2 Canadian Soldiers Killed

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You're seriously not comparing death tolls in this war to previous conflicts, are you? In WWI, it was acceptable to lose 1000 lives to advance 100 yards.

Times have changed.

And yes, by modern standards, our soldiers are being killed at an alarming rate in Afghanistan.

If 39 soldiers in more than a year is an alarming rate then we (Canadians) need to tighten our panties. Especially considering almost half of those came from friendly fire.

This is possibly the lowest casualty rate of any conflict that Canada has ever fought in. SO which "Modern Standard" are you talking about? Or is this something you thought up yourself? Because the examples I gave were alarming rate of loss of life.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

We exit when the Afghani government is stable enough to take care of it's own internal and external security. Just like Iraq.

Now that's an unfair comparison. The situation in Afghanistan is far, far more hopeful than Iraq.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Now that's an unfair comparison. The situation in Afghanistan is far, far more hopeful than Iraq.

It may be more hopeful, but it is going to take many years. Iraq should be ready to take over it's own security sooner than the Afghani government.
So far Afghanistan is less violent, but it may not stay that way, especially if we pull out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

You're seriously not comparing death tolls in this war to previous conflicts, are you? In WWI, it was acceptable to lose 1000 lives to advance 100 yards.

Times have changed.

And yes, by modern standards, our soldiers are being killed at an alarming rate in Afghanistan.

Not to sound cold or callous, but even by modern standards in a modern battlefield these are not shocking or high casualty rates, and there is an ebb and flow to them.

They seem alarming because as a modern Canadian Society we haven't been raised in war generations (1915-1955, 1965-1973) where we were exposed to actual wars on a daily basis.

Our level of education also gives us a different insight, and maybe a certain amount of arrogance in understanding the actual mechanics of war, and how it works, not how it starts or how you exit but how it works.

The Canadian Military which is a bit better equipted, also has the problem that in terms of field leaders in terms of actual battle skills we have very little real world experience, and because of that your going to see heavier casualties which will eventually trend down if you can build that corp of battle scarred veterans.

We're there now, I don't agree with pulling out because we're taking casualties, but I do think that Hillier needs to review the actual on the ground security measures to make it harder for the Taliban to attack.

We also need more of the UAV's so that we can actually see attacks coming on these projects instead of being surprised by them. I base this on the limited range of an RPG (500 meters), and the ability for the insurgents to get that close.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We also need more of the UAV's so that we can actually see attacks coming on these projects instead of being surprised by them. I base this on the limited range of an RPG (500 meters), and the ability for the insurgents to get that close.

Hmmm...if we had ARMED aerial vehicles, be they helicopters or fighters (the CF-18 doesn't count, because it doesn't have the loiter capabilities you'd want), there would be no need to be surprised whatsover, they would be destroyed while they were forming up. A weapons platform like the AC-130 (basically, a Hercules based gunship) is exactly what Canada needs for places like Afghanistan, but I'm pretty sure it's just a tad too "offensive" for political tastes.

-Scott

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Hmmm...if we had ARMED aerial vehicles, be they helicopters or fighters (the CF-18 doesn't count, because it doesn't have the loiter capabilities you'd want), there would be no need to be surprised whatsover, they would be destroyed while they were forming up. A weapons platform like the AC-130 (basically, a Hercules based gunship) is exactly what Canada needs for places like Afghanistan, but I'm pretty sure it's just a tad too "offensive" for political tastes.

-Scott

I was hoping that the American's would keep some of thier AC-130's in Afghanistan on loan, but from what I understand they're all in Iraq. We also don't have the command and control structure in place to work with something like the AC-130.

The UAV's that Canada purchased are nearly invisible and silent unlike a plane or helicopter, so you can loiter one over your troops and see everything thats not yours.

I think a lot of our casualties are caused by raw inexperience.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

hahahahahahahaha

So saying something contrary to what I know to be true for the purpose of misleading or diversion isn't lying?

You should really look that word up.

In parts of Kabul, kind of, maybe, sorta.

This seems totally radical to the old taliban government

You want it to be true or think that it is true, but it isn't.

That's not necessarily lying.

In any case....some differences.

