BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada

Subject: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 08:28 AM

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made this Canadian stand a little taller.

"The countries that have partnered here in RC South( Afghanistan)have made an extraordinary commitment and proportionately none has worked harder or sacrificed more than the Canadians,"

"They have been outstanding partners for us and all I can tell you, as has been the case for a very long time, the longer we can have Canadian soldiers as our partners the better it is."



Thank You......Thank You Very Much!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Beer
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 08:40 AM

Well said Mr. Gates.
And despite the recent rhetoric taking place on the news and in some threads. This includes Quebec.
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 08:57 AM

Oui!

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 09:10 AM

I dunno...any minute I expect the Alberta Territorial Militia to overwhelm the Idaho Legion and seize Idaho, although why exactly they'd want it is an interesting question.

(It's about damned time someone from the US Government praised the work of Canadians!)

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 10:33 AM

But what have they done for us lately? :)

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 11:33 AM

Typical Alaskan... gimmie gimmie gimmie.....




;-)

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 11:53 AM

It works!

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Beer
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 11:58 AM

We just gave three young Canadian lives.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 12:10 PM

This is just to get us to throw more wasted lives into this stupid, useless, political war, that cannot be won. It is like spooning out the sea with a fork.   The only reason Canadians are there is so that they can be at the "big table". Young lives are their "ante-up" chips.   



yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Amos
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 12:26 PM

Gates seems to be kissingt Canada's ass in order to keep the stock of young bodies coming. Tell them about yo' ass, Peter. ;>)



A

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 12:40 PM

Young bodies and yellowcake...and oil.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: number 6
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 01:24 PM

Well ... it looks like we aren't kissing Gate's ass .... and his ass kissing was in vain.

MacKay declines Gates's suggestion to extend Afghanistan mission

Good news ... but I wish we could pull them out sooner than 20011.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 02:38 PM

Gate's IMHO is Obama's only bad choice, so far, in his new & upcoming administration. One word of praise to the Canadain's, where's he been for the last 7yrs? He's all for flying the flag of a hawk & continuing the aggression against others. Coming from an intelligence background he's lacking just that.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 02:46 PM

I see The Highway of Heroes is getting a fair bit of play in the Yankee news lately. I hope it does not get misinterpreted in any way as Canucks approving of our involvement in the "war".

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: pdq
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 02:51 PM

...numbers are from earlier this year:

Troops currently in Afghanistan

United States: 29,000, with about 19,000 serving in NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) effort and    the rest serving under U.S. command
          Fatalities: 419 (includes deaths in Pakistan and Uzbekistan)
Britain: 7,800
          Fatalities: 89 (includes civilians from the Ministry of Defense)
Germany: 3,210
          Fatalities: 26
Italy: 2,880
          Fatalities: 12
Canada: 2,500
          Fatalities: 81
Australia: 1,000 (not a NATO member)

{note: the high death count among Canadians is due to the dangerous assignments they are given}

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 02:58 PM

Not unusual if you are an historian.... Vimy, Dieppe....

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: bobad
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 02:59 PM

Canada's fatality count currently stands at 100.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Peter T.
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:08 PM

This war is complete insanity. Everything is against it: politics, tribalism, GEOGRAPHY! Pakistan, the linch pin, is essentially ungovernable.   It would require hundreds of thousands of troops (cf. Iraq) to hold the place -- and require the taking over of parts of Pakistan by American troops -- is Obama really going to do this? The whole thing is absurd.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:30 PM

I said many threads ago that I would leave and never..... okay, just ONE more time....

To ensure a strong military, one must battle train troops and field test weapons and tactics.

How else could one justify prosecution of a relgious and civil war in a country thousands of miles away? And, if anyone thinks that is NOT what is being done, answer this... how can a date be set for ending our involvement?

Absurd, Peter T.? No, it's fucking lunacy.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:30 PM

We can't leave until 20011?? That's, like, 18,000 years from now!

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:39 PM

It is not like he did not say what he was planning to do- Obama now has the popular mandate to go ahead in Afghanistan.


You get what was voted in- too late to bitch about it now.

