Genius
Posts: 953 
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
September 18th, 2006, 09:09 PM
Quote:
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n091850A.xml
HALIFAX (CP) - Australians would be shocked if an "ancient friend" like Canada retreated from the battlefields in Afghanistan as the military death toll mounts, that nation's foreign minister said Monday.
Standing in a legislative chamber lined with portraits of British royalty and reminders of common wars, Alexander Downer became the latest in a series of conservative politicians attempting to stiffen Canada's resolve in the face of growing public unease with the war in Afghanistan.
"We would be shocked if Canada suddenly decided to withdraw ... if Canada said, 'No we're not going to do anything here We're going to let the rest of you do it,'" Downer said during a news conference at the Nova Scotia legislature, as Canada's foreign affairs minister, Peter MacKay, looked on.
Downer said retreat would mean the "sacrifice of president Karzai (of Afghanistan) and his democratically elected parliament and allow terrorists to take control."
Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travelled to Halifax, where she said Canada's role in Afghanistan was critical to the war on terror.
On the weekend, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Bot also paid a visit to MacKay to discuss the common mission in Afghanistan.
Canada has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan, most of them in the south.
Before MacKay's meeting with Downer, the military confirmed that a suicide bomber on a bicycle killed four Canadian soldiers and injured several others while the troops were on patrol in southern Afghanistan.
The deaths Monday raised to 36 the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan since 2002.
The mission has been a contentious issue among the political opposition in Canada, with the NDP calling for a withdrawal, along with Liberal party leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy.
Recent polls have suggested Canadians are deeply divided on the issue.
However, MacKay repeated his pledge that Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan until its borders are secure, its infrastructure is rebuilt, refugees return home and democratic institutions are in place.
"We want to leave Afghanistan when those things are achieved in a meaningful way," the Nova Scotia MP told reporters at Province House.
"I believe, in spite of some casualties and some very high costs . . . these are values and principles worth fighting for."
MacKay said Taliban fighters are firmly entrenched in southern Afghanistan, which helps explain why they are turning to suicide attacks as Canadian soldiers press into hostile territory.
"They've shown the fiercest resistance," he said. "The military operations have encroached upon the area in which the Taliban felt that they were going to maintain that stronghold."
Both MacKay and Downer said they had encouraged Pakistan's government to stop the movement of Taliban fighters between that country and Afghanistan.
"It's a tall order," said MacKay, noting that Pakistan seems to be struggling to meet that challenge.
Downer went further, suggesting the elements of Pakistan's security forces were sympathetic to the Taliban.
Nevertheless, MacKay insisted that progress was being made with the help of Australian, Dutch, British and American troops.
"One would suggest that the fight is the last vestiges of the hold that the Taliban continue to exert over parts of Afghanistan."
©The Canadian Press, 2006
Standing in a legislative chamber lined with portraits of British royalty and reminders of common wars, Alexander Downer became the latest in a series of conservative politicians attempting to stiffen Canada's resolve in the face of growing public unease with the war in Afghanistan.
"We would be shocked if Canada suddenly decided to withdraw ... if Canada said, 'No we're not going to do anything here We're going to let the rest of you do it,'" Downer said during a news conference at the Nova Scotia legislature, as Canada's foreign affairs minister, Peter MacKay, looked on.
Downer said retreat would mean the "sacrifice of president Karzai (of Afghanistan) and his democratically elected parliament and allow terrorists to take control."
Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travelled to Halifax, where she said Canada's role in Afghanistan was critical to the war on terror.
On the weekend, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Bot also paid a visit to MacKay to discuss the common mission in Afghanistan.
Canada has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan, most of them in the south.
Before MacKay's meeting with Downer, the military confirmed that a suicide bomber on a bicycle killed four Canadian soldiers and injured several others while the troops were on patrol in southern Afghanistan.
The deaths Monday raised to 36 the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan since 2002.
The mission has been a contentious issue among the political opposition in Canada, with the NDP calling for a withdrawal, along with Liberal party leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy.
Recent polls have suggested Canadians are deeply divided on the issue.
However, MacKay repeated his pledge that Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan until its borders are secure, its infrastructure is rebuilt, refugees return home and democratic institutions are in place.
"We want to leave Afghanistan when those things are achieved in a meaningful way," the Nova Scotia MP told reporters at Province House.
"I believe, in spite of some casualties and some very high costs . . . these are values and principles worth fighting for."
MacKay said Taliban fighters are firmly entrenched in southern Afghanistan, which helps explain why they are turning to suicide attacks as Canadian soldiers press into hostile territory.
