By yet another IED. Damned cowards.
Actually to lay a mine properly and effectively on an open stretch of road surrounded by hostiles isn't work for cowards, but guideing a missile into a house full of women and children certainly is. In defence of ones home and kin there are few rules SS. When our turn comes we'll do the same or we'll die.
Lets keep this in perspective. The media are making a big deal of this for their own purposes. There were 29 loggers killed in B.C. alone in one year and nobody is shooting at us. More firefighters die in the line of duty in the US every year than Canadian soldiers killed in total in A-stan.
Yes, context is important which is why death rates in ANY other "theatre" are irrelevant to the waste of life in Afghanistan. We are not wasting billions of dollars a year for ZERO return on forestry. I mean, how many peoples die in hospitals every year?? Probably lots more than in Afghanistan- does that bring new "context" to the afghanistan debacle?? No- it is unrelated and a total red-herring.
Every death is pointless over there, the poor people getting blown to shreds are NOT heroes, they are casualties. To use the word "hero" to describe a person simply getting blown apart is a real stretch and an obvious feel-good gimmick that is used to instill a "never give up" and "we gotta do it for THEM" mentality that is not based in any sort of fact.
Seriously no disrespect to any of the fallen, I truly feel bad for them, but just because they believed in whatever it is we're attepmting to do over there doesn't make them correct. And before someone accuses me of being afraid to go there myself- I wouldn't participate in any endeavour where I wasn't allowed to know what the actual goals were. If "women going to school" is enough for you, then you are truly gullible
As I have said for almost 7 years, lock the country down, no travel in or out, don't be driving around in the midst of a bunch of folks who now have several years worth of great reasons to want to kill us.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
If we don't have the resources and means to impose such a lock-down (and I would be surprised if we don't) then we most definitely don't have the "right stuff" required to take control internally. If we are there to "kill bads guys" then why are we driving around trying to put a smiley face on it?? Constant bombardment from high altitude will be more than enough
This is where the argument for our mission falls apart, if we TRULY are there to kill al the bad guys we shouldn't be all that concerned about collateral damage. Having to make a war all "humanitarian" is ludicrous- the main reason I oppose the whole deal is due to the mix of tough talk and feel-good BS with which it has been presented.
IF the true intent was to stop "terrorists" from coming from Afghanistan and NOT regime change/establishing a base of operations and a friendly client state, we are going about it in the stupidest way possible. It is clear that we have VERY few friends on the ground there, maybe operating on the ground is just plain stupid- unless "making sure the terrorists can't attack from Afghanistan" is just PR and there's other reasons for our involvement.
The strategy has nothing to do with the stated goal which is why I continue...
It's the Conservative party that extended it and changed it from rebuiding to a combat mission.
All the other NATO countries are strictly rebuiding that's why they decided to not send any troops for combat in tjer last meeting.
Ahh see Unf, I am so strongly against this "mission" that I am on a totally opposite side. I don't believe that a few large north american governments actually have my interests at heart. If I truly thought that was the case (that most of our adventures overseas had the "common man" interests at the heart) then I would possibly be more inclined to rethink my position on Afghanistan as far as the Canadian involvement therein
As it stands, to me the whole thing stinks to high heaven, and as I said if we can't with our technology win the "war" there is NO chance of doing it the "old fashioned" way
With our country in a huge defecit situation we have to cut some expenses, so even in a basic economic sense, not feeling the dramatic urgency of "they hate our freedoms and they'll hit 'us' again" I personally don't see how even the monetary expense can be justified on such an obviously fruitless, nebulous endeavour , much less the human cost
Just my POV tho
I agree with you in principle about the 'frustration' of this war, but if Canada
wants to walk away from being part of NATO, they should do it when they are
not in the middle of a battle, but during a time when Canada is not taking
part in a war such as afghanistan. They agreed to be part of NATO, and
they can't just quit when times are tough, it must be a decision by NATO
members as a group.
We might ask ourselves what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has to do with Afghanistan. Could it be that NATO is run by the U.S., and that organization provides in some circles, a layer of respectability for that stupid war.
The US was attack on September 11th ergo Canada was attacked on September 11th. Those that attack us were in Afghanistan and Afghanistan would not give them up. The UN (read the entire world) supported the actions taken. While you obviously don't like what happened, it is all reasonably clear if you choose to look at it.
The US was attack on September 11th ergo Canada was attacked on September 11th. Those that attack us were in Afghanistan and Afghanistan would not give them up. The UN (read the entire world) supported the actions taken. While you obviously don't like what happened, it is all reasonably clear if you choose to look at it.