Genius
Posts: 953 
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
June 15th, 2006, 10:23 PM
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada will boost its troop strength in Afghanistan should it take over command of NATO forces in the country as anticipated, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.
O'Connor has told NATO that Canada wants to assume control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) after it takes over operations in southern Afghanistan from the United States.
"Canada's interested in commanding ISAF in '08," O'Connor said Thursday after meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in Ottawa.
"Canada is more than able to command ISAF."
O'Connor said about 100 additional military personnel would be required for command operations, in addition to the 2,300 soldiers currently taking part in the Afghan mission.
NATO is to begin taking over military operations in and around violence-plagued Kandahar province by mid-summer when the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom moves to a new phase.
NATO is expanding its force to 16,000 from 9,700 by late July, effectively doubling international troop numbers in the southern region which was the Taliban's heartland.
While it hasn't been decided which country will lead the force after next year, Canada is seen as the strongest contender for the job.
ISAF, which is controlled by NATO, now operates in a peace-building and reconstruction capacity in the Afghan capital, Kabul and areas north.
It will act more like a combat force if needed, however, in the southern regions, suggested de Hoop Scheffer.
"When NATO takes over in the course of this summer, you'll see of course those ISAF forces . . . busy in dealing with reconstruction and development," he said.
"But at the same time, the message to the spoilers, be it Taliban, be it drug lords, be it warlords, whatever, will be a very stern and strong message: 'You will be dealt with very robustly, if necessary."'
Canadian soldiers are among more than 10,000 Afghan and coalition forces which began a massive anti-Taliban operation across southern Afghanistan Thursday.
Dubbed Operation Mountain Thrust, it is the largest offensive since the 2001 invasion that toppled the former Taliban regime.
The offensive is part of a major push to squeeze Taliban fighters responsible for a spate of ambushes and suicide attacks against coalition forces and Afghan authorities in recent months.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n061555A.xml
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada will boost its troop strength in Afghanistan should it take over command of NATO forces in the country as anticipated, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.
O'Connor has told NATO that Canada wants to assume control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) after it takes over operations in southern Afghanistan from the United States.
"Canada's interested in commanding ISAF in '08," O'Connor said Thursday after meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in Ottawa.
"Canada is more than able to command ISAF."
O'Connor said about 100 additional military personnel would be required for command operations, in addition to the 2,300 soldiers currently taking part in the Afghan mission.
NATO is to begin taking over military operations in and around violence-plagued Kandahar province by mid-summer when the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom moves to a new phase.
NATO is expanding its force to 16,000 from 9,700 by late July, effectively doubling international troop numbers in the southern region which was the Taliban's heartland.
While it hasn't been decided which country will lead the force after next year, Canada is seen as the strongest contender for the job.
ISAF, which is controlled by NATO, now operates in a peace-building and reconstruction capacity in the Afghan capital, Kabul and areas north.
It will act more like a combat force if needed, however, in the southern regions, suggested de Hoop Scheffer.
"When NATO takes over in the course of this summer, you'll see of course those ISAF forces . . . busy in dealing with reconstruction and development," he said.
"But at the same time, the message to the spoilers, be it Taliban, be it drug lords, be it warlords, whatever, will be a very stern and strong message: 'You will be dealt with very robustly, if necessary."'
Canadian soldiers are among more than 10,000 Afghan and coalition forces which began a massive anti-Taliban operation across southern Afghanistan Thursday.
Dubbed Operation Mountain Thrust, it is the largest offensive since the 2001 invasion that toppled the former Taliban regime.
The offensive is part of a major push to squeeze Taliban fighters responsible for a spate of ambushes and suicide attacks against coalition forces and Afghan authorities in recent months.
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n061555A.xml
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
June 16th, 2006, 01:36 PM
Yes. This could be our chance to take charge in Afghanistan, considering we are in a leading role currently.
Hopefully Canada will finally purchase the long and short-haul tactical/strategic aircraft they so badly need. Apparently O'Connor and Gen. Hillier have come to an agreement or understanding on both.