"They've shown the fiercest resistance," he said. "The military operations have encroached upon the area in which the Taliban felt that they were going to maintain that stronghold."
Both MacKay and Downer said they had encouraged Pakistan's government to stop the movement of Taliban fighters between that country and Afghanistan.
"It's a tall order," said MacKay, noting that Pakistan seems to be struggling to meet that challenge.
Downer went further, suggesting the elements of Pakistan's security forces were sympathetic to the Taliban.
Nevertheless, MacKay insisted that progress was being made with the help of Australian, Dutch, British and American troops.
"One would suggest that the fight is the last vestiges of the hold that the Taliban continue to exert over parts of Afghanistan."
©The Canadian Press, 2006
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
September 18th, 2006, 09:11 PM
Although Canada has suffered much larger casualties in Afghanistan than Australia has encountered in both Afghanistan & Iraq (not that it should matter), it is welcome for foreign countries to express how badly we are needed on the front lines.
Gives the NDP and other extreme leftists a kick in the ass...this is Canada, and we have obligations to live up to our end, and we are. Now if we could just get rid of the morally bankrupt Quebecers, we would stand a stronger more united country.
Although Canada has suffered much larger casualties in Afghanistan than Australia has encountered in both Afghanistan & Iraq (not that it should matter), it is welcome for foreign countries to express how badly we are needed on the front lines.
Gives the NDP and other extreme leftists a kick in the ass...this is Canada, and we have obligations to live up to our end, and we are. Now if we could just get rid of the morally bankrupt Quebecers, we would stand a stronger more united country.
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
September 18th, 2006, 09:31 PM
Quoting
Yes, our presence and casualties in Afghanistan is much larger, which is why I say that the debate in Canada is somewhat different that the debate in Australia. I am not completely sure but I believe the have around 600 troops in Afghanistan, and another 600 in Iraq.
The Australians are ones to talk. They pulled out 1500 troops in 2005. Now they are back in with about one-third the committment of Canada.
No sparks please
Posts: 304
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
September 18th, 2006, 10:31 PM
According to the Australian Army's official website they have:
- 1000 deployed in East Timor doing security / peace operations
- 1400 deployed in Iraq doing reconstruction and rehabilitation
- 410 deployed in Afghanistan
- 140 deployed in the Soloman Islands
- various small contigents in the middle east and Sudan
http://www.defence.gov.au/globalops.cfm
According to the Australian Army's official website they have:
- 1000 deployed in East Timor doing security / peace operations
- 1400 deployed in Iraq doing reconstruction and rehabilitation
- 410 deployed in Afghanistan
- 140 deployed in the Soloman Islands
- various small contigents in the middle east and Sudan
http://www.defence.gov.au/globalops.cfm
No sparks please
Posts: 304
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
September 18th, 2006, 10:57 PM
Quoting
I'm fairly sure the 1500 was 1400 and they were pulled from Iraq. They originally had approximately 550 in Afghanistan back in 2001-02.
The Australians are ones to talk. They pulled out 1500 troops in 2005. Now they are back in with about one-third the committment of Canada.
Chief Mogrifier
Posts: 8,796 
September 20th, 2006, 02:40 PM
The Australians should keep their mouths shut. They hauled their people out of Afghanistan because Howard wanted to follow Bush into Iraq. Canada was one of the countries that picked up the slack. Canada has done more than her share in any war I can think of.
The Australians should keep their mouths shut. They hauled their people out of Afghanistan because Howard wanted to follow Bush into Iraq. Canada was one of the countries that picked up the slack. Canada has done more than her share in any war I can think of.
Bright Spark
Posts: 496
Location: In Monsoon West (B.C)
Location: In Monsoon West (B.C)
September 20th, 2006, 03:18 PM
Quote:
Moron. Lefties make up 65% of Canadians and are probably more Canadian than you ever will be.
Although Canada has suffered much larger casualties in Afghanistan than Australia has encountered in both Afghanistan & Iraq (not that it should matter), it is welcome for foreign countries to express how badly we are needed on the front lines.
Gives the NDP and other extreme leftists a kick in the ass...this is Canada, and we have obligations to live up to our end, and we are. Now if we could just get rid of the morally bankrupt Quebecers, we would stand a stronger more united country.
Gives the NDP and other extreme leftists a kick in the ass...this is Canada, and we have obligations to live up to our end, and we are. Now if we could just get rid of the morally bankrupt Quebecers, we would stand a stronger more united country.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,976
September 20th, 2006, 03:46 PM
Juan wrote: Canada has done more than her share in any war I can think of. Amen brother.
