4 Canadians killed in Afghanistan

[firebug]

Just turned on CNN and it is their lead story.

IED destroyed a G-Wagon.

[FlamesAddiction]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ths060422.html

Things keep getting worse over there. I hope Bush appreciates this, because if not, we should bring them home.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ths060422.html

Things keep getting worse over there. I hope Bush appreciates this, because if not, we should bring them home.

Yes, we're over there to please BUSH.

You're a moron.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yes, we're over there to please BUSH.

You're a moron.

Whoosh! Right over your head. Think about it some more.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yes, we're over there to please BUSH.

You're a moron.

Oh good, White Doors is here to razzle us with his geopolitical prowress. Lol. Using a term like "moron" is bound to help you win a debate.

You do realizse that the reason Canada has taken the role it has in Afghanistan is because; a) The U.S. was attacked, and b) because the U.S. needed to free themselves to get into Iraq.

Yet despite this, Bush - and people in his government and party, have done nothing but ignore our contributions and sacrifices, or screw us around in trade disputes.

[Incinerator]

RIP boys...

Originally Posted by cbc.ca

The four were travelling in an armoured jeep called a G-wagon when it struck an improvised explosive device

G-wagons in Afghanistan!? They should really be better equipped






Armoured? Which part of this thing is armoured? All it would stop is a few bullets and small hand greanades...Would you be driving this thing around if you were a soldier when you know there are IEDs designed to take out LAVs everywhere!? Where's the common sense in the DND? When will they realize that LAVs are not the answer in a chaotic place like Afghanistan? Our military deserves to be better equipped to do their jobs. They just bought 800 of these useless Mercs too! Sure, it'll look good driven by millionaire NHLers, but in Afghanistan? Gimme a break. Get something more beefed up for eff's sakes.

</rant>

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Oh good, White Doors is here to razzle us with his geopolitical prowress. Lol. Using a term like "moron" is bound to help you win a debate.

You do realizse that the reason Canada has taken the role it has in Afghanistan is because; a) The U.S. was attacked, and b) because the U.S. needed to free themselves to get into Iraq.

Yet despite this, Bush - and people in his government and party, have done nothing but ignore our contributions and sacrifices, or screw us around in trade disputes.

They are there to prop up the democratically elected government. They are there to provide security to the people of Afghanistan against these fanatics. Get it?

doubt it.

[White Doors]

The USA was attacked and it changed the world for all countries. It is in Canada's self interest to stabalize countries that have been producing these radical idealogies.

but you want to cut and run for some knee-jerk anti-american sentiment that you have. Quite the world thinker you are.

[Flames-4-ever]

Double Post.

[Flames-4-ever]

RIP Boys

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ths060422.html

Things keep getting worse over there. I hope Bush appreciates this, because if not, we should bring them home.

You are a moron.

Just another guy who is anti-Bush, therefore Canadians cant do what is right becasue it may benefit the United States.

And yes the reason we are in Afghanistan is because the US was attacked. Just like we were in WW1 because Belgium was attacked, we were in WW2 because Poland was attacked, and because we were in Korea because South Korea was attacked. Out of those 4 countries, I know which would be the first to walk through fire to assist us, so why is our 2,200 men contingent a bad thing?

Yes because we send troops to Afghanistan some are free'd up for Iraq, but that does not make Afghanistan a bad mission or a sideshow. Afghani's have been brought there first bit of peace in 30 years, they have had democratic elections, women actually have rights, kids now go to school and the list goes on and on and on. That is what Canadians are there to do, no matter how some people want to downplay what it is there doing.

And when you say we should leave, did you ever consider what the troops might think if we do that? The ones who actually do the fighting, and a group I am sure you are not apart of. Thousands of men have volunteered to go over there and how do you think they would feel if there accomplishments ended because people like you didnt want to support Bush? Every member of the CF has enlisted or reinlisted since September the 11th, and they know that they could go to Afghanistan. So if you really think we should pull out, why dont you go down to Metawa Armoury and ask the boys there what they'd think of that?

And about our G Wagons, thats just horrible. I know in countries where militaries are funded right, there Hummers can take an IED explosion and all of the crew can walk away from it. And incinerator, I wouldnt blame DND as much as I would blame parliment. DND is only working with the funds that they are given, and I doubt they have enough money to buy capable veichles. It would be best if you could write a letter to your parliment member over that honoustly.

[AC]

Ugh, this is really scary for me personally.

I have two friends -- one of which, my best friend, who I've known since we were about 4 -- are in the reserves, and are heading over to Afghanistan this upcoming September to fight.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flames-4-ever

And about our G Wagons, thats just horrible. I know in countries where militaries are funded right, there Hummers can take an IED explosion and all of the crew can walk away from it. And incinerator, I wouldnt blame DND as much as I would blame parliment. DND is only working with the funds that they are given, and I doubt they have enough money to buy capable veichles. It would be best if you could write a letter to your parliment member over that honoustly.

Yup, if you want to get political about this, look internally first, and look at the government that bled the military dry, then sent our soldiers into Afghanistan woefully underequipped.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flames-4-ever

RIP Boys



You are a moron.

