Canada taking real casualties in Afghanistan

www.cbc.ca...
Canada's troops are starting to take real casualties.
Your doing a great job guys!
A salute to everyone involved.

You are being sarcastic right?

Originally posted by sledhead
www.cbc.ca...
Canada's troops are starting to take real casualties.
Your doing a great job guys!
A salute to everyone involved.

There is no mention of any casualties. What are you talking about? All it says is 3 explosions apparently caused by rockets rattled the main coalition airbase .

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by sledhead
www.cbc.ca...
Canada's troops are starting to take real casualties.
Your doing a great job guys!
A salute to everyone involved.

There is no mention of any casualties. What are you talking about? All it says is 3 explosions apparently caused by rockets rattled the main coalition airbase .

Obviously, you did not read the entire article. I know it is almost 7 paragraphs long, so I can understand that it must have been too long and difficult to finish. Let me quote for you, since you are unable to search through a measly 150 words yourself to find the quote of injuries within the article.

The Friday morning assault came a day after a suicide car bomber blew himself up near a Canadian military convoy in Kandahar, wounding a Canadian soldier and six Afghan civilians, including a boy who later died.

On Wednesday, Pte. Robert Costall, a Canadian soldier, was killed when Taliban insurgents attacked a coalition outpost in a remote area outside Kandahar.

So far we have had one soldier killed in action but we have had a handful of deaths from things like vehicle accidents.

Afghanistan: Timeline of Canada's involvement

Is this the first post about Canada in Afghanistan since we have taken over?

I appreciate the fact that each one of those lives is special and that it's tragic that they were lost, however, Canadian casualties pale in comparison with the growing number of American casualties.

Originally posted by IronDogg

Obviously, you did not read the entire article.

Sorry I missed the last paragraph. I did read up to where they mentioned the one getting wounded.

Considering we only have 3500 over there, 11 dead is not too good. Also, even though we've been in peacekeeping missions all over the world, this is the first time since Korea that we've directly gone on combat missions.

Originally posted by berglion
Considering we only have 3500 over there, 11 dead is not too good. Also, even though we've been in peacekeeping missions all over the world, this is the first time since Korea that we've directly gone on combat missions.

I was not even aware they were there as peace keepers let alone combat missions. I thought they rejected participation in both Afganistan and Iraq, but it is clear they are there that is a fact. Even one death is too many.

With that a side, perhaps it is Molson and Moosehead beers that protect them they would really suffer meaning the enemy and heaven forbide if they use La blates (sp?) blue :shk: that would kill the enemy for sure.

Originally posted by berglion
Considering we only have 3500 over there, 11 dead is not too good. Also, even though we've been in peacekeeping missions all over the world, this is the first time since Korea that we've directly gone on combat missions.

Canucks were in Korea!?

Granted, your ratio of soldiers to death isn't too great, but still, 11 is quite a small number compared the the US casualties...anyone have an up to date death count by the way?

Originally posted by berglion
Considering we only have 3500 over there, 11 dead is not too good. Also, even though we've been in peacekeeping missions all over the world, this is the first time since Korea that we've directly gone on combat missions.

So Harper is changing Canadian foreign policy?

Is he pushing for combat as opposed to peackeeping? Is this public? Like, did I sleep through it?

Originally posted by UnMature

Originally posted by berglion
Considering we only have 3500 over there, 11 dead is not too good. Also, even though we've been in peacekeeping missions all over the world, this is the first time since Korea that we've directly gone on combat missions.

Canucks were in Korea!?

Granted, your ratio of soldiers to death isn't too great, but still, 11 is quite a small number compared the the US casualties...anyone have an up to date death count by the way?

The UN was in Korea if I remember my history correctly and not in a peacekeeping role.

Oh and shots, Canada has been staunch supporters in the Afghan war from the get go and not from a peacekeeping perspective either. It's Iraq that we have a different opinion about.

Here is a good article detailing our role in the reconstruction and war effort.

www.cbc.ca...

In February 2002, a battle group from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry was sent to Kandahar for six months and assisted the United States and other forces in Operation Enduring Freedom in their offensive against elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the rugged southern regions.

From August 2003 to December 2005, Canada's military commitment was largely Operation Athena, based in the capital, Kabul, as part of the International Assistance Force, which had the aim of providing intelligence and security to allow "rebuilding the democratic process," something which eventually saw elections in the fall of 2005.

/snip

Heavy weapons cantonment: Helping the Afghan government collect, store and decommission 10,000 heavy weapons left over from decades of war, including artillery, tanks and rocket launchers.

Demining: Foreign Affairs says Canada has helped clear about one third of the estimated 10 million to 15 million mines in Afghanistan.

Microloans: Money from Canada has been used to provide microloans to more than 140,000 people in Afghanistan, 89 per cent of the clients are women.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by berglion
Considering we only have 3500 over there, 11 dead is not too good. Also, even though we've been in peacekeeping missions all over the world, this is the first time since Korea that we've directly gone on combat missions.

So Harper is changing Canadian foreign policy?

Is he pushing for combat as opposed to peackeeping? Is this public? Like, did I sleep through it?

Sofi, we've been there with a combat role, on and off since 2002.

This current role was the one set by the previous Liberal government. Harper has not had enough time to change anything yet, and considering he only has a slim and fragile minority government atm, then he has a slim chance of overly changing things. The only thing concrete I've heard out of them is cutting of aid to the Palastinian Authority(I take issue with this, but it's not part of the topic so i'll refrain for now...)

[edit on 30-3-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 30-3-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by UnMature
I appreciate the fact that each one of those lives is special and that it's tragic that they were lost, however, Canadian casualties pale in comparison with the growing number of American casualties.

Umm, would that not be proportional to the size of the respective number of troops each has in theater? I thought so. Thanks.





seekerof

Originally posted by sardion2000
The UN was in Korea if I remember my history correctly and not in a peacekeeping role.

Of interest to you, sardion2000?
On This Day: 1950: UN condemns North Korean invasion





seekerof