As Juan stated Canada has a proud history in the trenches, battlefield, air and sea. I'm tired of "Other" Nations telling us what we should do to further their agendas. Canadians alone--okay our Goberment decide what we should and shouldn't do.
I was a little shocked to read that the Afghanistan President put Drug Dealers and War Lords in key positions of his Government. This can't be good for the future of the Afgan people. This should be discussed with him while he's in Canada. I'd like some questions answered. It all looks so bleak to me now.
Juan wrote: Canada has done more than her share in any war I can think of. Amen brother.
As Juan stated Canada has a proud history in the trenches, battlefield, air and sea. I'm tired of "Other" Nations telling us what we should do to further their agendas. Canadians alone--okay our Goberment decide what we should and shouldn't do.
I was a little shocked to read that the Afghanistan President put Drug Dealers and War Lords in key positions of his Government. This can't be good for the future of the Afgan people. This should be discussed with him while he's in Canada. I'd like some questions answered. It all looks so bleak to me now.
Newbie
Posts: 1
October 10th, 2006, 07:20 AM
Sometimes having a reputation is a bad thing. In the second world war the Canadian soldiers were sent to areas where the Allies were having problems because we got things done. In Afghanistan Canada was given the south which is the most dangerous part of the country and the most difficult to defend. I was listening to an American General on the news the other day. He stated after the Medusa mission based on the Canadian ferocity, the Taliban would not face the Canadians in an open battle again. Maybe the NATO forces should be placed under a Canadian Commander and the troops intermingled so all countries involved face the same degree of difficulty. Who knows maybe the other NATO forces could learn something from the Canadians
Sometimes having a reputation is a bad thing. In the second world war the Canadian soldiers were sent to areas where the Allies were having problems because we got things done. In Afghanistan Canada was given the south which is the most dangerous part of the country and the most difficult to defend. I was listening to an American General on the news the other day. He stated after the Medusa mission based on the Canadian ferocity, the Taliban would not face the Canadians in an open battle again. Maybe the NATO forces should be placed under a Canadian Commander and the troops intermingled so all countries involved face the same degree of difficulty. Who knows maybe the other NATO forces could learn something from the Canadians
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,604
October 10th, 2006, 09:33 AM
Whether it’s the right-wing pro-American government of John Howard or it’s anyone else in the world, any criticism directed at Canada for admitting we made a mistake in throwing our young men and women into harms way in the cause of legitimizing American propaganda should be quietly ignored.
Canada shouldn’t have troops in Afghanistan and a withdrawal should have been begun months ago.
How legitimate can this action in Afghanistan be when rationally dissected?
Whether they’re from Italy, Ireland, Russia China or Japan, terrorists and gangsters have killed thousands while committing their crimes. The streets of Chicago, Montreal, Vancouver, New York, all major cities in North America have been battlegrounds for criminals and criminal gangs since the end of the First World War, and has any nation decided it appropriate to “police” these criminals countries of origin?
And yet now because the Taliban were complicit in supporting the criminal conspiracy of Al Queada who attacked the U.S. Spain, Britain and a number of other nations, the Afghan people are dying. If the United States wants to find Osama bin Laden and round up the perpetrators behind 9/11 then fine, but where is the line drawn between going after the guilty and punishing the whole nation?
The United States has used and supported terrorists (gangsters) both directly by training terrorists and by funding and militarily supporting oppressive regimes across a wide spectrum of nations. Dictatorships having found a sympathetic ear in American business circles, legitimizing murder and mayhem from Nicaragua and Panama to East Timor Columbia and Indonesia and Malaysia.
That’s an observation not a judgment by the way.
Israel has used both with permission and without permission, Canadian passports as subterfuge in prosecuting their war on the “enemies of Israel”, an action if committed by many different nations would be justly called spying and rank right up there with the heinous judgments leveled against the Soviets.
Is it the cause of “justice” that’s behind the current action in Afghanistan or is it a manipulation by American oil cartels to attempt to secure a pipeline right of way that the Soviets failed in doing a number of years ago?
If the hunger for retribution and desire to punish those responsible for September 11/2001 is behind the militarism taking place in Afghanistan, why aren’t there actions being taken against Saudi Arabia, Yemen or a number of other nations that have also participated in over-looking Al Qeada?
Because it’s not about bringing democracy to Afghanistan, and not about hunting down the bad guys from 9/11, it’s all about American corporate warfare to retain control over the supply and distribution of fossil fuels.