.......................................................................

updated 10:46 p.m. EDT, Mon July 21, 2008
   Obama calls situation in Afghanistan 'urgent'

Story Highlights

NEW: McCain foreign policy adviser says Obama supports "strategy for defeat"

Sen. Barack Obama says more troops needed in Afghanistan

Obama meets with Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Obama has said part of his strategy is "taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan"
   
KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday that United States needs to focus on Afghanistan in its battle against terrorism.

"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism," Obama said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq," he said.

Obama said troop levels must increase in Afghanistan.

"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three," he told CBS. "I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities. But military alone is not going to be enough."


.................................................................


Obama, Iraq and Afghanistan By Tom Hayden

July 15, 2008

Any proposal to transfer American troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan is sure to cause debate and questions among peace activists and rank-and-file Democrats. The proposal potentially represents a wider quagmire for the US government and military.

Dissenting views on Iraq and Afghanistan will have to come not from the hawkish national security team, but from outside Washington, and from Obama himself.

On Iraq, Obama said nothing especially new in his July 14 New York Times op-ed piece and his foreign policy speech in Washington today. In both, he forcefully restated his commitment to combat troop withdrawals after his recent statements suggesting that he would "refine" his views when he consults military commanders on the ground. He neglected to address how many American "residual forces" he would leave behind in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda and "protect American service members," though he made additional US trainers conditional on the Iraqis making "political progress." It is a proposal that seems to promise a phased diminishing of the American military presence, not a complete withdrawal.

Many independent analysts question the wisdom of leaving some 50,000 American troops as advisers, trainers and counter-terrorism units in Iraq after the withdrawal of 140,000 by 2010. Those forces would be protecting a sectarian political regime that is linked to death squads, militias and a detention system now holding 50,000 Iraqis in violation of human rights standards.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM

Afghan Muddle

Obama twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, incorrectly implying that McCain saw no need for more troops there.

Obama: When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11

Actually, McCain said in 2003 that the U.S. "may" muddle through, not that we could or would. He also said he was very concerned about a rise in al Qaeda activity there. He said then that he was "guardedly optimistic" that the government could handle it.

McCain, 2003: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ... There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that – in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.

So I'm guardedly optimistic, but I am also realistic that the central government in Kabul has very little effect on the policies and practices of the warlords who control the surrounding areas.

Recently, however, both candidates have called for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. In July, Obama proposed sending two more combat brigades, drawn down from Iraq. McCain immediately followed this with a call for three more brigades, but later clarified that some of those troops would be NATO forces. A McCain spokeswoman said that the U.S. would "contribute" troops to the increase under McCain's plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: number 6
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:59 PM

"We can't leave until 20011?? That's, like, 18,000 years from now! "

Oh sorry .... I accidently keyed the U.S. date of departure from the mideast war ... Canadians are gettin out by 2011 ... I really think the U.S. date is absurd ... surely the country will be totally bankrupt way before then ... I mean all the $$money$$ being spent on these wars, bank bailouts, car companies ... whew, I hope the Chinese pull the plug on the U.S. loans soon just to end the madness.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 04:08 PM

Ah... that's when the real madness may begin.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: number 6
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 04:10 PM

hmmmm ..... a different kind of madness gnu   :)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Willie-O
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 04:31 PM

Bruce, this is not an Obama-McCain debate thread, OK? And neither of them are "candidates" anymore.

I heard on CBC radio this morning the most heartbreaking story of many--a mother in BC who heard on the radio, while driving, that a Canadian soldier had been killed in Afghanistan, "name witheld by request of the family". She said a prayer for the soldier's family. Only hours later she learned, when her husband unexpectedly met her at a ferry dock, that the dead soldier was her son.

I am sick to my soul of these news reports. As many other countries are doing, we keep sending courageous and well-intentioned young Canadians to their deaths on the other side of the world. Many of them, and their families, maintain that we should keep doing so, but it's our civil society's role to decide where our military should be deployed, and when and where they should NOT be. The fact has become clear that we CAN't prevent our young soldiers' deaths from being "in vain".   

Dammit. I wish we could fix Afghanistan. But, even if you accept that that's the objective, we can't. All we can do is provide temporary local improvements, and sometimes not even that.   

And it's nice to be noticed, but getting positive reinforcement from Gates, Obama, or anyone else isn't going to make it work.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: gnu
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 04:53 PM

Yeah. Odd, innit? Canuck snipers have acheived the record long distance kill. But, at over 2000m, how do they know the body that flies into pieces is the enemy?

