Detestable Murderers And Scumbags

Posted on Monday, February 27 at 15:43 by ReynoldR
IN 2002, CANADA sent 800 soldiers to Kandahar to join operations with the United States. In April of that year, Canada took its worst casualties in the mission when four Canadians were killed by bombs from a US F-16. According to Graham, Canada then “spearheaded the effort to have NATO take over the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul” from the United Nations. Today ISAF has 8,000 troops from 35 countries, with Canada contributing some 2,600 troops. In August 2005, Canada sent another 250 troops to Kandahar, along with officials from the Canadian International Development Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Foreign Affairs. In February 2006, Canada will be adding a headquarters in Kandahar, with 350 troops commanding the international force and an addition 1,000 troops as a one-year task force. Given that Canada has roughly the same population as Afghanistan and very limited military resources, the Afghanistan deployment is a major foreign policy effort. The complete article is at


Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 



  1. Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:58 am
    In Afghanistan, I think we are doing the right thing at the moment. After the allies helped the Afghans throw off the yoke of the USSR, the west abandoned Afghanistan, for which they complained bitterly, and rightly so. Without going into the justification for the war in Afghanistan, I believe Canada has the obligation to give that country a hand in developing a stable economy and government.

    Who disagrees that we should help Afghanistan? Would it be better that all our soldiers just leave? What would happen to them then?

  2. Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:17 am
    I agree. Canadian Forces needs better PR, because they are doing some excellent work.

    8 causalties in 4 years of 'war'. Compare that to 1939 - 1943.

    "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

  3. Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:27 am
    Unfortunately it seems I was wrong earlier in my assertion that most Canadians support this mission. While this was obviously correct in the missions inception, it now seems that some 62% of Canadians (per a poll done for Ipsos-Reid? last week) don't support our latest deployment of troops. However, even the authors of this virulently anti-Canada in Afghanistan article seem to want Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

    "Western nations could truly support Afghan women’s rights by moving beyond token, high-profile projects, and instead funding easily accessible education, healthcare and jobs for all women in Afghanistan."

    While the authors claim that these endeavors should be run by the Afghans (which I would support as well if they could better limit the corruption that goes on with some of the NGO's and Afghan organizations), they also lament that the troops are not carrying out security operations outside of the cities and providing that security to the NGO's like DWB, etc... which is why Canadian troops are moving out of the relative safety of Kabul and into Kandahar, I thought. But those facts seem to be missed by some who just want to see us as cowtowing to the US in indirect support of the Iraq invasion.

  4. Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:22 am
    Yes, I agree. I find it bizarre that all these anti-military people just don't realize that it's impossible to do any of the assistance they would like to do, without a sizable Canadian military presence. I don't think these peaceniks understand what it means to live in a country that's in a state of anarchy, huge drug industry, where every man carries an assault rifle out of necessity.

    I mean, what are these people thinking?

  5. Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:53 am
    The thing is, social change is slow, and many people dont want "Western Civilization". There is plenty of Resistence, many of the same people who were resisting the USSR. Most of Afganistan is still controlled by Tribal Warlords. The ones we dont attack, are the ones paying into the CIA's herion ring. We go put on a nice face for the UN, but if that country was really going to be helped and changed the way you imagine it would take much more than we are contributing, and much more than is really being done. Like the USSR, we(The UN/USA Coalition) only really control Kabul and Kandahar.

    Its about Global Hegenomy, and money. Afganistan is the KEY to controlling Asia. Ever played Risk?
    The PNAC boys need to "stabilize" the middle east and Eurasia (1984 anyone?) ahead of Rising China.
    Afganistan, is not a humanitarian cause. Its got some window dressing, but don't go kidding yourself that our soldiers can go over, and burkas will fall all around the country.
    It doesnt work like that.

  6. Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:59 am
    It wasn't peaceniks that created the current sad state of affairs. Several decades of war had much to do with it. And yes, neglect by wealthy nations when Afghanistan wasn't central to our purposes.
    Military projects always seem to be justified by claims of good intentions. But killing and torturing can't be justified.

  7. Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:02 am
    So that's what you think our soldiers are there to do?

  8. Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:04 am
    I think the progress so far shows that Afghans can determine their own future democratically. We are just giving them the opportunity to do so, and I think we're doing very well at that. They used to be a pretty stable country before the Russians showed up. It would be nice to help them back into that happy place.