And if any Canadian thinks that the American corporate community cares whether Canada approves or disapproves of its policies and actions, we have only to remember our wonderful North American Free Trade Agreement to garner some insight into how prepared the United States is to honor its “agreements”.
What the American engine of commerce loves to see though is a mindless ape like Stephen Harper capitulating to every American injustice and sacrificing Canadian men and women in supporting that engine. When the time comes when it’s Canada’s turn to reap the rewards of being the good little neighbour, having embraced the warmongering of the American administration and having aligned ourselves with the U.S. military in murdering innocent Afghanis and Iraqis you can bet any decision to reward Canada will be subject to the same formula and dynamics found acceptable or unacceptable in our wonderful NAFTA “agreement”.
Canada should be out of Afghanistan and never should have become involved there in the first place.
We have FBI and CIA policing inside Canada now, we have patrol boats along our Great Lakes mutual border that have mounted machine guns, we have watched the great Stephen Harper screw Canadians out of a billion dollars in the name of cow-towing to American industry….
Why don’t we just send a delegation to Washington and surrender now?
All the rabid pro-American fanatics here at Canadian Content would welcome taking down the Canadian flag and raising Old Glory over their homesteads I’m sure.
Whether it’s the right-wing pro-American government of John Howard or it’s anyone else in the world, any criticism directed at Canada for admitting we made a mistake in throwing our young men and women into harms way in the cause of legitimizing American propaganda should be quietly ignored.
Canada shouldn’t have troops in Afghanistan and a withdrawal should have been begun months ago.
How legitimate can this action in Afghanistan be when rationally dissected?
Whether they’re from Italy, Ireland, Russia China or Japan, terrorists and gangsters have killed thousands while committing their crimes. The streets of Chicago, Montreal, Vancouver, New York, all major cities in North America have been battlegrounds for criminals and criminal gangs since the end of the First World War, and has any nation decided it appropriate to “police” these criminals countries of origin?
And yet now because the Taliban were complicit in supporting the criminal conspiracy of Al Queada who attacked the U.S. Spain, Britain and a number of other nations, the Afghan people are dying. If the United States wants to find Osama bin Laden and round up the perpetrators behind 9/11 then fine, but where is the line drawn between going after the guilty and punishing the whole nation?
The United States has used and supported terrorists (gangsters) both directly by training terrorists and by funding and militarily supporting oppressive regimes across a wide spectrum of nations. Dictatorships having found a sympathetic ear in American business circles, legitimizing murder and mayhem from Nicaragua and Panama to East Timor Columbia and Indonesia and Malaysia.
That’s an observation not a judgment by the way.
Israel has used both with permission and without permission, Canadian passports as subterfuge in prosecuting their war on the “enemies of Israel”, an action if committed by many different nations would be justly called spying and rank right up there with the heinous judgments leveled against the Soviets.
Is it the cause of “justice” that’s behind the current action in Afghanistan or is it a manipulation by American oil cartels to attempt to secure a pipeline right of way that the Soviets failed in doing a number of years ago?
If the hunger for retribution and desire to punish those responsible for September 11/2001 is behind the militarism taking place in Afghanistan, why aren’t there actions being taken against Saudi Arabia, Yemen or a number of other nations that have also participated in over-looking Al Qeada?
Because it’s not about bringing democracy to Afghanistan, and not about hunting down the bad guys from 9/11, it’s all about American corporate warfare to retain control over the supply and distribution of fossil fuels.
And if any Canadian thinks that the American corporate community cares whether Canada approves or disapproves of its policies and actions, we have only to remember our wonderful North American Free Trade Agreement to garner some insight into how prepared the United States is to honor its “agreements”.
What the American engine of commerce loves to see though is a mindless ape like Stephen Harper capitulating to every American injustice and sacrificing Canadian men and women in supporting that engine. When the time comes when it’s Canada’s turn to reap the rewards of being the good little neighbour, having embraced the warmongering of the American administration and having aligned ourselves with the U.S. military in murdering innocent Afghanis and Iraqis you can bet any decision to reward Canada will be subject to the same formula and dynamics found acceptable or unacceptable in our wonderful NAFTA “agreement”.
Canada should be out of Afghanistan and never should have become involved there in the first place.
We have FBI and CIA policing inside Canada now, we have patrol boats along our Great Lakes mutual border that have mounted machine guns, we have watched the great Stephen Harper screw Canadians out of a billion dollars in the name of cow-towing to American industry….
Why don’t we just send a delegation to Washington and surrender now?
All the rabid pro-American fanatics here at Canadian Content would welcome taking down the Canadian flag and raising Old Glory over their homesteads I’m sure.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,899
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
October 10th, 2006, 10:04 AM
Once we get involved, we get INVOLVED!
