Remembrance Day Protest in Toronto

Wonder if they realize what they have the freedoms to do here are not allowed women in Afghanistan? Do they realize our troops were there to help the women and children in Afghanistan live and learn, protect them from the evils of Taliban rule? Do they have a clue at all? It’s to be noted they’re well versed with the “F” word.

She should be back in Afghanistan protesting against the Taliban for killing and beheading women and children for showing any signs of wanting freedom to attend schools and be treated like human beings.

I wonder what will happen to this protester if she protested against the Taliban to the Taliban faces telling them that they have no right to kill women and children, I wonder where her head would end up?

If she does return to Afghanistan to take Bridget de pape with her with a sign “STOP TALIBAN”;

Over the course of the current Afghanistan war (2001 to present), over ten thousand, maybe over twenty thousand Afghan civilians have died as a result of fighting. Not militants, civilians.

Just over half of these civilians were killed by coalition action (in other words, our side), especially US bombing raids. It wasn’t til around 2008, when air attacks were dialled back, that more civilian casualties were caused annually by anti-government forces than by the coalition.

Civilian injuries are expected to be much greater than the number of dead, and the number of people displaced from their homes is somewhere north of 120,000. Maybe even double that.

So, the Afghans have reasonable grounds, I think, to be less than thrilled about the conduct of the war. Unfortunately, we can’t rewind, we can only go forward, and hope that the coalition efforts do ultimately result in lasting peace and safety for the citizens of Afghanistan.

I do wonder what the World War dead would think of our having largely abandoned our respected role as world peacekeepers for one of invaders, however justified it might have been.

Facts? You could, maybe, follow the link?

Also, I said ‘coalition’, of which Canada was a part.

http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/War/peacekeeping/peacekeeping.htm
“Canada’s role as a peacekeeper throughout the world began in the 50′s when Lester Pearson, Canada’s ambassador to the UN suggested that the organization might create a peace keeping force.”
Therefore, “… what the World War dead would think …” is an irrelevant question, chronologically speaking.

Furthermore … Noted military historian Jack Granatstein was quoted here: http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=642
“… We should do peacekeeping when we can, when the circumstances are right, when the United Nations is really on board, when there is money to pay for it from the UN, and when it’s in a place that serves our national interests.”
The notion that the Canadian military is or should be primarily devoted to peacekeeping is not only a distortion of history, but reflects a naïve and sentimental view of the world, says Granatstein. If Canadian soldiers have been good peacekeepers, he says, it’s because they were first and foremost trained as combat troops.
“When you have people talking about the tradition of Canadian peacekeeping policy, it’s a crock. This is a country that’s fought wars. That’s our tradition. Peacekeeping has always been a tiny portion of what the Canadian Forces did.”

I’ll take Granatstein’s opinion over yours any day.

kenn2 thank you for your useless attempt to explain you have no FACTS

any one interested in the facts on Canada’s Military involvement in Afghanistan can find this a good source

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canada-afghanistan-military-amp-development-roles#military

How many civilians were killed in WW II? (Hint – it was in the millions) Where do you get the idea that in war, especially a war where the combatants hide amongst the civilian populace for protection, will have no civilian deaths???? The mechanism in this war is ridiculous – the real way to win in an insurgency is to back out, let the insurgents take over the government, and them bomb them back to the stone age – over and over again until the populace throws them out. This going in with “hearts and minds” only kills more of our people than it does them. War means war. Not partial war, not limited war, and not “surgical” war. An insurgency is very hard to win. Strictly speaking, the loss of one of our highly trained and educated men or women to save uneducated Taliban savages is not the product of a reasonable cost/benefit analysis. We let our Western emotions and civilized morals get in the way of something that is, by its nature, uncivilized and immoral – namely war. Al Qeada attacked the WTC. The UN agreed that it was a hostile act and therefore and act of war. The US in particular and the west in general is under no requirement to coddle the attackers. They reap what they sow. if the populace accepts them doing it, then they should bear some responsibility. The Liberals got us into this (about the only treaty obligation they ever actually upheld). But the mission is an honest and just one. Tactically and strategically, the way we are doing it is wrong.

Good dougie. Have a cookie.

