On my way to work this morning I heard that six NATO soldiers and an Afghan interpreter were killed by a roadside bomb.
I thought to myself, I'll bet they were Canadian, just based on where the bombing occurred.
On my drive home, sure enough, they were Canadian. I think this makes it 66 dead to date.
If you know any of these soldiers, or for that matter any who have died in this conflict, I am truly sorry for your loss. I have a few soldiers in my own family, one has already served in Afghanistan and it probably won't be long before the others go.
The radio announcer was interviewing the editor for Esprit de Corps, which is a Canadian military magazine, and apparently he is quite respected. He said we will not win the war there without winning their minds, that 32% of the country supports the Taliban, and that Afghanistan has had a very long history of resisting invasions (the Russians and Alexander the Great, to name a couple). He also said the war with the Taliban could go on for 25 years.
We are supposed to be pulling out in 2009, I doubt the goverment will attempt to extend the mission. Which is not to say that we won't go back for another mission at a later date.
If there are no other NATO countries willing to take our place, then who knows.
I'm a little wishy washy on my views now, previously I thought it was a good mission, but after listening to this editor speak, I'm not so sure anymore.
I'd almost feel better if our troop contribution was 10 times as high, if our troops had proper air support from Canadians rather than NATO planes/helos. A bigger group might be more intimidating, they might be able to hold and protect a given piece of land better.
We know how many Canadians have died, but the media doesn't seem to publish the number of Taliban/Al Qaeda the Canadians have killed. If the ratio was 100 Taliban for every dead Canadian, then I'd feel better having our soldiers there, but if its a ratio of 1 to 1, I don't think its worth it.
On my way to work this morning I heard that six NATO soldiers and an Afghan interpreter were killed by a roadside bomb.
I thought to myself, I'll bet they were Canadian, just based on where the bombing occurred.
On my drive home, sure enough, they were Canadian. I think this makes it 66 dead to date.
If you know any of these soldiers, or for that matter any who have died in this conflict, I am truly sorry for your loss. I have a few soldiers in my own family, one has already served in Afghanistan and it probably won't be long before the others go.
The radio announcer was interviewing the editor for Esprit de Corps, which is a Canadian military magazine, and apparently he is quite respected. He said we will not win the war there without winning their minds, that 32% of the country supports the Taliban, and that Afghanistan has had a very long history of resisting invasions (the Russians and Alexander the Great, to name a couple). He also said the war with the Taliban could go on for 25 years.
We are supposed to be pulling out in 2009, I doubt the goverment will attempt to extend the mission. Which is not to say that we won't go back for another mission at a later date.
If there are no other NATO countries willing to take our place, then who knows.
I'm a little wishy washy on my views now, previously I thought it was a good mission, but after listening to this editor speak, I'm not so sure anymore.
I'd almost feel better if our troop contribution was 10 times as high, if our troops had proper air support from Canadians rather than NATO planes/helos. A bigger group might be more intimidating, they might be able to hold and protect a given piece of land better.
We know how many Canadians have died, but the media doesn't seem to publish the number of Taliban/Al Qaeda the Canadians have killed. If the ratio was 100 Taliban for every dead Canadian, then I'd feel better having our soldiers there, but if its a ratio of 1 to 1, I don't think its worth it.
Are we wasting out time, resources and soldiers?
Blame Bush the evil must be replaced soon with better leadership for 2008 not some stupid Moron that plublic opinion is very low to say the least. This country need's better leardership and Under Bush direction I see this country at a dead end This war is a Loss cause in my opinion let's use our own resouces and help our own country out before we look outside the box. 9/11 is history folks it's time to move on and fight to kept our country safe yet at the same token Let's Move past the events as a country and Move our troop's to safer ground.
Erik
Blame Bush the evil must be replaced soon with better leadership for 2008 not some stupid Moron that plublic opinion is very low to say the least. This country need's better leardership and Under Bush direction I see this country at a dead end This war is a Loss cause in my opinion let's use our own resouces and help our own country out before we look outside the box. 9/11 is history folks it's time to move on and fight to kept our country safe yet at the same token Let's Move past the events as a country and Move our troop's to safer ground.
Erik
I think both Iraq and Afghanistan should be turned over to muslim countries. Let Egyptian soldiers help them through their problems, then the locals might be less inclined to shoot them.
__________________
Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Woodrow!
We've done it in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Israel and many other countries. We send in our special forces to train their military, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.