1. Elected
2. Actually made up of Afghan citizens, not Pakistanis!
3. Recognized by the world, unlike those not so bad Taliban guys!
4. Not yet enforcing Islamic law on the streets with thuggery, although it has been suggested.
5. Allowing women to go to school.

There are 5 differences that make the governments markedly different.

[JohnnyFlame]

I have been thinking recently it would be interesting if the Americans decided to go back to a more historical role for them. They had to be dragged into the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Canada was right there from the start and suffered some real casulties--this isn't a skirmish in comparison.

Already the world(Americans included) stand by as the people of Africa get murdered in the millions. Millions not some pathetically small number of Canadian troops by comparison. Imagine if the Americans just decided to say screw you(insert UN, and every trouble spot on earth). Kicked the UN out and just went to defending themselves and selling weapons to their buddies.

Think the world would be a happier place? I wonder how Croatians etc. would answer that question.

Frankly I'm embarrassed as a Canadian that we haven't been willing to stick our necks out more often. I fully wish our Canadian generals had told the UN to take a flippin hike in Rwanda and ordered the troops to take action. They should have been backed by our government and people and we should have taken on the task even if nobody joined us, supported us or if we sustained high casulties.

Our lack of caring for people who can't defend themselves sickens me -- these people in Afghanistan etc. have suffered for years because we in the Western World are too gutless to backup what we supposedly believe in. To me that's considerably sadder than losing a few troops!!

[Flames2007FIRE IT UP]

It is really sad, and depressing hearing this same story over and over, good luck to the brave souls over their.

[Jayems]

I would hope that either you agree we should be over there or not, we can all support our countrymen and women fighting in conditions we can not imagine, and being away from their loved ones for so long.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I have been thinking recently it would be interesting if the Americans decided to go back to a more historical role for them. They had to be dragged into the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Canada was right there from the start and suffered some real casulties--this isn't a skirmish in comparison.

Already the world(Americans included) stand by as the people of Africa get murdered in the millions. Millions not some pathetically small number of Canadian troops by comparison. Imagine if the Americans just decided to say screw you(insert UN, and every trouble spot on earth). Kicked the UN out and just went to defending themselves and selling weapons to their buddies.

Think the world would be a happier place? I wonder how Croatians etc. would answer that question.

Frankly I'm embarrassed as a Canadian that we haven't been willing to stick our necks out more often. I fully wish our Canadian generals had told the UN to take a flippin hike in Rwanda and ordered the troops to take action. They should have been backed by our government and people and we should have taken on the task even if nobody joined us, supported us or if we sustained high casulties.

Our lack of caring for people who can't defend themselves sickens me -- these people in Afghanistan etc. have suffered for years because we in the Western World are too gutless to backup what we supposedly believe in. To me that's considerably sadder than losing a few troops!!

The Americans were slow on the trigger in the first two world wars because there was nothing in it for them. I'm sure if Africa had something the USA wanted they would move in there too. Clinton showed some smarts going into Croatia but mostly the US only goes after land, bases or economical or political control.

Do you think the States is in Afghanistan for the good of the people? That's just for political correctness. Canada, the USA, NATO, etc. are there to control and stop terrorism and one of the ways to stop this is too bring this country into the 21st century. I'm hard on the USA, but like most people and countries, self interest rules. Sorry for the rambling.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The Americans were slow on the trigger in the first two world wars because there was nothing in it for them. I'm sure if Africa had something the USA wanted they would move in there too. Clinton showed some smarts going into Croatia but mostly the US only goes after land, bases or economical or political control.

Do you think the States is in Afghanistan for the good of the people? That's just for political correctness. Canada, the USA, NATO, etc. are there to control and stop terrorism and one of the ways to stop this is too bring this country into the 21st century. I'm hard on the USA, but like most people and countries, self interest rules. Sorry for the rambling.

WTF? America was pursuing an isolationist outlook on the world for WWI and WW2 and you criticize them for it... Now that they are pursuing an interventionist policy you obviously criticize them for that as well... They can't win then can they in your eyes. Croatia. Yes, what was America's self interest there? They had to do it because Europe refused. Same reason that they had to go into both WW's.