Trailer Park Boys is, for the most part, reasonably accurate.
My father's side of the family conglomerates in a beachside trailer park every summer. They proceed to drink heavily and drive around on four-wheelers for fun. They...oh god. I lived in a trailer for the first five years of my life. It's in my blood.
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
Trailer Park Boys is, for the most part, reasonably accurate.
My father's side of the family conglomerates in a beachside trailer park every summer. They proceed to drink heavily and drive around on four-wheelers for fun. They...oh god. I lived in a trailer for the first five years of my life. It's in my blood.
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
Obviously, military actions should always be of intense interest and concern.
But from my perspective as an American, it is almost a mockery to talk the heavy national burden of an average of less than ten soldiers a year dying, especially in a war that has far less moral ambiguity than Iraq.
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
Well for one thing, our situation is much more black and white. Our enemies are pretty clearly defined as Taliban remnants supported by Al Queda and some local tribes near the pakistan and afghanistan border.
The Iraqi Resistance is composed of at least a dozen major guerrilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Because of its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi Resistance is difficult to determine. Since most of these Resistance are civilians fighting against an organized domestic army and a foreign occupying army, many consider them to be guerrillas:
anti-Shi'a SunniMuslims who fight to regain the prestige they held under the previous regime (the three preceding categories are often indistinguishable in practice);
Iraqi Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement, as well as any remnants of the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam;
Foreign Islamist volunteers, including those often linked to al Qaeda and largely driven by the Sunni Wahabi doctrine (the two preceding categories are often lumped as "Jihadists");
Criminal Resistance who are fighting simply for money; and
Nonviolent resistance groups and political parties (not technically part of the resistance).
We've also as a society, and that includes all western nations have become more sensitive to violence. I mean, I know it's incredibly shallow to say this but when 4 soldiers die compared to 100 insurgents, that is a damn good killing ratio.
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
Obviously, military actions should always be of intense interest and concern.
But from my perspective as an American, it is almost a mockery to talk the heavy national burden of an average of less than ten soldiers a year dying, especially in a war that has far less moral ambiguity than Iraq.
Relative population figures for you Shinto:
Canada: 32.9 Million
USA: 301.9 Million.
We're slightly over ten percent of the US population for fucks sake. Of course the figures are going look small in comparison.
What the fuck do you expect Canadians to do? Go "oh well, our American cousins walked head first into a quagmire thats killing significant numbers of their troops, I guess we shouldn't express any concern because so many more of US troops are dying, due to their higher population and inept political leaders"?
Or is this just another case of America needing a memo that not every single thing done or thought by people in other countries is about you?
Trailer Park Boys is, for the most part, reasonably accurate.
My father's side of the family conglomerates in a beachside trailer park every summer. They proceed to drink heavily and drive around on four-wheelers for fun. They...oh god. I lived in a trailer for the first five years of my life. It's in my blood.
It's ok. It's not your fault you live in Ottawa.
Actually, it is my fault, I could have moved to Kingston for university.
It's not my fault that my family autochthonously sprung from the hinterlands of French Ontario and settled in the Ottawa region in such prodigious numbers that I live on a street named after my great grandmother which intersects with a street named after my great grandfather.
Trailer Park Boys is, for the most part, reasonably accurate.
My father's side of the family conglomerates in a beachside trailer park every summer. They proceed to drink heavily and drive around on four-wheelers for fun. They...oh god. I lived in a trailer for the first five years of my life. It's in my blood.
It's ok. It's not your fault you live in Ottawa.
Actually, it is my fault, I could have moved to Kingston for university.
It's not my fault that my family autochthonously sprung from the hinterlands of French Ontario and settled in the Ottawa region in such prodigious numbers that I live on a street named after my great grandmother which intersects with a street named after my great grandfather.
Eh.
I was mostly trying to imply that Ottawa = Trailer Park
I don't know how "trailer park" Ottawa is, but damn I remember driving through a town near there and it was the worst town in Canada I have ever been to. Everyone had mullets and Senators jerseys, and all the chicks were fat.
Needless to say I got the fuck out of there pretty quickly.
Trailer Park Boys is, for the most part, reasonably accurate.