I pissed at our NATO allies. We're taking the brunt of it in southern Afghanistan, and nobody wants to risk getting a sprained finger to help us out. Only the Brits and the Americans seem willing to risk anything to help us out, and they are very commited elsewhere.
Our other NATO allies will NOT provide more combat troops, and many of those already in country are under ludicrous rules of engagement, such as they are not to participate in operations at night.
HUH?
According to the Globe and Mail yesterday, Canada, Britain and the USA are becoming pissed off enough at our NATO allies that it may seriously effect the alliance.
Quoting Lineman
True.
I'm fairly sure the 1500 was 1400 and they were pulled from Iraq. They originally had approximately 550 in Afghanistan back in 2001-02.
Once we get involved, we get INVOLVED!
I pissed at our NATO allies. We're taking the brunt of it in southern Afghanistan, and nobody wants to risk getting a sprained finger to help us out. Only the Brits and the Americans seem willing to risk anything to help us out, and they are very commited elsewhere.
Our other NATO allies will NOT provide more combat troops, and many of those already in country are under ludicrous rules of engagement, such as they are not to participate in operations at night.
HUH?
According to the Globe and Mail yesterday, Canada, Britain and the USA are becoming pissed off enough at our NATO allies that it may seriously effect the alliance.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,976
October 10th, 2006, 10:09 AM
Mikey wrote: What the American engine of commerce loves to see though is a mindless ape like Stephen Harper capitulating to every American injustice and sacrificing Canadian men and women in supporting that engine. When the time comes when it’s Canada’s turn to reap the rewards of being the good little neighbour, having embraced the warmongering of the American administration and having aligned ourselves with the U.S. military in murdering innocent Afghanis and Iraqis you can bet any decision to reward Canada will be subject to the same formula and dynamics found acceptable or unacceptable in our wonderful NAFTA “agreement”.
Mikey-Mikey we aren't in Irag, regarding our troops murdering innocents get your head out of your US hating ass. You are just another Socialist/Commie who believes in nothing and falls for anything. You and your elk will never control Canada, thank Jesus for that.
Mikey wrote: What the American engine of commerce loves to see though is a mindless ape like Stephen Harper capitulating to every American injustice and sacrificing Canadian men and women in supporting that engine. When the time comes when it’s Canada’s turn to reap the rewards of being the good little neighbour, having embraced the warmongering of the American administration and having aligned ourselves with the U.S. military in murdering innocent Afghanis and Iraqis you can bet any decision to reward Canada will be subject to the same formula and dynamics found acceptable or unacceptable in our wonderful NAFTA “agreement”.
Mikey-Mikey we aren't in Irag, regarding our troops murdering innocents get your head out of your US hating ass. You are just another Socialist/Commie who believes in nothing and falls for anything. You and your elk will never control Canada, thank Jesus for that.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 583
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Location: Calgary, Alberta
October 12th, 2006, 09:07 PM
And we should be. All those other allies stood behind the Americans when they were attacked. Now they don't want to get their hands dirty on the off chance one of their number might get hurt and cause negative publicity at home. They should be worried about the piss poor reputation they are aquiring abroad.
Common Germans, French, et al, do something other than complaining.
Quoting Colpy
According to the Globe and Mail yesterday, Canada, Britain and the USA are becoming pissed off enough at our NATO allies that it may seriously effect the alliance.
And we should be. All those other allies stood behind the Americans when they were attacked. Now they don't want to get their hands dirty on the off chance one of their number might get hurt and cause negative publicity at home. They should be worried about the piss poor reputation they are aquiring abroad.
Common Germans, French, et al, do something other than complaining.
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
October 13th, 2006, 08:22 AM
Quoting LittleRunningGag
funny you should say that since it wasn't all that long ago O'Conner stood in the Commons and insisted our mission would be exactly what the French and Germans were doing at the time. Something changed?
...
Common Germans, French, et al, do something other than complaining.
Common Germans, French, et al, do something other than complaining.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,976
October 13th, 2006, 10:33 AM
Yep something changed we learned the French, German and Italian troops don't have to leave their party tents and are not "Permitted" to go outside after dark. Welcome to summer camp in Afghanistan Nato Members. Soup call at 11 sharp, sorry that's the Navy.
Yep something changed we learned the French, German and Italian troops don't have to leave their party tents and are not "Permitted" to go outside after dark. Welcome to summer camp in Afghanistan Nato Members. Soup call at 11 sharp, sorry that's the Navy.