Yes. This could be our chance to take charge in Afghanistan, considering we are in a leading role currently.
Hopefully Canada will finally purchase the long and short-haul tactical/strategic aircraft they so badly need. Apparently O'Connor and Gen. Hillier have come to an agreement or understanding on both.
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
June 16th, 2006, 01:40 PM
O'Connor seeks $15B in extra equipment for troops
With Canada's military stretched thin in its largest overseas combat deployment since the Korean War, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has approached Cabinet with a $15-billion wish list for badly-needed equipment.
Government sources told CTV News that the most pressing requirement for the military is airlift capability, as the armed forces has reached their breaking point just by flying troops and supplies to and from Afghanistan.
"It's all about mobility -- mobility in transporting forces to the theatres of war, in supporting our ships at sea and battlefield mobility with those helicopters," retired Gen. Paul Manson told Canada AM Friday.
As part of its wish list, the military is asking for:
More than a dozen new Lockheed-Martin Hercules short-haul tactical aircraft;
Up to five Boeing C-17 Globe Masters -- long-haul strategic transport planes currently being used by the U.S. military;
Two naval supply ships, to replace vessels that have been in service for 40 years; and
Boeing-built heavy-lift Chinook helicopters -- a staple of the U.S. and British armies.
Since 1991, Canada has rented all of the strategic airlift crafts that it employs from Russia and Ukraine.
Manson said that renting military equipment is not only costly in the long term, but it could also compromise Canada's security.
"When a crisis occurs everybody needs these airplanes at the same time and Canada could find itself at the bottom of the totem pole of those who are looking for the rental of those facilities," he said.
The helicopters are capable of transporting artillery, equipment, supplies and soldiers directly to the battlefield, and would eliminate the need for troops to travel by vehicle on Afghanistan's deadly roads.
"If you want to send soldiers overseas, you need to send them and their equipment. That means you need big airplanes and big ships," said Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, Canada's new commander of land forces, at a change-of-command ceremony in Ottawa on Thursday.
"We have to have helicopters to move our kids around the battlefield so they don't suffer unnecessary casualties."
In its inaugural budget in May, the Conservatives pledged to buy more equipment to support a multi-role, combat-capable, maritime, land and air force, and promised to kick in an additional $5.3 billion over five years in spending for the military.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer praised Canada on Thursday for increasing its military budget.
link
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...616?hub=Canada
O'Connor seeks $15B in extra equipment for troops
With Canada's military stretched thin in its largest overseas combat deployment since the Korean War, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has approached Cabinet with a $15-billion wish list for badly-needed equipment.
Government sources told CTV News that the most pressing requirement for the military is airlift capability, as the armed forces has reached their breaking point just by flying troops and supplies to and from Afghanistan.
"It's all about mobility -- mobility in transporting forces to the theatres of war, in supporting our ships at sea and battlefield mobility with those helicopters," retired Gen. Paul Manson told Canada AM Friday.
As part of its wish list, the military is asking for:
More than a dozen new Lockheed-Martin Hercules short-haul tactical aircraft;
Up to five Boeing C-17 Globe Masters -- long-haul strategic transport planes currently being used by the U.S. military;
Two naval supply ships, to replace vessels that have been in service for 40 years; and
Boeing-built heavy-lift Chinook helicopters -- a staple of the U.S. and British armies.
Since 1991, Canada has rented all of the strategic airlift crafts that it employs from Russia and Ukraine.
Manson said that renting military equipment is not only costly in the long term, but it could also compromise Canada's security.
"When a crisis occurs everybody needs these airplanes at the same time and Canada could find itself at the bottom of the totem pole of those who are looking for the rental of those facilities," he said.
The helicopters are capable of transporting artillery, equipment, supplies and soldiers directly to the battlefield, and would eliminate the need for troops to travel by vehicle on Afghanistan's deadly roads.
"If you want to send soldiers overseas, you need to send them and their equipment. That means you need big airplanes and big ships," said Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, Canada's new commander of land forces, at a change-of-command ceremony in Ottawa on Thursday.