We cant simply stick it out in our own country and not believe wars overseas doesnt effect us, well.. past the whole oil concern. We throw a blind eye to a conflict its sure to bite us in the butt, like it did on 9-11, or over in Saudi with the Khobar Towers. Were we looking for a fight before we were attacked? Is it better to bring the fight to our own land, or take it else where? I say else where, otherwise it would be our civilians being killed. Besides, its even harder to fight the terrorists on our own land then in Iraq and Afghani. Why? Well, for starters we have to totally rely on intel who is a suspect. In Iraq, its basically you see someone with a gun, explosives or other weapons you blow the **** out of them first, then ask questions later. Thats called self-preservation. To turn the other cheek, or let our guard down... well, simply put that would be pure ignorant stupidity. Terrorists are NOT fighting for politicians, or any real moral reason, at least in our perspective of life. Just because we pull our troops out and say sorry, thats not going to make the violence in Europe or here in the Americas stop.
Anyhow, we definitely need to spread the wealth of military strategy to our allies so that they can protect themselves, and in the end make the world a safer place. If we cannot resolve a conflict overseas in a matter of a 6 month period, we shouldnt even be there. And to attack an entire country to take out a regime... ridiculous. for our military leaders. for our politicians.
__________________
Roger
05 Tacoma 4x4 TRD DC Off-Road
Shrockworks Front Bumper, K&N Intake/AEM Filter, XM Satellite, Retrax Tonneau Cover and Yakima track rack system, OEM roof rack
I say pull out, bring our boys back home. Us dying while cleaning up someone else's mess is a little ridiculous. Just my $0.02
__________________
'07 Pyrite crewmax LTD "B" package w/ 18" wheels (BFG 285/65R18 A/T KO) - Purchased April 30/07, hit 100,000kms on Sept 2, 2009. AFE CAI, ARE canopy, hunter bullbar (careful) and running boards, TGC 2.25" front leveler, & husky liners. Air Lift 57299 Air Springs. Front diff changed.
'07 USA market Honda Odyssey EXL-RES imported to Canada (sorry Honda Canada, this one reads MPH)
I would have thought a tank was safer than any other type of vehicle.
A tank is safer .. it just takes a ... "Bigger IED" ... to take down a bigger target.
Even with reactive armor (the armor that blows back the blast when hit) a tank is a sitting duck for a well shaped large IED.
Even a large ... "well placed RPG" ... can take out an Abrahams Tank. .... It is possible ... but very unlikely.
That is called the ... "Golden BB Theory" ... when a .. "Little Lucky Lob Shot" .. hits you "exactly" in your most vunerable spot. Free or almost free item takes out multi-million dollar technology and weapon. That is what our next enemy will base their attack on.
But, with any tank ... a well large, designed and place IED can take them out real fast.
I think that even a small "105 round" aka 105 mm arty shell .. with the right extra shape to it ... could do the job.
We failed to secure over 300 ammo dumps when we invaded Iraq .
Remember the news casters, like Ted Koppel, showing all the big ammo dumps with all the kids running through them after we invaded Badhdad ??
When I saw all that unprotected ammo ... I though that would come back to haunt us.
Now the more "premade sophistcated IED stuff" is coming from Iran ... but they can do the same thing with the old ammo in Iraq .. it just takes more time and skill.
Our troops performed in a super way from the beginning .... it was some of the Generals and the "Higher Ups" that really screwed this up.
Besides the "Bossmen" were misreading their compass ... OK to attack Afghanistan and a BIG mistake to attack Iraq.
We had Saddam contained and it only costs 11 billion a year (that's cheap) and we had all in intell in Iraq that we needed.
But big business can't make money on .. '"Containing Saddam".
We sure were NOT going to make a democracy there after 1000s of years of other cultures .. especially at the end of a US gun barrel.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know all this stuff ... I am just surprised how well it was packaged and sold to the American public.
Well .. the bow has fallen off the package now and the packing is really falling apart now.
And we have yet to pay for this mess on our Gov't Visa Card (taxes) yet too.
It is ... it just take a ..."Bigger IED" ... to take down a bigger target.
Even with reactive armor (the armor that blows back the blast when hit) a tank is a sitting duck for a well shaped large IED.
Even a larger ... "well placed RPG" ... can take out an Abrahams Tank. It is possible ... but very unlikely.
That is called the ... "Golden BB Theory" ... when a .. "Little Lucky Lob Shot" .. hits you "exactly" in your most vunerable spot.
But, with any tank ... a well large, designed and place IED can take them out real fast.
I think that even a small "105 round" aka 105 mm arty shell .. with the right extra shape to it ... could do the job.
We failed to secure over 300 ammo dumps when we invaded Iraq .