My father's side of the family conglomerates in a beachside trailer park every summer. They proceed to drink heavily and drive around on four-wheelers for fun. They...oh god. I lived in a trailer for the first five years of my life. It's in my blood.
It's ok. It's not your fault you live in Ottawa.
Actually, it is my fault, I could have moved to Kingston for university.
It's not my fault that my family autochthonously sprung from the hinterlands of French Ontario and settled in the Ottawa region in such prodigious numbers that I live on a street named after my great grandmother which intersects with a street named after my great grandfather.
Eh.
I was mostly trying to imply that Ottawa = Trailer Park
But that's kinda cool, with the street names.
Ottawa itself is not so bad, but the area around it, oh man. Totally trailer park.
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
Obviously, military actions should always be of intense interest and concern.
But from my perspective as an American, it is almost a mockery to talk the heavy national burden of an average of less than ten soldiers a year dying, especially in a war that has far less moral ambiguity than Iraq.
Some of the griping is that people feel Canada is disproportionately shouldering the weight of Afghanistan when compared to other NATO members. For example, apparently 1/3rd of the death toll in Afghanistan is Canadian.
I dont know how I personally feel on the matter. Thats just how the opinion is, though.
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
Obviously, military actions should always be of intense interest and concern.
But from my perspective as an American, it is almost a mockery to talk the heavy national burden of an average of less than ten soldiers a year dying, especially in a war that has far less moral ambiguity than Iraq.
Relative population figures for you Shinto:
Canada: 32.9 Million
USA: 301.9 Million.
We're slightly over ten percent of the US population for fucks sake. Of course the figures are going look small in comparison.
What the fuck do you expect Canadians to do? Go "oh well, our American cousins walked head first into a quagmire thats killing significant numbers of their troops, I guess we shouldn't express any concern because so many more of US troops are dying, due to their higher population and inept political leaders"?
Or is this just another case of America needing a memo that not every single thing done or thought by people in other countries is about you?
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
Obviously, military actions should always be of intense interest and concern.
But from my perspective as an American, it is almost a mockery to talk the heavy national burden of an average of less than ten soldiers a year dying, especially in a war that has far less moral ambiguity than Iraq.
Relative population figures for you Shinto:
Canada: 32.9 Million
USA: 301.9 Million.
We're slightly over ten percent of the US population for fucks sake. Of course the figures are going look small in comparison.
Come on man. The figures look small even in ratio. 61 deaths times ten is still 610 deaths spread over five years.
What the fuck do you expect Canadians to do? Go "oh well, our American cousins walked head first into a quagmire thats killing significant numbers of their troops, I guess we shouldn't express any concern because so many more of US troops are dying, due to their higher population and inept political leaders"?
Blah blah blah. You're just going into a defensive nationalist rant here dude. Expecting Canadians not to go all wobbly in the knees in a fairly morally unambiguous situation because one soldier a month dies is not a sadistic attitude. Anyone who feels that is too much of a burden compared with the humanitarian duty of protecting Afghans from the Taliban needs to sit down and think for a few minutes.
Or is this just another case of America needing a memo that not every single thing done or thought by people in other countries is about you?
I just want you to know that emotionally at this point you are paralleling every redneck xenophobic yob on the internet who freaks out because someone criticizes America.
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
Obviously, military actions should always be of intense interest and concern.
But from my perspective as an American, it is almost a mockery to talk the heavy national burden of an average of less than ten soldiers a year dying, especially in a war that has far less moral ambiguity than Iraq.
Some of the griping is that people feel Canada is disproportionately shouldering the weight of Afghanistan when compared to other NATO members. For example, apparently 1/3rd of the death toll in Afghanistan is Canadian.
I dont know how I personally feel on the matter. Thats just how the opinion is, though.
Personally, I think this feeling is full of shit.
Canada is in Afghanistan doing a moral thing, mainly for the right reasons. How much other people help or do not help has no bearing on the morality or necessity of the mission.
So, it's wrong to be "angsty" over peacekeeping duties? What does that even mean? Clearly you're not saying it's wrong to bemoan the death of a soldier, however loudly, however moral the cause, however small the numbers. Because that would be a revolting thing to say. And generally you are not a revolting person. So what are you saying?