Just another guy who is anti-Bush, therefore Canadians cant do what is right becasue it may benefit the United States.

Wow, you're good. You got all that from what I posted? That's funny, because I didn't say any of those things.

And yet another person that lacks maturity to discuss an issue without throwing personal insults. How is anyone supposed to believe that you are mature and experienced enough to know anything about serious issues whn you can't even follow the simple rules you agreed to when you signed up here?

I don't care if the U.S. benefits from Canada doing what is "right". But if Canadians are going to be sacrificing lives for the U.S., then there better be some better respect shown by Bush and his buddies. No more "Soviet Canuckistan" insults, and no more ignoring international judiciaries in our trade disputes. Seriously, Canada is putting it's soldiers, citizens, and repuation on the line for the U.S., and they show us zero respect.

No country ever goes to war for altruistic purposes, and we should be no different.

Sorry if you disagree, but it is my opinion.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Wow, you're good. You got all that from what I posted? That's funny, because I didn't say any of those things.

And yet another person that lacks maturity to discuss an issue without throwing personal insults. How is anyone supposed to believe that you are mature and experienced enough to know anything about serious issues whn you can't even follow the simple rules you agreed to when you signed up here?

I don't care if the U.S. benefits from Canada doing what is "right". But if Canadians are going to be sacrificing lives for the U.S., then there better be some better respect shown by Bush and his buddies. No more "Soviet Canuckistan" insults, and no more ignoring international judiciaries in our trade disputes. Seriously, Canada is putting it's soldiers, citizens, and repuation on the line for the U.S., and they show us zero respect.

No country ever goes to war for altruistic purposes, and we should be no different.

Sorry if you disagree, but it is my opinion.

I don't disagree with your post - I fact I am as big a Bush hater as anyone- but with Afganistan, I do think we should stay and help rebuild the country.

Its Powell's "pottery barn" analogy...The Taliban were ousted with a true coalition, of which we were a part. Consequently, we owe it to the people of Afghanistan to stay and stabilize their country. What kind of role we play can be argued-we are leading the operational component now I believe-but we should stay.

[White Doors]

The problem with you're hypothesis FA is that you assume that we are doing this FOR the USA. We are doing it FOR Canada and the people of Afghanistan.

The dead soldiers families would not be too pleased to see your opinion of WHY their sons are dead in my opinion.

But like you say, it's your opinion so you're entitled to it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

RIP boys...





G-wagons in Afghanistan!? They should really be better equipped






Armoured? Which part of this thing is armoured? All it would stop is a few bullets and small hand greanades...Would you be driving this thing around if you were a soldier when you know there are IEDs designed to take out LAVs everywhere!? Where's the common sense in the DND? When will they realize that LAVs are not the answer in a chaotic place like Afghanistan? Our military deserves to be better equipped to do their jobs. They just bought 800 of these useless Mercs too! Sure, it'll look good driven by millionaire NHLers, but in Afghanistan? Gimme a break. Get something more beefed up for eff's sakes.

</rant>

Actually the Gwagon is armoured pretty heavily, and is a pretty solid field vehicle. Its a vast improvement over the scandal riddled Iltis jeep. The Canadian vehicle is equiped with the APS system and has internal removable armoured department. The armour will protect against bullets, grenades and most conventional anti vehicle mines. However IED's are a different beast all together and can contain many times the difference in explosive power. Unfortunately due to cost, and the actual mission not every soldier can be in a LAV.

I don't see how this death can be placed on the government, lack of money or military leadership. Sadly in a war zone things like this happen, and the bullet usually defeats the armour.

[icarus]

Bush really has little to do with the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

We, along with other NATO nations, are there at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghani government and with Security Council approval to help implement the ISAF in fulfillment of the 2001 Bonn Agreement. We are there to rehabilitate a failed state (the cause of that failure is irrelevant). What's past is prologue. After speaking with the Afghani ambassador to Canada a couple months ago, I have little question that an international force is wanted there, should be there, and is there for the right reasons.

Personally, I lament the cause-and-effect approach to reconstruction that many tend to take. I believe that whether from use of force by a sovereign state, civil war, natural disaster, or otherwise, the reconstruction of any country is a concern to all and an obligation erga omnes. I agree with Romeo Dallaire, whose take is that we shouldn't have acted in Iraq (and we didn't) but we should take a role in helping it to rebuild. The fact that Canada did support the ousting of the Taliban may add a moral rationale to the current ISAF mission, but even without that consideration it is noble if not dutiful to be there in promotion of rule of law and regional stability.

It is shame the international community doesn't do more reconstruction and even if there are willing nations, there aren't enough of them to be deployed everywhere they are needed. Hopefully the new UN Peacebuilding Commission will help with this.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by icarus

Bush really has little to do with the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

We, along with other NATO nations, are there at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghani government and with Security Council approval to help implement the ISAF in fulfillment of the 2001 Bonn Agreement. We are there to rehabilitate a failed state (the cause of that failure is irrelevant). What's past is prologue. After speaking with the Afghani ambassador to Canada a couple months ago, I have little question that an international force is wanted there, should be there, and is there for the right reasons.