"We have to have helicopters to move our kids around the battlefield so they don't suffer unnecessary casualties."
In its inaugural budget in May, the Conservatives pledged to buy more equipment to support a multi-role, combat-capable, maritime, land and air force, and promised to kick in an additional $5.3 billion over five years in spending for the military.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer praised Canada on Thursday for increasing its military budget.
link
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...616?hub=Canada
Stuck in Ontario...bah
Posts: 706
Location: Petawawa Ontario
Location: Petawawa Ontario
June 17th, 2006, 10:05 AM
But yea I ams ure we could give it another name...its not the nicest sounding...but people need to know what we are talking about...and that is its given name at the moment.
Quoting
Well, what is it supose to be called? As far as I know thats what its being called, I mean its not the "War on mean people".......We are fighting against people who allow terrorism to thrive in their Countrys, who let peole train to attack the west....Hence the war on terror.....
War on Terror???
You guys like "war on terror".
You guys like "war on terror".
But yea I ams ure we could give it another name...its not the nicest sounding...but people need to know what we are talking about...and that is its given name at the moment.
Genius
Posts: 985
Location: CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
Location: CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
June 18th, 2006, 11:35 AM
EastSideScotian
check this http://www.canadiancontent.net/forum...er=asc&start=0
EastSideScotian
check this http://www.canadiancontent.net/forum...er=asc&start=0
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154
June 18th, 2006, 12:01 PM
Why is Canada involved in a remote region of the world that is obviously within the ken of giants like Russia and China and India? It's like Japan suddenly deciding to police Ontario's Caledonia. We might make a difference in Afghanistan, but history, being the astute teacher it is, says we won't.
Why is Canada involved in a remote region of the world that is obviously within the ken of giants like Russia and China and India? It's like Japan suddenly deciding to police Ontario's Caledonia. We might make a difference in Afghanistan, but history, being the astute teacher it is, says we won't.
Stuck in Ontario...bah
Posts: 706
Location: Petawawa Ontario
Location: Petawawa Ontario
June 19th, 2006, 01:12 PM
I read your link.....But it makes sense to me to call it a war on terror, we are fighting groups of people who use Terror to attack us. Al-quaida is not the only group around, maybe one of the largest but there are all kinds of other groups, or factions that use Terror. We are at war with the groups that cause terror. War on Terror, is a completly liget name for the war!
What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.
I read your link.....But it makes sense to me to call it a war on terror, we are fighting groups of people who use Terror to attack us. Al-quaida is not the only group around, maybe one of the largest but there are all kinds of other groups, or factions that use Terror. We are at war with the groups that cause terror. War on Terror, is a completly liget name for the war!
What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,239
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
June 19th, 2006, 01:26 PM
2. Japan does not have the ability to deploy Forces outside of it's own borders, baring special permission. This is a result of the peace treaty signed with the United States post-WW II. Just some FYI.
3. Why is it so ludicrous for Canada to deploy to Afghanistan? We've deployed to nations all over the globe. From Lebanon to East Timor. The distance shouldn't play a factor. And while the history of Afghanistan shows a nation rife with turmoil, you have to acknowledge the fact that the nations intervening havn't been there for noble purposes. We are, and will continue to make a difference in Afghanistan.
Quoting
1. The nations you listed; Russian, China, and India, are introspective. They don't project themselves outside of their own borders, and as a result we cannot count on them to attend to the needs of other nations, even if they are a stones throw away.
Why is Canada involved in a remote region of the world that is obviously within the ken of giants like Russia and China and India? It's like Japan suddenly deciding to police Ontario's Caledonia. We might make a difference in Afghanistan, but history, being the astute teacher it is, says we won't.
2. Japan does not have the ability to deploy Forces outside of it's own borders, baring special permission. This is a result of the peace treaty signed with the United States post-WW II. Just some FYI.
