraging. Besides the US, we're the only ones who've delivered the level of support we promised. Meanwhile, Britain will have the lead role (???) and overall support for this operation is fading fast. Maybe Canada's example will shame the others into coming along for the ride. If not ..... guess what? This will revert back to a mainly US show with Canada riding shotgun and NATO doing a pretty good impersonation of the UN. Fuck!!!
Slowpoke, I agree that it will be a big problem if other NATO countries don’t do their part. In that case, the biggest losers will be the Afghan people. However, while I recognize your concerns, at the end of the day, if the mission fails, I would rather have it be because other countries did not do their part than because Canada did not do its part.

As far as the British leading the mission, that is not a big deal to me as long as their man follows the rules agreed on. As our top general has said, the Canadian forces defend democracy, they don’t practice it. It is standard practice for the country providing the most troops to supply the commander (the reason Canada is in charge of the multinational forces in their area of the country). That commander will have representatives from the other countries supplying personal on his staff. However, there has to be one man in overall charge of a military operation and not a committee.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
someone said:
Slowpoke, I agree that it will be a big problem if other NATO countries don’t do their part. In that case, the biggest losers will be the Afghan people. However, while I recognize your concerns, at the end of the day, if the mission fails, I would rather have it be because other countries did not do their part than because Canada did not do its part.

As far as the British leading the mission, that is not a big deal to me as long as their man follows the rules agreed on. As our top general has said, the Canadian forces defend democracy, they don’t practice it. It is standard practice for the country providing the most troops to supply the commander (the reason Canada is in charge of the multinational forces in their area of the country). That commander will have representatives from the other countries supplying personal on his staff. However, there has to be one man in overall charge of a military operation and not a committee.
I can understand why you can't have a committee in charge so I guess we can live with a Brit having the final say - as long as they live up to their promise to send more troops and equipment than we do. If the mission fails because the other countries welched out, the Afghans people will pay the price but I wonder if we won't also see more Canadian casualties because of gaps and shortfalls. Air support comes to mind. We don't have any of our own but it is vital - as others have pointed out. Hopefully we can arrange something that provides the proper margin of safety for our troops.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
I agree that it will be a problem if other countries don’t pull their weight. However, for now I’m willing to wait and see how things go in that regard.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
enduser1 said:
At the end of the ten years, or however long it is, we will leave. And then the fighting will restart without us. I guess Canadians will have to figure it out on their own. In the words of Mick Jagger, "Let it Bleed"

EU
Maybe not. It all depends on NATO training Afghanistan's police and military sufficiently to control the Taliban / warlords in the more remote regions. It probably also requires Pakistan to get a handle on their tribal insurgents near the Afghan border. Pakistan is definitely going after insurgents as evidenced by that series of attacks in Miran Shah where it seems like they've had some success.

If we leave behind a well equipped and properly trained Afghan military / police force, they should be able to do the job with the support of the Afghan citizens. The Soviets didn't have the support of the Afghan population and their invasion ended up contributing to their economic collapse. The Soviet troops really weren't into it either. If NATO commits to this properly and uses a more effective strategy (rebuilding, training, winning hearts and minds, cutting off the flow of opium revenue, hunting insurgents etc.) this should be possible. I know the Soviet experience was a disaster but we can do better than that. We at least have to give it a try.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
someone said:
I agree that it will be a problem if other countries don’t pull their weight. However, for now I’m willing to wait and see how things go in that regard.
I agree. It is early days and I remain hopeful. But it will be a bad omen for NATO if we can't pull this off. The UN is a glorified cluster fuck when it comes to disaster zones like this. Look at Rwanda and Darfur etc. So if NATO comes up with the same kind of lame response, it all comes back onto the good ol' US of A. Oh yeah....and Canada too. Just what I was hoping to avoid.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
Huge Cache of munitions and weapons turned over to NATO

This is an encouraging sign of cooperation with the locals.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6MX7Q6?OpenDocument

The largest cache of illegal weapons ever found in Afghanistan has been handed over to the government this week as part of a programme to disarm illegally armed groups.

The handover in Sheberghan, northern Afghanistan , was negotiated by the Government of Afghanistan and the Afghan New Beginnings Programme, with the assistance of NATO-led forces.

A deadly haul

NATO experts have assessed the contents of the cache and initial findings suggest that it includes over 80 tons of explosives, 15,000 anti-personnel and 10,000 anti-tank mines, as well as arms and munitions.

This makes it the largest haul of illegal arms to date and a significant step forward in the Government’s efforts to disarm the estimated 120,000 illegally armed persons in the country.

In June 2005, the Government of Afghanistan launched a Disbanding Illegal Armed Groups (DIAG) programme. It builds on the success of the UN-supported Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Programme. Launched in 2003 and completed in 2005, it saw the reintegration of over 61,000 former combatants.