Personally, I lament the cause-and-effect approach to reconstruction that many tend to take. I believe that whether from use of force by a sovereign state, civil war, natural disaster, or otherwise, the reconstruction of any country is a concern to all and an obligation erga omnes. I agree with Romeo Dallaire, whose take is that we shouldn't have acted in Iraq (and we didn't) but we should take a role in helping it to rebuild. The fact that Canada did support the ousting of the Taliban may add a moral rationale to the current ISAF mission, but even without that consideration it is noble if not dutiful to be there in promotion of rule of law and regional stability.

It is shame the international community doesn't do more reconstruction and even if there are willing nations, there aren't enough of them to be deployed everywhere they are needed. Hopefully the new UN Peacebuilding Commission will help with this.

Despite the straw man arguments being directed towards me, I never said that Bush is the reason Canada is in Afghanistan.

I understand what out NATO obligation is in Afghanistan. The issue I have is with the decisions Bush has made since the invasion of Afghanistan, and how it has prolonged the conflict there, and how it has actually undermined what Canada, and the rest of the NATO alliance is trying to accomplish there.

Could you imagine if Bush actually chose to put the same effort and resources into Afghanistan as he has Iraq? The conflict would be over by now - the mission would be accomplished! But instead, Canadians are still there chasing the exact same people who ruled the country 5 years ago! It's not at all about propping up an elected government or rebuilding... it's about hunting down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. If the U.S. was not attacked in 9-11, then we wouldn't be there... no reasonable person can deny that. That is the reality of Afghanistan no matter what the spin masters are saying. Right now, as we speak, Canada and other NATO allies are preparing to send more troops to Afghanistan so the U.S. can pull out thousands of theirs. If Canada were ever attacked, thereby invoking NATO allies to arms, I'm sure our allies would start wondering what they were still doing there 5 years later if we were in the process of pulling out like the U.S. is now.

Flashback to 2003. Canada made the decision to take a larger role in Afghanistan in order to allow the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq. Since then, Bush and his supporters have ignored that, and have focused on simply our absence from Iraq - and we get punished for it in our trade disputes. All I am hoping is that these recent sacrifices of Canadian soldiers receives some appreciation from Bush - and that it is indicated in their policies towards us.

I'm not holding my breath though.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Despite the straw man arguments being directed towards me, I never said that Bush is the reason Canada is in Afghanistan.

I understand what out NATO obligation is in Afghanistan. The issue I have is with the decisions Bush has made since the invasion of Afghanistan, and how it has prolonged the conflict there, and how it has actually undermined what Canada, and the rest of the NATO alliance is trying to accomplish there.

Could you imagine if Bush actually chose to put the same effort and resources into Afghanistan as he has Iraq? The conflict would be over by now - the mission would be accomplished! But instead, Canadians are still there chasing the exact same people who ruled the country 5 years ago! It's not at all about propping up an elected government or rebuilding... it's about hunting down Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. If the U.S. was not attacked in 9-11, then we wouldn't be there... no reasonable person can deny that. That is the reality of Afghanistan no matter what the spin masters are saying. Right now, as we speak, Canada and other NATO allies are preparing to send more troops to Afghanistan so the U.S. can pull out thousands of theirs. If Canada were ever attacked, thereby invoking NATO allies to arms, I'm sure our allies would start wondering what they were still doing there 5 years later if we were in the process of pulling out like the U.S. is now.

Flashback to 2003. Canada made the decision to take a larger role in Afghanistan in order to allow the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq. Since then, Bush and his supporters have ignored that, and have focused on simply our absence from Iraq - and we get punished for it in our trade disputes. All I am hoping is that these recent sacrifices of Canadian soldiers receives some appreciation from Bush - and that it is indicated in their policies towards us.

I'm not holding my breath though.

I totally agree with this part of the post...

As for the trade disputes, it just goes to show what kind of hypocrites the US are - how many rulings from the international court have gone against them with respect to the softwood lumber issue? 3? 5? The point is that international law is on the side of Canada, and yet the US continues to play protectionist and drag its heels...

That's why I laugh at those who have such an idealistic view of the US - they don't do things out of altruism...Everything they do is calculated to benefit their position....

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I totally agree with this part of the post...

As for the trade disputes, it just goes to show what kind of hypocrites the US are - how many rulings from the international court have gone against them with respect to the softwood lumber issue? 3? 5? The point is that international law is on the side of Canada, and yet the US continues to play protectionist and drag its heels...

That's why I laugh at those who have such an idealistic view of the US - they don't do things out of altruism...Everything they do is calculated to benefit their position....

Well how truely ignorant you both are about the country to the south of Canada. These problems have been happening thanks to a protectionist Congress. Not the President of the United States. And these problems have been popping up long before GWB.

I know how you two and others love to make fun of how stuuuupid those Yanks are about Canada....but then you come and show that you are no better. Try and learn something about their system of government before making any idiotic statements about Americans.

As for Afghanistan and the lack of thank you. The people that are carting the Canucks and their equipment in and out and around Afghanistan AND around the world are the Americans. I think we owe them, especially after our Prime Minister told them that 3000 thousand of their citizens (and 23 Canucks) deserved to die.