Remember the news casters, like Ted Koppel, showing all the big ammo dumps with all the kids running through them after we invaded Badhdad ??
when I saw all that unprotected ammo ... I though that would come back to haunt us.
SOS
PS ... Now the more "premade sophistcated IED stuff" is coming from Iran ... but they can do the same thing with the old ammo in Iraq .. it just takes more time and skill.
.
Iraq is also a long trip from Afghanistan, whereas Iran is right next door.
Its too bad trade between those two couldn't be blocked completely, that way anything coming across the border could be pounded by an Apache.
__________________
Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Woodrow!
Iraq is also a long trip from Afghanistan, whereas Iran is right next door.
Its too bad trade between those two couldn't be blocked completely, that way anything coming across the border could be pounded by an Apache.
I'm sure they are doing what they can to protect themselves. I'd hope the AWACS and other surveillance aircraft and methods are being used to target suspect vehicles. Iraq is mighty big to cover it all though. AC-130s are being well used too, especially considering they have a longer range and higher cruising speed then any helicopter. Nothing against the Apache, I love them, but they do have limitations. Then of course the A-10 and the numerous supersonic jets. The problem boils down to who is going to inspect the vehicles. Except if they already know the vehicle is carrying weapons, they cannot just start blowing everything up that moves.
__________________
Roger
05 Tacoma 4x4 TRD DC Off-Road
Shrockworks Front Bumper, K&N Intake/AEM Filter, XM Satellite, Retrax Tonneau Cover and Yakima track rack system, OEM roof rack
The problem boils down to who is going to inspect the vehicles. Except if they already know the vehicle is carrying weapons, they cannot just start blowing everything up that moves.
Why not?
No fly zone.
No travel zone.
If you knew that you couldn't drive into Mass because somebody was going to roast yer @$$, you wouldn't go there.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Plus you wouldn't need to have any inspections...except for inspecting the burned out hulks of vehicles.
__________________
Mama's don't let your babies grow up to be Woodrow!
I was in Mumbai last year when 7 bombs went off in 11 minutes killing over 200 innocent people. It was simply amazing to watch the city get over it so quickly. The next day the trains were running and the stock market went even higher. Amazing resilent people.
Although no one wants bloodshed anywhere, I hate to say it, but it's better there than over here. If that happened in a Cdn city, the country would have a hangover for a year.
The majority of Canadian soldiers over there know that they are making a difference. They don't want to go home. The only one's that are complaining are the politicians and the CBC.
What we should be doing is providing better funding for our troops. Stop buying used subs and repairing old helicopters. I'm sure most Cdns would pay extra taxes if it went directly to helping the troops.
If you knew that you couldn't drive into Mass because somebody was going to roast yer @$$, you wouldn't go there.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Plus you wouldn't need to have any inspections...except for inspecting the burned out hulks of vehicles.
If someone told me I couldnt go to Mass and any place else Id be showing up with a mighty big gun. With that said, Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. If we start restricting all travel its just going to piss them off even more.
Dead/kill zones belong at DMZ's and around military establishments. Creating a kill zone around an entire country, well simply put take at our present situation. They dont have enough manpower to keep areas secure let alone hit 100% of unauthorized vehicles that bypass all check points.
People have bitched already about the videos floating around with the Apaches and other aircraft destroying militants on foot. Just wait until we start pounding a bunch of trucks that are carrying in food and other supplies. "oops, sorry about us burying your a** in that big crater..." Then again, I'm sure it has happened more then we are led to believe.
I'm not saying we should be blind by the hordes of weapons being cached in from Iran and other places, but if we dont put more then a couple of seconds of thought into our actions we will make the situation worse, not better.
If someone told me I couldnt go to Mass and any place else Id be showing up with a mighty big gun. With that said, Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. If we start restricting all travel its just going to piss them off even more.
Dead/kill zones belong at DMZ's and around military establishments. Creating a kill zone around an entire country, well simply put take at our present situation. They dont have enough manpower to keep areas secure let alone hit 100% of unauthorized vehicles that bypass all check points.
People have bitched already about the videos floating around with the Apaches and other aircraft destroying militants on foot. Just wait until we start pounding a bunch of trucks that are carrying in food and other supplies. "oops, sorry about us burying your a** in that big crater..." Then again, I'm sure it has happened more then we are led to believe.
I'm not saying we should be blind by the hordes of weapons being cached in from Iran and other places, but if we dont put more then a couple of seconds of thought into our actions we will make the situation worse, not better.
Another 6 CDN soldiers dead
Linear Mode