I do not think any one would agree with your opinion that the “”mission”
started as a poorly conceived, knee-jerk revenge response to 9/11″

Really? if you knew in 2001 that the mission would take over 11 years, cost over $450 BILLION, kill over 20,000 innocent Afghan citizens, injure or displace over 150,000 Afghans, kill over 3200 coalition troops, over 17,000 soldiers wounded… would you have been OK with that?

No, this war has been a mess, and a solid outcome is still far from certain.

9/11 was the most horrific attack on innocent citizens in their work place in all of History

… wow. You skipped out of history in high school, didn’t you?

Here’s just two three that were, um, worse: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden.

Can’t have a cookie, want to lose another 20 lbs to get back down to my high school weight. But hey, don’t take offense! I’ve always found you amusing. Not everyone can speak with so much confidence on something they know absolutely nothing about! That’s a gift! I see you one day at the very head of some fringe group that is the future equivilent of the Flat Earth Society. I predict big things for you.

1 & 2 – Nothing you’ve said counters the fact that the Afghanistan “mission” started as a poorly conceived, knee-jerk revenge response to 9/11. Afghanistan didn’t attack the US. Al Qaeda did. More specifically a fairly small group funded and led by a rich engineer did. No-one’s saying that a response wasn’t necessary, but history shows how poorly conceived and executed it was, considering it was a coalition led by the world’s most advanced military power, against a 15th century clan with modest firepower. And the UN waving their wand over it doesn’t change the revenge theme. Funny you siding with the UN for once, btw. (OK, twice)

3 – The hubris that Afghanistan can be vaulted from the 15th to the 21st century in one go was the same. And of course you avoid the point that the west helped put the Taliban in power in the first place.

4 – IF Afghanistan emerges as and stays a country where 12-year-old girls are playing soccer instead of being hung from goalposts… that would be a good thing. This outcome is far from certain, and barring a longer-term occupation, it will most likely slip back to being a medieval theocracy. With even more reasons to hate the infidels.

it may be time to stop digging, put away the shovel, you’re in over your head.

Once again, you either haven’t the background to understand or are determined not to. The US waited for months before engaging in Afghanistan. When they did, they effectively removed the Taliban and the government in power in less than a week and chased them up into the hills of Torabora until the ran for Pastun territory in Pakistan – poorly conceived? I’d hate to see you define a success. You can certainly say that was the case for their (the US) obtuse adventure into Iraq, and you can equally say that for dropping the ball in Afghanistan until Obama got in, but the mission in Afghanistan was entirelly logical and even legal under Intertational Law and the Law of Armed Conflict.

If you had any military experience at all, you would understand that having lots of very powerful weapons does not guarantee success in asymetrical conflict – (see – Viet Nam). I’ve already told you how to win against an insurgency but you don’t seem to get that either. The coalition, for better or worse decided, to do it the hard way – very expensive trying to nation build in both blood and treasure, but it is the moral thing to do.

The UN is becoming a ludicrous joke. It is largely ineffective (Syria – Angola – Bosnia – Rwanda – Chechnya – Sudan etc etc etc.)- Even ISAF works with the UN approval but under NATO command – the UN bugged out amost immediately when its offices were bombed. The one thing the UN still does, is to provide a forum which all nations can speak in. Or in Churchill’s worlds “It is better to jaw jaw, than to war war.” It’s sole importance has been reduced to that single purpose and yet it still trys to attack the most free and modern liberal democracies in the world while largely ignoring the worst. I don’t have a problem with criticism, but everyone has to be on the same level and they have tons of work to do before they get there.

The only person in the world that I’ve ever heard from who thinks the intent is to take Afghanistan “from the 15th to the 21st century in one go” is you. The whole reason for creating and training the ANA is because no one believe’s that is a). possible, or b). that it can be done by foreigners in a rabidly xenophobic society. Yes the outcome is uncertain – but no war is ever “certain” when it begins. You may think WW ll was a gimme now, but let me tell you it looked proecisely the opposite for years. Afghanistan is an entirely logical and legal response to a hostile act – or casus belli – which I see you didn’t check up on either.

I have a sneakng suspicion that our pal from Kabul is no longer there but absolutely no proof of that. I was very interested in his point of view and how he arrived at it, but what he said wasn’t very bright for a person in theatre.

it depends in time of war who are these innocent people?