3. Why is it so ludicrous for Canada to deploy to Afghanistan? We've deployed to nations all over the globe. From Lebanon to East Timor. The distance shouldn't play a factor. And while the history of Afghanistan shows a nation rife with turmoil, you have to acknowledge the fact that the nations intervening havn't been there for noble purposes. We are, and will continue to make a difference in Afghanistan.
Member
Posts: 194
June 19th, 2006, 01:54 PM
"They could never have a stable government or a functioning democracy."
"Why not?"
"Because they've never had one before, stupid.".
The complete vacuum of logic in that thinking always astounds me. It's not a point. It's not even rational.
"The kid's only 2 years old. He's never walked before. What on Earth makes you think he ever will?"
lol.
.
Quote:
The very definition of simple-mindedness:
We might make a difference in Afghanistan, but history, being the astute teacher it is, says we won't.
"They could never have a stable government or a functioning democracy."
"Why not?"
"Because they've never had one before, stupid.".
The complete vacuum of logic in that thinking always astounds me. It's not a point. It's not even rational.
"The kid's only 2 years old. He's never walked before. What on Earth makes you think he ever will?"
lol.
.
Genius
Posts: 985
Location: CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
Location: CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
June 19th, 2006, 11:01 PM
War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.
USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.
Quoting
Then should Canada deploy its troop to Ireland to fight terrorism? Or there are terrorists on Spain, should Canada use its force to defeat them?
I read your link.....But it makes sense to me to call it a war on terror, we are fighting groups of people who use Terror to attack us. Al-quaida is not the only group around, maybe one of the largest but there are all kinds of other groups, or factions that use Terror. We are at war with the groups that cause terror. War on Terror, is a completly liget name for the war!
What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.
What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.
War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.
USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.
Stuck in Ontario...bah
Posts: 706
Location: Petawawa Ontario
Location: Petawawa Ontario
June 20th, 2006, 11:22 AM
They indicated what they think it means.... but you still havent told me what else you would call this war...
My point is...its called the war on terror because thats what it is... its stupid to say its not.
Quoting
War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.
USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.
Ireland, and Spain are perfectly capable of fighting terrorism on their own...? thats a pretty poor point. Quoting
Then should Canada deploy its troop to Ireland to fight terrorism? Or there are terrorists on Spain, should Canada use its force to defeat them?
I read your link.....But it makes sense to me to call it a war on terror, we are fighting groups of people who use Terror to attack us. Al-quaida is not the only group around, maybe one of the largest but there are all kinds of other groups, or factions that use Terror. We are at war with the groups that cause terror. War on Terror, is a completly liget name for the war!
What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.
What would you call it? I can almost bet you cant come up with some as specific and something that actully generalizes our actions or what we are fighting as...the war on terror.
War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.
USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.
They indicated what they think it means.... but you still havent told me what else you would call this war...
My point is...its called the war on terror because thats what it is... its stupid to say its not.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,838
Location: Independent Palestine
Location: Independent Palestine
June 20th, 2006, 11:32 AM
Its not War on Terrorism because it is not battling the thousands of groups that are terrorist. It is only battling one group and they changed its name to fight extremism so they just want to fight Islam Terrorism, and not al terrorism so it is faulty.
Its not War on Terrorism because it is not battling the thousands of groups that are terrorist. It is only battling one group and they changed its name to fight extremism so they just want to fight Islam Terrorism, and not al terrorism so it is faulty.
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
June 20th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Quoting
Yes, very poor point indeed. Your are comparing Afghanistan to Spain and Ireland?
Then should Canada deploy its troop to Ireland to fight terrorism? Or there are terrorists on Spain, should Canada use its force to defeat them?
War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.
USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.
War on terror, if you looked that thread, some members clearly indicated what "war on terror" means.
USA uses this terminology to justify its aggressive foreign policy.
Member
Posts: 194
June 20th, 2006, 08:12 PM
.
Quote:
Yes...if IRA terrorists made a major attack costing thousands of lives on any NATO member nation soil...yes.
Then should Canada deploy its troop to Ireland to fight terrorism? Or there are terrorists on Spain, should Canada use its force to defeat them?
.