The new programme focuses on persons who did not or do not belong to any formal military forces, but still carry illegal arms.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) is assisting the Afghan authorities with support, logistics, expert analysis and explosive ordnance disposal.
 
May 3, 2004
1,686
0
0
slowpoke said:
This is an encouraging sign of cooperation with the locals.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6MX7Q6?OpenDocument

The largest cache of illegal weapons ever found in Afghanistan has been handed over to the government this week as part of a programme to disarm illegally armed groups.

The handover in Sheberghan, northern Afghanistan , was negotiated by the Government of Afghanistan and the Afghan New Beginnings Programme, with the assistance of NATO-led forces.

A deadly haul

NATO experts have assessed the contents of the cache and initial findings suggest that it includes over 80 tons of explosives, 15,000 anti-personnel and 10,000 anti-tank mines, as well as arms and munitions.

This makes it the largest haul of illegal arms to date and a significant step forward in the Government’s efforts to disarm the estimated 120,000 illegally armed persons in the country.

In June 2005, the Government of Afghanistan launched a Disbanding Illegal Armed Groups (DIAG) programme. It builds on the success of the UN-supported Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Programme. Launched in 2003 and completed in 2005, it saw the reintegration of over 61,000 former combatants.

The new programme focuses on persons who did not or do not belong to any formal military forces, but still carry illegal arms.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (ISAF) is assisting the Afghan authorities with support, logistics, expert analysis and explosive ordnance disposal.
Good news, slowpoke. I'd be really disappointed if there were any "yeah but..." replies to your post.
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
enduser1 said:
Another even better example is Egypt. I bet you didn't know that Egypt, a majority Muslim country is run by Coptic Christians and Greeks? It is. Which is why Anwar Sadat, a Christian signed a peace treaty with Isreal. If the Muslims take over you can forget peace with Isreal.

Canada will not accomplish a single thing in Afghanistan except to be set up for another Dieppe. Dieppe 2 is what is coming folks. Here comes the pain baby.

EU
enduser1 : How did you made up the above fallacious information.

http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Sadat/Aug2002SadatEN.htm

On October 6th 1973, Sadat along with Syria, initiated the Yom Kippur War (Six of October War) and attacked Israel

Anwar Sadar was a Muslim and was killed for the same reason for which Israeli President Yitzhak Rabin was killed by the extremist . i.e making peace


Who is running Egypt ? Coptic Christians ? let me laugh then I will post the reply later
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
Family of Afghan victim contradicts Canadian military's version of shooting

Murray Brewster, Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, March 16, 2006
Article tools

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/w...797bf-a40c-44ea-b224-9aa3e6fd162d&k=58008&p=1

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Drastically conflicting accounts of the death of a civilian at a Canadian-Afghanistan checkpoint emerged Thursday as the dead man's grieving family disputed key details of events both before and after the shooting.

The widow and the second eldest son of the victim said the motorized rickshaw in which Nasrat Ali Hassan was a passenger received no warning to halt before a Canadian soldier opened fire with multiple shots Tuesday night.

The claim was immediately countered by Canadian commanders, who also warned that former Taliban and other insurgents are eager to exploit any incident in order to incite violence against coalition troops.

Ali Hassan's widow, Semen Gul, said the taxi in which she and her husband were riding did not run a police checkpoint, but instead rounded a corner in a city traffic circle - on the opposite side of the barricade.

They suddenly found themselves in front of the Canadian military convoy and that's when a soldier opened fired without warning, she said.

Gul claimed her husband was hit by four bullets, not two as reported by the Canadian military.

"I don't have a husband," Gul sobbed following a wake for her husband at a local mosque in Kandahar.

"I have nobody to protect me. What am I to do? You say sorry. What does sorry mean to me? Will sorry feed my children?"

The couple's second-eldest son, who was also with them in the three-wheeled tuk-tuk vehicle, apparently pleaded with soldiers to rush his father to hospital, but the convoy's translator told him to stay back, otherwise troops would shoot him as well, he said.

"It was not our fault. It was not our fault," said Nisar Khan, 17, through a translator.

"We didn't see anything. They shot at us suddenly. I told them we were not terrorists."

A Canadian Forces medic did tend to the wounded father six children, but perceived the injuries as not life-threatening.

The family said it was forced to call another taxi, which took Ali Hassan to hospital where he died three hours after being admitted.

The harrowing account emerged on the same day as distraught relatives held a funeral for the 45-year-old mechanic and tin-pot maker. At one point during the service, a frenzy erupted as one of Ali Hassan's sobbing children nearly fainted and had to be to taken away from the open white coffin.

The deputy commander of the provincial reconstruction team stood by the military's initial account of the incident.

"The soldier tried to warn the oncoming vehicle with a light and hand gestures before he opened fire, but I'll leave it to investigators to determine the exact events," Maj. Erik Liebert, told The Canadian Press in an interview.