  9. Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:50 am
    NO, but people they capture will likely end up being tortured at some point. There is torture going on, more widespread than anyone would like to believe as well.

    Afganistan was never happy and nice. It has always been divided and clanish, with different factons vying for control.

    We are only there to enforce the idea of world government through the UN. We have been there so long, they should have a fully trained army of their own by now.
    Marines get like 8 weeks of training. Then again we play so many shootem up video games, we are bred for the Battle Feild.

    It would be nice to think we could really help Afganistan, but its got problems that are not easily fixable. There are outside intrests sponsoring the resistence there as well.
    We will be there for quite some time. If coming events unfold with more tradgey(see terrorist attack in a Western Country, even Canada) then you can bet the war in Eurasia will be expanded. The Neo-cons seem to be ramping up on Iran, the exact ploy they used to get into Iraq. Iran has always been the target, even since the Islamic Revolution.
    Thats why they gave Saddam all those weapons. Now they essentially have Iran surrounded with their own bases, even without help from Turkey they will be more than able to dominate the airspace. Project for a New American Century, all part of the plan.

    Don't get me wrong, I do not begrudge out troops, (of course any that violate the genva convention I would not support) but they are all guys just like me. All of the troops injured in the last week are around my age, and had i made different choices I could be in their shoes.

    The thing is, there are greater things at work here, you have to realize that the TV is bullshitting you.
    I would like to believe that we can help Afganistan, but the truth is, if we were really helping them we would be gone by now.

  10. Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:58 pm
    8 weeks of training gives you cannon fodder. Officer training takes years. You oversimplify the issues at hand.

    What specific steps to offer as an alternative that will help Afghanistan's society as a whole and not leave it as a country ripe to become a terrorist state?

  11. Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:05 pm
    In WW2 the Germans and satellites occupied some major cities and about 4 supply corridors in Russia. The countryside was wide open for whole so called "partizan" armies to move around at will. When the Soviets recovered from the first shocks they reorganized and crushed the invaders from behind, as they have Napoleon over 100 years before.

    The same happened to the Crusaders in Palestine, hundreds of years ago, sitting, locked up in their forts looking out at the countryside, to Alexander's conquests, to the Americans in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan. They all lost and were kicked out, because without controlling the countryside, occupying a few fortified cities is nothing more than a fart rolling around in a pair of pants.

    Mobile, armoured columns running and shooting around, mean absolutely nothing. Occupation has to be done by hundreds of thousands of infantry, on foot. There ain't none.

    The present occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are waste of time, effort and lives on both sides. We'll give up and get kicked out after a few years of futile agonies, regardless of the propaganda campaign to justify it.

    We should also remember that it was the CIA that invented the Taliban to invite and force Soviet invasion, then the years of Taliban rule supported and financed by the USA, until they balked on the oil pipeline. Osama was and may still be a CIA agent, kept alive and in service to keep the phoney War on Terror alive.

    Learn your history and especially military history, friends, before making wishful statements. Life is to important to be left to professionals, war is too important to be left to generals, economics to economists, agriculture to professors paid by corporations, and medicine to doctors paid by pharmaceutical companies.

    Ed Deak. WW2 infantry veteran.

  12. Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:37 pm
    Are you advocating sending more troops in to do the job right? I'd support that. First time we agree Ed.

  13. Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:19 pm
    “We should also remember that it was the CIA that invented the Taliban to invite and force Soviet invasion, then the years of Taliban rule supported and financed by the USA, until they balked on the oil pipeline. Osama was and may still be a CIA agent, kept alive and in service to keep the phoney War on Terror alive.”

    Many great points Ed.

    We are following a force, the US, that bombed Afghani cities. I fail to see how this could be called nation building.... (Taking up the slack after the invader leaves.) It seems incredibly naive to me.


  14. Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:32 pm
    By all means, Mike. It will take about 500,000 to "pacify" Afghanistan, so let's send about half million Young Conservatives and Young Republicans, living off the land, under the command of Emerson. I'm all for it. The present general is nothing more than a mouthpiece for deep integration, itching for a US uniform. But make sure Emerson won't get a better offer from the Taliban.

    Ed Deak.

view comments in forum

You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.

Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news