U.S. to press for Canada to keep troops in Afghanistan

critter171

Hey all from the USA
Feb 24, 2010
318
2
18
39
Usa, New hampshire
Vietnam, Cut and ran after failing to stabilize the South Vietnamese Gov't. Causing the down fall of the South Vietnamese Gov't, leaving thousands to be murdered and re-educated at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Cambodian and Loasians.

Afghanistan, Cut and ran after successfully ousting the Russian occupying force, leaving behind a power vacuum, quickly filled by religious despots, leading to the eventual murder of thousands of Afghani, men, women and children, and to top that off, thousands of US citizens, on and off US soil.

El Salvador, where a meddling policy of anti communism, and American Military presence, lead to the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, under US lead operations. Again, upon the realization that their presence there was no long a secret. Left behind a mechanism, by which thousands more would die.

Nicaragua, same as El Salvador.

I agree with what i bolded but underline is both countries faults.
the fact you had someone over there trying to convice not just you but us something needed to be done.

and this where it took us to this day now. its not that guy fault its both countries.
 

critter171

Hey all from the USA
Feb 24, 2010
318
2
18
39
Usa, New hampshire
Belligerence invites belligerence. Do you want to be reasonable ... or play attitude?

Canada was the space Russian bombers - nuclear armed Russian bombers - would be intercepted and brought down. We were designated as your umbrella. You're damned right there was more to it than you want to see.

So since i did not agree with it means i have an attuide? nice to know.. .i put that in my notes and btw i stand by the above comments on this page.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
That's great, then why don't you try and counter their opinion with fact, tact and reason. You would definitely do a much better job of dispelling some myths that way. Right now, you're just supporting the stereotype.

It's not a stereotype, at least not in my experience, both on and off the net. Even tho this kid is mentally deficient( and that's not a joke and is the reason why I have been told to go easy on him) his rehetoric is typical rather than atypical.

From my experience, americans like eaglesmack, and a few others I know, are atypical.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
So since i did not agree with it means i have an attuide? nice to know.. .i put that in my notes and btw i stand by the above comments on this page.

Ahh ... so you're a manipulative-type soul too? Attitude comes with the tone in which the message is conveyed ... not whether anyone disagrees with it or not.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I agree with what i bolded but underline is both countries faults.
I disagree. The US made sure people it could manipulate head positions of power. Not only did those people exploit their own countrymen, they obsconded with scores of money ear marked for the defence of their nation.

These weren't truly, duly elected people, they were puppets the US ignored as they raped and pilidged their own nation, with the assistance of the US and US foriegn policy.
the fact you had someone over there trying to convice not just you but us something needed to be done.
Nothing needed to be done. The red menace was failing, that why they invaded Afghanistan in the first place, oil. In Vietnam, there was no issue, it was created in the Gulf of Tonkin. In El Salvador, the people were tired of living under the foot of American Fruit Growers.

The US is the cause of much of its woe's.

and this where it took us to this day now. its not that guy fault its both countries.
I will not absolve the nations that I have mentioned of any culpability, but the US was the precursor, the catalyst and mechanism for much of its own suffering.

It's not a stereotype, at least not in my experience, both on and off the net. Even tho this kid is mentally deficient( and that's not a joke and is the reason why I have been told to go easy on him) his rehetoric is typical rather than atypical.
On forums such as this, yes. But I have met thousands of Americans and can say with all honesty, I have never been let down.

From my experience, americans like eaglesmack, and a few others I know, are atypical.
I think you give ES to little credit. He's assertive, he's confident and he's factual, I like that about him.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
It's not a stereotype, at least not in my experience, both on and off the net. Even tho this kid is mentally deficient( and that's not a joke and is the reason why I have been told to go easy on him) his rehetoric is typical rather than atypical.

From my experience, americans like eaglesmack, and a few others I know, are atypical.

Thanks Gerry.

And you are atypical of that certain type of Canadian.

Insecure about who you are and obsessive about what you aren't.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
So since i did not agree with it means i have an attuide? nice to know.. .i put that in my notes and btw i stand by the above comments on this page.

Critter...you can't come in here and talk THAT type of smack and expect a free pass regardless of a disability. You're here aren't you? When you go off on Canada as a whole do not expect much support from anyone here.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
As far as I am concerned, the yanks can screw off. Canada won't bow to their threats and pressure...
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
leave it to Canada leaving they could never finish a fight no surprise there... especially when you sign a damn treaty in NATO when a nation is under attack we are all under attack.


I will attempt to reply to your semi-coherent comment. First, please name a fight Canada did not finish. I can't think of one and I suspect I know considerably more history than you.

As for your NATO comment, apparently you do not understand the alliance. NATO was created to provide mutual defence against a common enemy. 9-11 was an act of terrorism, not a war. As a result Canada freely chose to support the US in Afghanistan in spite of the fact there was no real obligation to do so.