I think it's time for me to "leave" again. With tears in my eyes... god bless all our lads... and theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: 3refs
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 05:39 PM

The last time Afghanistan was what could be considered defeated was during the time of Alexander The Great. They obviously don't give up easily. I have no answers for the problem. Build a wall around the country and let them settle it themselves? We've watched far too much of that in our recent history. We(and I'll take the liberty of lumping us all together)as westerners, who consider ourselves democratic and civilized owe it to the planet to do something. To quote "Big Al", "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 06:22 PM

"Young bodies, yellow cake and oil" hey Rapaire, that sounds like a quite the party....

but seriously our 1st four casualties over there came from a 'friendly fire' incident involving the USAF. fookin' oops...
This was an inauspicious beginning. Our soldiers are top-notch. Our politicians aren't.

Has anyone see 'The Kite Runner'? a great movie as seen through Afghani eyes in the pre-Western invasion days....

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 07:24 PM

"Bruce, this is not an Obama-McCain debate thread, OK? And neither of them are "candidates" anymore. "

I was noting that the troop expansion BY OBAMA was known BEFORE the election (see the dates on my quotes), and the comments

"It would require hundreds of thousands of troops (cf. Iraq) to hold the place -- and require the taking over of parts of Pakistan by American troops -- is Obama really going to do this? The whole thing is absurd.
"

were answered by the election.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: Willie-O
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 07:31 PM

3refs, we've been there longer than WWII already. "Do something"? No one can deny that we have been doing "something". It's just not working out...we're a little Dutch boy (and they've taken some losses beside us, I believe) at the dike.

Look, I live in a pacifist household in a rural back-to-the-land neighbourhood. After 9/11, a lot of my friends and family immediately objected to US and Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. I didn't agree, because the provocation was so outrageous and the connection so clear that, with misgivings, I suspended my doubts and figured that the US was entitled to try to respond to their attackers. I have never been so conflicted in my life as on the question of Canadian military participation there, but since we do have important alliances with the US through NATO, and more important, because the Afghan people needed help, I watched it happen and tried to figure out where I stood.

What has happened since then has just been a tragedy for Canada and for Afghanistan. We've lost dozens of good people in and around Kandahar, and neither the city nor the surrounding area seems any safer than it was in 2006 when we got there. Will it all go even more to hell when we pull out? It's kind of a pointless question, because we are leaving regardless. We have done our shift, even the current warmonger government says we're definitely out of there in 2011--after NINE YEARS!!!--and there's a damn good chance we'll be out sooner if the Cons lose power.   

The thing is, 3refs, Afghanistan is not the only hellhole on the planet. We can't fix them all, and we can't fix any of them by pouring our highly-regarded soldiers and their lousy hardware into a trouble spot. We are in Afghan now as a result of a series of geopolitical maneuvers that have enriched lots of military-industrial corporations, and the careers of certain generals (yeah I'm looking at Hillier and he's not the only one) who felt that we needed to see some blood. Even the generals, having satisfied that yearning, are looking for an exit strategy now--and it is "training Afghan army and police to take over". Gee where have I heard that before? "Vietnamization" or Afghanization, our objective now is to repatriate the war to the Afghans and leave them with it. They've been at this a lot longer than we have and they are tougher than shit. If the way to fix Afghanistan was by making enough of them into well-trained and equipped soldiers, that country would already be Paradise.   

Defeat the Afghans? What the hell are you talking about? It's their country, or is supposed to be.

The last lie I want to address, cause I am wearing out here, is that we are in Afghanistan to make ourselves safe. I mean, come down to Planet Earth on that one. If NATO put a half million troops into Ghan, which ain't going to happen, I can name a half dozen failed or marginal states where Al-Quaeda and similar entities would very likely set up shop--because they're already there--and doubtless there are many more I don't know about.

Yemen
Somalia
Pakistan!!!
there's this Iraq place I've heard of...
lots of potential in Africa.


In short, whatever Big Al says, we've been there with the kind word AND the gun, and where has it gotten anyone?

Sigh. Rant exhausted.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Sec of Defense Gates on Canada
From: kendall
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 07:33 PM

Spin it any way you wish; we have started every damn war that we have ever been involved in.