"There were Afghan police on the ground at the time. There were independent witnesses, so I'm sure investigators will do their job."

An independent military judicial unit and Afghan police are conducting the investigation.
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
Afghanistan debate not over until troops return

Afghanistan debate not over until troops return

But to characterize measured debate as a betrayal of our troops is incorrect and dangerous. Canadians who question the afghanistan mission are every bit as patriotic as those who blindly support it. They are just as concerned for soldiers’ welfare in fact, that is a reason for fostering debate.

Trying to shut up doubters by painting them as unsupportive of the troops is a betrayal of what soldiers are laying their lives on the line to promote, democratic principles.

http://www.saultstar.com/webapp/sit...catname=Editorials&type=search&search1=afghan
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
What is Canada doing in Afghanistan?

Analyst says current strategy making matters worse

Much like in Iraq, the post-conflict security situation in Afghanistan has been badly mishandled with combat operations aimed at rooting out terrorists undermining — rather than building — the security of ordinary Afghans and foreign forces alike.


In modern complex peace operations, the essence of the military mission is to find the proper balance between persuasion and coercion — between consent and the use of force.


It may now be too late to properly apply the lessons learned at such high cost in the evolution of modern complex peace operations from Somalia, through the Balkans, to Sierra Leone, East Timor, to the Democratic Republic of Congo — the list is a long one.

But with Canadian forces daily facing catastrophic injury and death in a mission most Canadians just do not understand, we will not find our way out of the Afghanistan quagmire unless we get back to the fundamentals of modern complex peace operations.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...afghanmason0307/EmailBNStory/Afghanistan/home
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
rogerstaubach said:
Good news, slowpoke. I'd be really disappointed if there were any "yeah but..." replies to your post.
Me too. I don't think anyone here wants to see those munitions in the wrong hands. Even those here who disagree with sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan are hoping they all come back safely.
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
enduser1 said:
Hello,
As I said before: I am a "coward" and "Weak" and I want to "cut and run". Obviously, I am stupid too. I am totally confused about the Middle East and don't get it. Sure I admit I am wrong. I apologize for being ignorant. One thing I am not is a troll. YOU ARE 100% RIGHT.

Happy ST Patricks Day. Top O' the morning to ya!
EU
This was a classic example of cut and run :D
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
Afghan mission adds fuel to anti-war protests

Afghan mission adds fuel to anti-war protests

Mar. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM
DEBRA BLACK
STAFF REPORTER

Thousands of Canadians in 35 cities plan to demonstrate tomorrow against Canada's growing military role in Afghanistan — part of a global action to mark the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.


It's all part of a worldwide initiative to protest the U.S. war in Iraq, said Sid Lacombe, co-ordinator of the Canadian Peace Alliance, at a news conference yesterday. The protest will take place in front of the U.S. Consulate at 1 p.m. tomorrow. A student demonstration is also being held at Dundas Square at noon — with protestors then marching to the consulate. Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver are among the other Canadian cities holding rallies.

The Canadian Peace Alliance, made up of 140 groups, wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to hold not just a parliamentary debate, but a public debate on the merits of Canadian military participation in Afghanistan. It would like the Canadian government to push for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and wants the federal government to allow American war resisters to stay in Canada. It also wants to stress to Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush that it is opposed to a U.S. attack on Iran

Canada is in an operation in Afghanistan that is doomed to be a quagmire, Lacombe said. As far as he's concerned, a public debate shouldn't be about tactics, but the legitimacy of Canada's presence in Afghanistan.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...geid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142549412943
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
Canadian Sovereignty, America-Style

Canadian Sovereignty, America-Style
Wednesday March 2, 2005

US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci has warned Canadians that the United States will have no qualms about launching interceptor missiles into Canadian airspace as part of its Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), claiming that Canada "[gave] up its sovereignty" [1] when it decided not to participate in the program. Cellucci is referring to Canada's right to decide whether the United States is allowed to launch a missile interceptor over Canadian airspace.

Prime Minister Martin, showing a rare display of integrity after over a year of flirting with missile defence, responded to Cellucci's chide about Canada giving up its sovereignty by stating that Canada "would expect and insist on being consulted on any intrusion into our space." [2]

By contrast, opposition Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper made a typically servile, grovelling response, bewailing the fact that Canada continues to defy Washington. "This will really poison any ability [Martin] has to move Canada-U.S. relations forward. What it means in practical terms is that we'll just be invisible in Washington." [3]

Of course, the idea that America would ever respect Canada's - or any other nation's - sovereignty is absurd. As the world's predominant superpower, America does what it wants, where it wants, basing its decisions entirely on how the government decides its interests can best be served.