I don't see any reason to make a comparison to Iraq. A sad event does not need to be weighed against other sad events in order to be sad. A hundred men dying in Iraq doesn't make one man dying in Afghanistan any less sad.
I realize that other countries are much smaller economically and in terms of population, but every time I encounter angst over peacekeeping duties in Afghanistan, I don't know.
Just on a day to day comparison with Iraq, it seems really overblown.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
Obviously, military actions should always be of intense interest and concern.
But from my perspective as an American, it is almost a mockery to talk the heavy national burden of an average of less than ten soldiers a year dying, especially in a war that has far less moral ambiguity than Iraq.
Relative population figures for you Shinto:
Canada: 32.9 Million
USA: 301.9 Million.
We're slightly over ten percent of the US population for fucks sake. Of course the figures are going look small in comparison.
Come on man. The figures look small even in ratio. 61 deaths times ten is still 610 deaths spread over five years.
What the fuck do you expect Canadians to do? Go "oh well, our American cousins walked head first into a quagmire thats killing significant numbers of their troops, I guess we shouldn't express any concern because so many more of US troops are dying, due to their higher population and inept political leaders"?
Blah blah blah. You're just going into a defensive nationalist rant here dude. Expecting Canadians not to go all wobbly in the knees in a fairly morally unambiguous situation because one soldier a month dies is not a sadistic attitude. Anyone who feels that is too much of a burden compared with the humanitarian duty of protecting Afghans from the Taliban needs to sit down and think for a few minutes.
Or is this just another case of America needing a memo that not every single thing done or thought by people in other countries is about you?
I just want you to know that emotionally at this point you are paralleling every redneck xenophobic yob on the internet who freaks out because someone criticizes America.
Well, when you encounter an American abloo blooing that other countries have the gall to be somewhat upset over the deaths of their own troops, because so many more American troops are dieing, what do you expect? Emotionally, your "mockery" comment, is pretty much a redneck xenophobic yob comment. Reap what you sow, and so on.
Its an insanely self-centered way of looking at things to even slightly feel that its a "mockery" for other countries to be concerned about their troop deaths. Seriously, at times it seems that some American's can't mentally wrap their brains around the concept that not everything is about their country.
Canadians being concerned about Canadian troop deaths is perfectly natural, especially considering that those deaths have both been increasing, and occurring more frequently, in the past two years.
You also might want to take into account the deployments of Canadian troops over the last five years in Afghanistan. The change in deployment after 2005 from being concentrated in relatively pacified Kabul to major combat operations in Kandahar is kind of important if you want to meaningfully look at the Canadian casualty rates. A simple look at relative casualty rates provides such a shallow insight that its hardly worthy of the term "analysis"
So, it's wrong to be "angsty" over peacekeeping duties? What does that even mean? Clearly you're not saying it's wrong to bemoan the death of a soldier, however loudly, however moral the cause, however small the numbers. Because that would be a revolting thing to say. And generally you are not a revolting person. So what are you saying?
I don't see any reason to make a comparison to Iraq. A sad event does not need to be weighed against other sad events in order to be sad. A hundred men dying in Iraq doesn't make one man dying in Afghanistan any less sad.
Of course not.
But I think that in terms of these deaths being portrayed by anti-war people as a huge national burden that is being so unjustly paid out of proportion to what Canada should - come on.
It's not the mourning for the death of a soldier. It's the taking of the occasion of the soldier's death for angst over the mission that I find somewhat out of proportion. 61 deaths over 60+ months is not to high a price to pay in the defense of 31 million afghans.
Well, when you encounter an American abloo blooing that other countries have the gall to be somewhat upset over the deaths of their own troops, because so many more American troops are dieing, what do you expect? Emotionally, your "mockery" comment, is pretty much a redneck xenophobic yob comment. Reap what you sow, and so on.
You're acting like a jackass.
If you are so sensitive that you interpreted my rather casual observation to be this incredibly harsh attack I'm afraid you may not be ready for public discussion period.
Canadians being concerned about Canadian troop deaths is perfectly natural, especially considering that those deaths have both been increasing, and occurring more frequently, in the past two years.
I know. Like 36 last year alone and on track for about the same this year.
Well, when you encounter an American abloo blooing that other countries have the gall to be somewhat upset over the deaths of their own troops, because so many more American troops are dieing, what do you expect? Emotionally, your "mockery" comment, is pretty much a redneck xenophobic yob comment. Reap what you sow, and so on.
You're acting like a jackass.
If you are so sensitive that you interpreted my rather casual observation to be this incredibly harsh attack I'm afraid you may not be ready for public discussion period.
If I'm coming across as hostile, consider it a judgment of how poor your choice of the word "mockery" was.
Well, when you encounter an American abloo blooing that other countries have the gall to be somewhat upset over the deaths of their own troops, because so many more American troops are dieing, what do you expect? Emotionally, your "mockery" comment, is pretty much a redneck xenophobic yob comment. Reap what you sow, and so on.
You're acting like a jackass.
If you are so sensitive that you interpreted my rather casual observation to be this incredibly harsh attack I'm afraid you may not be ready for public discussion period.
If I'm coming across as hostile, consider it a judgment of how poor your choice of the word "mockery" was.
So, it's wrong to be "angsty" over peacekeeping duties? What does that even mean? Clearly you're not saying it's wrong to bemoan the death of a soldier, however loudly, however moral the cause, however small the numbers. Because that would be a revolting thing to say. And generally you are not a revolting person. So what are you saying?
I don't see any reason to make a comparison to Iraq. A sad event does not need to be weighed against other sad events in order to be sad. A hundred men dying in Iraq doesn't make one man dying in Afghanistan any less sad.
Of course not.
But I think that in terms of these deaths being portrayed by anti-war people as a huge national burden that is being so unjustly paid out of proportion to what Canada should - come on.
It's not the mourning for the death of a soldier. It's the taking of the occasion of the soldier's death for angst over the mission that I find somewhat out of proportion. 61 deaths over 60+ months is not to high a price to pay in the defense of 31 million afghans.
I think that a death toll, however small, that is still somewhat disproportionate is something to be concerned about. Objecting to it as a whole based on those deaths is unjustified, I agree, but I think the situation warrants significant enough concern that we need to examine it. Angsting, as you call it, may be at times distasteful, but this situation has to stay in the Canadian consciousness. It is easy to forget that Canada has soldiers dying in foreign countries, because we are such a non-military country and culture. Alarmist media is sometimes necessary to wake us Canadians the fuck up.
The disproportionate burden being born by Canada in combat operations in Afghanistan is especially concerning, since it raises questions over the value of our membership in NATO. A military mutual defense organization where some members don't seem to actually want take a full military role seems like it may have significant problems, and be of somewhat questionable value. How reliable are allies, after all, who won't take risks to help you?
Indeed fair corvus, on paper it all looks well and good that the west is united in arms to defend one another. But in practice, political pressures at home and from abroad renders committing any support extremely slow, confusing and irritating.
So, it's wrong to be "angsty" over peacekeeping duties? What does that even mean? Clearly you're not saying it's wrong to bemoan the death of a soldier, however loudly, however moral the cause, however small the numbers. Because that would be a revolting thing to say. And generally you are not a revolting person. So what are you saying?
I don't see any reason to make a comparison to Iraq. A sad event does not need to be weighed against other sad events in order to be sad. A hundred men dying in Iraq doesn't make one man dying in Afghanistan any less sad.
Of course not.
But I think that in terms of these deaths being portrayed by anti-war people as a huge national burden that is being so unjustly paid out of proportion to what Canada should - come on.
It's not the mourning for the death of a soldier. It's the taking of the occasion of the soldier's death for angst over the mission that I find somewhat out of proportion. 61 deaths over 60+ months is not to high a price to pay in the defense of 31 million afghans.
Don't be an idiot, Shinto. Canada has been in Afghanistan since the very beginning, as a full member of NATO doing our required duties under the NATO charter. What most Canadians can't stand is the extension of the mission through 2009, and the change from peace-keeping and provincial reconstruction to all-out combat operations against a determined and legitimate foe. Canada has not fought a large and protracted combat operation since Korea, and our casualty rates reflect that.
Indeed, there is a strong, ingrained notion that all casualties - for whatever the cause, "moral" as you say or not - are bad things. You just have to look at our history. There has been, since the end of Korea, an explicit rejection of militarism and the use of military force to solve conflicts in the international arena. But even before then, there has been a very, very wary view of the military in general. During the two world wars, national unity was seriously hurt, as opposition/support to war was largely divided along linguistic lines. Since then, culturally, war has been something that Canadians do not want to commit to.
Your complete lack of understanding of that reality, along with your statements about the 'mockery' occurs when Canadians bemoan the fact that our troops are dying for...what? For something that people south of the border declare "moral"...Well, that is fairly offensive to many Canadians. We have been carrying our own weight for this NATO mission since the beginning, and we have not gotten any thanks or recognition from our other allies (not that we ever do, but that's a whole other issue). On the contrary, our NATO allies have troops in the country that aren't allowed to engage in active combat operations - essentially, they have refused to do what Canada did, recognize the changing nature of the mission and equip their soldiers to do what needs to be done. That kind of attitude by our allies not only endangers the lives of the Afghans and the puppet government we support, but seriously undermines the ability of our Canadian soldiers to do their job without getting blown up.
Your complete lack of understanding of that reality, along with your statements about the 'mockery' occurs when Canadians bemoan the fact that our troops are dying for...what? For something that people south of the border declare "moral"...Well, that is fairly offensive to many Canadians. We have been carrying our own weight for this NATO mission since the beginning, and we have not gotten any thanks or recognition from our other allies (not that we ever do, but that's a whole other issue). On the contrary, our NATO allies have troops in the country that aren't allowed to engage in active combat operations - essentially, they have refused to do what Canada did, recognize the changing nature of the mission and equip their soldiers to do what needs to be done. That kind of attitude by our allies not only endangers the lives of the Afghans and the puppet government we support, but seriously undermines the ability of our Canadian soldiers to do their job without getting blown up.
Thanks Canada. I feel obliged to point out that British troops are in Helmand province, and by all accounts seem to be getting shot up quite a lot. NATO members asides from the US, Canada and the UK (plus the Dutch for their size) certainly aren't pulling their weight in Afghanistan. I think it's pretty shitty they can get away with staying in the North.
Shinto, I don't think the problem that most (sane) Canadians have with the mission in Afghanistan is that Canadian troops are dying. We're not stupid and we don't expect to come out of this offensive and mission unscathed.
The problem that I most commonly hear (or discern from stupid rhetoric) is that Canadians resent the fact that Canada, as a NATO member, is handling an unrepresentative portion of the battle casualties and battle duties. It's not that just, oh, unfortunately Canadians have died more often than Germans, it's that, oh, Germany won't allow their NATO troops to serve in Khandahar, where the most bloody and devastating offensives have taken place.
Sure, Iraq has been incredibly more bloody (especially for Americans) by multitudes. But America in Iraq is not in anywhere near the same situation nor agreement as Canada in Afghanistan. American is expected to take the brunt of the casualties in Iraq. Canada is not in the same role at all in Afghanistan. We are not in the leading role, the role of the innovator and charger, gathering other countries behind us to support us in our offensive. We are in Afghanistan as a peace and rebuilding force through NATO.
When Canadians complain about the casualties in Khandahar, they aren't really complaining about Canadians dying, especially not in the specific or aggregate numbers--they are complaining about the number of Canadian deaths compared to the number of deaths of other NATO members committed to (supposedly) the same causes we are in Afghanistan. Khandahar is not meant to be a Canadian concern but a NATO one, and it's appearing as though everyone else in NATO is happy to let Canada take the lead. Canadians are just asking to share the lead with the others who committed to the offensive.
(And yeah, you're getting some misunderstanding and unfair readings of your comments. I'm just going to converse with you, Shinto, separate of the, as I shouldn't have to apologise for them and their mistakes.)
It's kind of hard for me to get my head around feeling unfairly treated.
Probably because in the United States what we do with our military is generally not something other nations can do. There is no presumption of an equal partnership to feel violated over.
That's got to be the problem then, because that's what the situation is in Afghanistan... it's a NATO mission and should be shared between the NATO Countries who are participating in it. Sure, Germany has troops there, but the country isn't allowing them to be anywhere near the hotzone? Come on...
Posts
My father's side of the family conglomerates in a beachside trailer park every summer. They proceed to drink heavily and drive around on four-wheelers for fun. They...oh god. I lived in a trailer for the first five years of my life. It's in my blood.
So because the Canadian losses and problem is not nearly as large a problem as the American one, we shouldn't be concerned about it? That's not like you at all... really.
It's ok. It's not your fault you live in Ottawa.
Obviously, military actions should always be of intense interest and concern.
But from my perspective as an American, it is almost a mockery to talk the heavy national burden of an average of less than ten soldiers a year dying, especially in a war that has far less moral ambiguity than Iraq.
Well for one thing, our situation is much more black and white. Our enemies are pretty clearly defined as Taliban remnants supported by Al Queda and some local tribes near the pakistan and afghanistan border.
Iraq on the other hand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Composition
We've also as a society, and that includes all western nations have become more sensitive to violence. I mean, I know it's incredibly shallow to say this but when 4 soldiers die compared to 100 insurgents, that is a damn good killing ratio.
Relative population figures for you Shinto:
Canada: 32.9 Million
USA: 301.9 Million.
We're slightly over ten percent of the US population for fucks sake. Of course the figures are going look small in comparison.
What the fuck do you expect Canadians to do? Go "oh well, our American cousins walked head first into a quagmire thats killing significant numbers of their troops, I guess we shouldn't express any concern because so many more of US troops are dying, due to their higher population and inept political leaders"?
Or is this just another case of America needing a memo that not every single thing done or thought by people in other countries is about you?
Actually, it is my fault, I could have moved to Kingston for university.
It's not my fault that my family autochthonously sprung from the hinterlands of French Ontario and settled in the Ottawa region in such prodigious numbers that I live on a street named after my great grandmother which intersects with a street named after my great grandfather.
Eh.
I was mostly trying to imply that Ottawa = Trailer Park
But that's kinda cool, with the street names.
Needless to say I got the fuck out of there pretty quickly.
Ottawa itself is not so bad, but the area around it, oh man. Totally trailer park.
Some of the griping is that people feel Canada is disproportionately shouldering the weight of Afghanistan when compared to other NATO members. For example, apparently 1/3rd of the death toll in Afghanistan is Canadian.
I dont know how I personally feel on the matter. Thats just how the opinion is, though.
I want to lime this whole post.
Come on man. The figures look small even in ratio. 61 deaths times ten is still 610 deaths spread over five years.
Blah blah blah. You're just going into a defensive nationalist rant here dude. Expecting Canadians not to go all wobbly in the knees in a fairly morally unambiguous situation because one soldier a month dies is not a sadistic attitude. Anyone who feels that is too much of a burden compared with the humanitarian duty of protecting Afghans from the Taliban needs to sit down and think for a few minutes.
I just want you to know that emotionally at this point you are paralleling every redneck xenophobic yob on the internet who freaks out because someone criticizes America.
Personally, I think this feeling is full of shit.
Canada is in Afghanistan doing a moral thing, mainly for the right reasons. How much other people help or do not help has no bearing on the morality or necessity of the mission.
I don't see any reason to make a comparison to Iraq. A sad event does not need to be weighed against other sad events in order to be sad. A hundred men dying in Iraq doesn't make one man dying in Afghanistan any less sad.
Well, when you encounter an American abloo blooing that other countries have the gall to be somewhat upset over the deaths of their own troops, because so many more American troops are dieing, what do you expect? Emotionally, your "mockery" comment, is pretty much a redneck xenophobic yob comment. Reap what you sow, and so on.
Its an insanely self-centered way of looking at things to even slightly feel that its a "mockery" for other countries to be concerned about their troop deaths. Seriously, at times it seems that some American's can't mentally wrap their brains around the concept that not everything is about their country.
Canadians being concerned about Canadian troop deaths is perfectly natural, especially considering that those deaths have both been increasing, and occurring more frequently, in the past two years.
You also might want to take into account the deployments of Canadian troops over the last five years in Afghanistan. The change in deployment after 2005 from being concentrated in relatively pacified Kabul to major combat operations in Kandahar is kind of important if you want to meaningfully look at the Canadian casualty rates. A simple look at relative casualty rates provides such a shallow insight that its hardly worthy of the term "analysis"
Of course not.
But I think that in terms of these deaths being portrayed by anti-war people as a huge national burden that is being so unjustly paid out of proportion to what Canada should - come on.
It's not the mourning for the death of a soldier. It's the taking of the occasion of the soldier's death for angst over the mission that I find somewhat out of proportion. 61 deaths over 60+ months is not to high a price to pay in the defense of 31 million afghans.
You're acting like a jackass.
If you are so sensitive that you interpreted my rather casual observation to be this incredibly harsh attack I'm afraid you may not be ready for public discussion period.
I know. Like 36 last year alone and on track for about the same this year.
If I'm coming across as hostile, consider it a judgment of how poor your choice of the word "mockery" was.
You make a mockery of sensible Canadians.
I think that a death toll, however small, that is still somewhat disproportionate is something to be concerned about. Objecting to it as a whole based on those deaths is unjustified, I agree, but I think the situation warrants significant enough concern that we need to examine it. Angsting, as you call it, may be at times distasteful, but this situation has to stay in the Canadian consciousness. It is easy to forget that Canada has soldiers dying in foreign countries, because we are such a non-military country and culture. Alarmist media is sometimes necessary to wake us Canadians the fuck up.
Don't be an idiot, Shinto. Canada has been in Afghanistan since the very beginning, as a full member of NATO doing our required duties under the NATO charter. What most Canadians can't stand is the extension of the mission through 2009, and the change from peace-keeping and provincial reconstruction to all-out combat operations against a determined and legitimate foe. Canada has not fought a large and protracted combat operation since Korea, and our casualty rates reflect that.
Indeed, there is a strong, ingrained notion that all casualties - for whatever the cause, "moral" as you say or not - are bad things. You just have to look at our history. There has been, since the end of Korea, an explicit rejection of militarism and the use of military force to solve conflicts in the international arena. But even before then, there has been a very, very wary view of the military in general. During the two world wars, national unity was seriously hurt, as opposition/support to war was largely divided along linguistic lines. Since then, culturally, war has been something that Canadians do not want to commit to.
Your complete lack of understanding of that reality, along with your statements about the 'mockery' occurs when Canadians bemoan the fact that our troops are dying for...what? For something that people south of the border declare "moral"...Well, that is fairly offensive to many Canadians. We have been carrying our own weight for this NATO mission since the beginning, and we have not gotten any thanks or recognition from our other allies (not that we ever do, but that's a whole other issue). On the contrary, our NATO allies have troops in the country that aren't allowed to engage in active combat operations - essentially, they have refused to do what Canada did, recognize the changing nature of the mission and equip their soldiers to do what needs to be done. That kind of attitude by our allies not only endangers the lives of the Afghans and the puppet government we support, but seriously undermines the ability of our Canadian soldiers to do their job without getting blown up.
Thanks Canada.
The problem that I most commonly hear (or discern from stupid rhetoric) is that Canadians resent the fact that Canada, as a NATO member, is handling an unrepresentative portion of the battle casualties and battle duties. It's not that just, oh, unfortunately Canadians have died more often than Germans, it's that, oh, Germany won't allow their NATO troops to serve in Khandahar, where the most bloody and devastating offensives have taken place.
Sure, Iraq has been incredibly more bloody (especially for Americans) by multitudes. But America in Iraq is not in anywhere near the same situation nor agreement as Canada in Afghanistan. American is expected to take the brunt of the casualties in Iraq. Canada is not in the same role at all in Afghanistan. We are not in the leading role, the role of the innovator and charger, gathering other countries behind us to support us in our offensive. We are in Afghanistan as a peace and rebuilding force through NATO.
When Canadians complain about the casualties in Khandahar, they aren't really complaining about Canadians dying, especially not in the specific or aggregate numbers--they are complaining about the number of Canadian deaths compared to the number of deaths of other NATO members committed to (supposedly) the same causes we are in Afghanistan. Khandahar is not meant to be a Canadian concern but a NATO one, and it's appearing as though everyone else in NATO is happy to let Canada take the lead. Canadians are just asking to share the lead with the others who committed to the offensive.
(And yeah, you're getting some misunderstanding and unfair readings of your comments. I'm just going to converse with you, Shinto, separate of the, as I shouldn't have to apologise for them and their mistakes.)
Probably because in the United States what we do with our military is generally not something other nations can do. There is no presumption of an equal partnership to feel violated over.