Canada's military history is one of supporting wars that did not involve it. This was true in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. It is worth noting that in the First World War Canada entered the war three years ahead of the USA and entered the Second World War two years ahead of the US.

Canada is a sovereign nation. It can choose which wars it chooses to enter. Canada has stuck with the US through eight years of the Afghanistan fiasco, a war that should have been won years ago if George W. Bush had not muffed the job. On a per capita basis Canada has suffered higher casualties than any other nation. I don't think the US has anything to complain about, but rants like yours are likely to get Canada out of the war much faster than you think.
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
Here is what is in the news tonight:
GATINEAU, Que. - Canada and the United States were locked in a diplomatic stalemate Monday night after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked Canada to extend its military mission in Afghanistan.
Clinton dropped the diplomatic bombshell Monday in a televised interview on the eve of the Canadian-hosted G8 foreign ministers meeting near Ottawa, saying Washington wants Canada to keep troops in the country past the 2011 withdrawal date.
But Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon did not budge from the government's steadfast decision to pull troops out next year as planned.
"We've been clear on this. Let me repeat it once again. Canada's military mission will end in 2011," Cannon said late Monday.
The Harper government is now at odds with its closest ally on its decision to end the Canadian Forces combat mission in Kandahar by July 2011, as Parliament has decreed.
Sticking firmly to talking points, Cannon said, "officials are examining Canada's potential non-military role post-2011."
"I don't think it will create tension between Ottawa and Washington," the minister added, saying that Canada has made its position "perfectly clear" to the U.S. government, and even affirmed the decision in the recent throne speech.
Speculation has been rife about what Canada would do in Afghanistan after 2011. The government has said recently that all military options are off the table, including combat, further training of Afghan forces and maintaining a provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar.
The Opposition and analysts have called for a public discussion on what Canada could do in Afghanistan after 2011. Training the Afghan National Army is one possibility because the NATO-led mission has a shortage of such military instructors.
Moreover, training enough Afghan soldiers and police officers to competently protect their people is key to eventually bringing home all Western troops from Afghanistan.
Clinton said the post-2011 mission could be different from the combat role Canada is currently waging in Kandahar Province, the spiritual heartland of the Taliban.
"There's all kinds of things that are possible. The military could slip more into a training role than into a combat role," she said.
Michael Ignatieff quickly dismissed Clinton's request.
Clinton's request came one day after President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan and chided President Hamid Karzai over the long-standing concerns of corruption in his fragile, Western-backed government.
One of Canada's NATO allies, Norway, also piled on Monday, telling The Canadian Press that arbitrary withdrawal dates don't reflect the reality on the ground in Afghanistan.
"We have great sympathy with the losses Canada has taken and the impression that has made on the people of Canada," Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store said in an interview.
"We have gone in with NATO and we will go out with NATO in accordance with agreement with the Afghan authorities. We have not fixed a date. Our troops will not stay there one day longer than necessary but fixing a date is not something we will do."
Store said no one can put a date on when Afghanistan will be able to govern itself or protect its people from terrorists and insurgents.
"It is part of Norway's deep identity that NATO is our guarantee for security. When we are there on a NATO mission, let's make the best out of it, and let's stick with that mission."
Jolted by Monday's deadly Moscow subway attacks, G8 foreign ministers gathering near Ottawa to discuss global security, quickly cast a suspicious eye to terror haven on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Attending the Canadian-hosted Arctic meeting ahead of the G8, an ashen-faced Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters that he could not rule out that the Moscow attacks were planned from abroad, including the safe haven on Pakistan's western frontier abutting Afghanistan.
He said Russians are all too familiar with the "so-called no-man's land on the border" between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"Terrorist attacks, not only in Afghanistan ... are plotted in that area," Lavrov told reporters outside a picturesque Meech Lake retreat in the Gatineau, Que. countryside.
Though many Canadians have no appetite for the further military involvement after suffering more than 140 military deaths, Clinton's comments will be sure to spark debate in the House of Commons.
Ignatieff said his party was not opposed to some form of Canadian presence in Afghanistan after the military pulls out.
"We've invested massively in Afghanistan. We've left brave men and women behind.
"We think that there is a justification for some continued mission ... but we need a national conversation about it. We need a resolution of Parliament of Canada and the government has failed to do any of that."
Though global security was already a key feature of the G8 foreign ministers agenda, Clinton's remarks and the Moscow suicide bombings clearly focused the nature of Tuesday's talks.
Ahead of their meeting, the G8 foreign ministers condemned the terror attacks on the Moscow subway system as "cowardly."
Cannon, who is chairing the meeting, issued a statement on behalf of the ministers that "strongly condemned the cowardly terrorist attacks."
"Ministers expressed their deepest sympathy to all who have been injured or bereaved by these attacks, and called for the prosecution of all those responsible," the statement said. "They vowed that they would continue to collaborate to thwart and constrain terrorists, and to work for a world that is safe for all, based on the principles of democracy, and respect for the rule of law and for human rights."
The ministers also reiterated their commitment "to further enhance the central role of the United Nations and to adhere to its Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions."
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
36
48
Toronto
It's time for our troops to get out of Afghanistan in 2011 and send them to the Congo and fight in the jungles.

One thing about this Conservative government they sure like to put our men and women in the military in harms way.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
It's time for our troops to get out of Afghanistan in 2011 and send them to the Congo and fight in the jungles.
From one nightmare to another...good thinking...

One thing about this Conservative government they sure like to put our men and women in the military in harms way.
:lol:

Ignoring the absurdity of that statement for a moment, do you have any idea why that is? Because we didn't train to be paperweights. We're Troopers, we train for combat. Combat isn't safe. Combat is in harms way.

I'm just shaking my head at the level of idiocy your post exudes.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
As for your NATO comment, apparently you do not understand the alliance. NATO was created to provide mutual defence against a common enemy. 9-11 was an act of terrorism, not a war. As a result Canada freely chose to support the US in Afghanistan in spite of the fact there was no real obligation to do so.

This is a combination of spin, weasel wording and demonstrating how the alliances of the past are somewhat out of date in combating the ills of todays world. I have not read the treaty we signed but I would be hesitant to claim that it only covered acts of war by sovereign powers. And even if there was no legal obligation to support the US in Afghanistan, I think there was a moral one to support a friendly nation and trading partner who was combating a group that threatened global stability (as demonstrated by the market crash, oil price hikes and global recession caused by 9/11).

Canada's military history is one of supporting wars that did not involve it. This was true in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. It is worth noting that in the First World War Canada entered the war three years ahead of the USA and entered the Second World War two years ahead of the US.

You can go farther back than that into the Boer War as well (even if it was a defeat for the Commonwealth).

Canada is a sovereign nation. It can choose which wars it chooses to enter. Canada has stuck with the US through eight years of the Afghanistan fiasco, a war that should have been won years ago if George W. Bush had not muffed the job. On a per capita basis Canada has suffered higher casualties than any other nation. I don't think the US has anything to complain about, but rants like yours are likely to get Canada out of the war much faster than you think.

This is always a pet peeve of mine whenever the subject turns to debate on military policy and history, particularly with Americans. Canada usually has followed the lead of other countries in these conflicts (in WW1 they were under British command and also in WW2 as well as under US command when Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander) and has suffered more per capita in these conflicts than the US (and more TOTAL casualties in WW1) yet some Americans like to accuse Canada of not pulling its weight. Canada, historically, has stood by its friends, resolutely.

As far as Afghanistan goes, it shouldn't be a surprise that our allies want to leave troops on the ground longer, because the mission hasn't gone as they wished or planned. The training of Afghan forces to replace us is way behind schedule. Personally, I'm opposed to pulling the troops out before the job is done: why did we sacrifice 150 young men and women then? I guess I'm one of the few that believes we (NATO countries) owe an obligation to the Afghan people to help rebuild their country for fighting one of our proxy wars against the USSR, as well as the obligation to our soliders who have fallen, to ensure they didn't die for nothing. And I do wonder if the same people who want to pull out of Afghanistan now would have called it done after Dieppe in WW2 or the Somme in WW1...
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
This is a combination of spin, weasel wording and demonstrating how the alliances of the past are somewhat out of date in combating the ills of todays world. I have not read the treaty we signed but I would be hesitant to claim that it only covered acts of war by sovereign powers. And even if there was no legal obligation to support the US in Afghanistan, I think there was a moral one to support a friendly nation and trading partner who was combating a group that threatened global stability (as demonstrated by the market crash, oil price hikes and global recession caused by 9/11).

Canada has not necessarily followed the US or Britain into every war even after the formation of NATO. Canada sent no support to Britain in the Falkland's War even though Britain maintained that it was a clear example of Argentine aggression. Nor did Canada follow the US into war in Vietnam. Essentially since World War II Canada has supported UN initiatives, and has ignored the various US crusades. Afghanistan is primarily a NATO war with the largest number of troops from the US, but not all NATO nations have chosen to participate. I supported Canada's commitment in Afghanistan but do not think that such a sacrifice should be automatic. For the US to believe that Canada will automatically follow it into war is a mistaken attitude and one that is certainly likely to annoy most Canadians. Being taken for granted is one sure way to lose Canadian support in international matters.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Heard news today that Harpy is adamant about Canada pulling all but a handful of people out of Afghanistan. Sounds fine by me, but I hope reconstruction continues and the Afghans come out of the mess with a decent country. That won't happen with drug lords, Taliban, etc. running it.