This is what makes Cellucci's remarks so galling. He came right out and told Canada that it can retain its "sovereignty" only to the extent that it does what America wants it to do. Or as Linda McQuaig cleverly observes, "It's only rape if you resist." [5]

It's a foregone conclusion that the Stephen Harpers of the Canadian establishment will attach themselves to Cellucci's line of reasoning and use it as an excuse to blame Martin for damaging relations with America, but this decision, like Prime Minister Jean Chretien's decision to stay out of the Iraq invasion, will look better and better as time goes on.

Not likely. I can only assume Cellucci actually hopes Canada's "independent" support for US policies will enhance the role of the United States in the world.

If anything, Canada itself is more likely to suffer from being perceived as an American lapdog than America is likely to benefit from whatever moral prestige attaches to Canada's endorsement of its policies.


http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_746.html
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
Common Sense

Sheesh! What a lot of complaining! What does Canada want, any way? Their own sovereignty? They gave that up when they dared to disagree with the U.S. about its defense featherbe.. contracting experiments! I mean, doesn't the U.S. have the right to defend its profits, I mean borders?

MW
 

scroll99

New member
Jan 17, 2004
1,257
0
0
Canada to Kandahar: Errand boy

Doing our duty to the U.S. is not what most Canadians want our military role to be. Canadians expect Parliament to debate foreign policy.

The Geneva Accords of July 20, 1954 ended, in theory, the French colonial war against the Vietminh. Under its terms Canada, along with Poland and India, was appointed to an International Commission charged to supervise the Accords, and stop the military conflict in Indo-China.

Thus began one of the unhappier episodes in the history of Canadian foreign relations. Canada's role on the commission was to represent the West; Poland was there on behalf of the Warsaw Pact; and India was the representative of the non-aligned countries. This was the Cold War, and Canada was a reliable Western ally.
http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?x=47832
...
...

In a stroke of good timing, Harper hit Kandahar the day before Michael Wilson presented his credentials to President George W. Bush as the new Canadian ambassador to Washington. Wilson was mum about his conversation with the U.S. president (he was one of a group of 12 Ambassadors going through the ritual, so it was not quite an intimate moment) but he pointed out that the Harper visit to Afghanistan elicited much favourable comment in Washington.

Wilson has already indicated that Canada had to earn itself a hearing in the U.S. What better way than through taking over a military role formerly carried out by U.S. troops.


Read more...
http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?x=47832
 

sparty86

Banned
Dec 19, 2005
173
0
0
scroll99 said:
Canadian Sovereignty, America-Style
Wednesday March 2, 2005

US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci has warned Canadians that the United States will have no qualms about launching interceptor missiles into Canadian airspace as part of its Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), claiming that Canada "[gave] up its sovereignty" [1] when it decided not to participate in the program. Cellucci is referring to Canada's right to decide whether the United States is allowed to launch a missile interceptor over Canadian airspace.

Prime Minister Martin, showing a rare display of integrity after over a year of flirting with missile defence, responded to Cellucci's chide about Canada giving up its sovereignty by stating that Canada "would expect and insist on being consulted on any intrusion into our space." [2]

By contrast, opposition Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper made a typically servile, grovelling response, bewailing the fact that Canada continues to defy Washington. "This will really poison any ability [Martin] has to move Canada-U.S. relations forward. What it means in practical terms is that we'll just be invisible in Washington." [3]

Of course, the idea that America would ever respect Canada's - or any other nation's - sovereignty is absurd. As the world's predominant superpower, America does what it wants, where it wants, basing its decisions entirely on how the government decides its interests can best be served.

This is what makes Cellucci's remarks so galling. He came right out and told Canada that it can retain its "sovereignty" only to the extent that it does what America wants it to do. Or as Linda McQuaig cleverly observes, "It's only rape if you resist." [5]

It's a foregone conclusion that the Stephen Harpers of the Canadian establishment will attach themselves to Cellucci's line of reasoning and use it as an excuse to blame Martin for damaging relations with America, but this decision, like Prime Minister Jean Chretien's decision to stay out of the Iraq invasion, will look better and better as time goes on.

Not likely. I can only assume Cellucci actually hopes Canada's "independent" support for US policies will enhance the role of the United States in the world.

If anything, Canada itself is more likely to suffer from being perceived as an American lapdog than America is likely to benefit from whatever moral prestige attaches to Canada's endorsement of its policies.


http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_746.html
Mojito

3 fresh mint sprigs
2 tsp sugar
3 tbsp fresh lemon juice
1 1/2 oz light rum
club soda




In a tall thin glass, crush part of the mint with a fork to coat the inside. Add the sugar and lemon juice and stir thoroughly. Top with ice. Add rum and mix. Top off with *chilled* club soda (or seltzer). Add a lemon slice and the remaining mint, and serve.


Serve in: Parfait Glass

http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink582.html
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts