[QUOTE=yaik9a;30161247]Not sure if you know this but Canada , Britain and American are in the southern provinces which are the worst for Taliban. The rest are in the north which although they see little to some combat are not really helping the situation as the north is a already anti Taliban area.[/quote]
So are the Australians and British.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30161247][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Afghan_Opium_Production_2005_2007.JPG[/img]
In the south Helmand is the primary British deployment, Kabul is the Primary American Deployment and Kandahar Province is the primary Canadian deployment. As I said the South is the worst for Taliban and also Kandahar is the birthplace of the Taliban. In the north where it was always anti Taliban so the French, German and Australian force are doing less then the Americans, British and Canadians and so far per captia Canada has lost the most troops in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
The Australian's are actually deployed in the Uruzgan and Nimeroz provices, however it has nothing to do with opium production. The reason why cultivation is higher in the southern areas is because of the better climate and less mountainess areas. I have no idea why you think Canada is doing "more" work because they're in the Southern areas of Afghanistan.
Um lmao
You actually think we are pushing the fight in Afghanistan
He's right. Outside of SOTG, The Brits, the US and the Canadians are doing most of the legwork
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30170039]Um lmao
You actually think we are pushing the fight in Afghanistan
He's right. Outside of SOTG, The Brits, the US and the Canadians are doing most of the legwork[/QUOTE]
ummm, i said that the us british german french and italian soldiers are doing more legwork than the canadians. i said nothing about the australians.
Have a read next time.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30170348]ummm, i said that the us british german french and italian soldiers are doing more legwork than the canadians. i said nothing about the australians.
Have a read next time.[/QUOTE]
The French German and Italians are still in the anti-Taliban north and middle areas which are not as hostile as the areas where the British Americans and Canadians are and I pretty sure the only reason the drug rates in the north are so low is because the soldiers stationed there have the time and effort to remove and destroy farms. The Australians are in the middle which is more hostile but no where near what its like the southern provinces.
[editline]1st June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30168474]So are the Australians and British.
The Australian's are actually deployed in the Uruzgan and Nimeroz provices, however it has nothing to do with opium production. The reason why cultivation is higher in the southern areas is because of the better climate and less mountainess areas. I have no idea why you think Canada is doing "more" work because they're in the Southern areas of Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Well actually opium production has a lot to do with Taliban activity
I have no idea why you're trying to devalue the work that any of the countries are trying to do in Afghanistan. Infact, the countries in the northern areas such as the US, British, German, French and Italians have actually been more successful in ridding the Taliban than the US, British, Canadians and Australians down south.
As for Opium production, it's more to do with the climate. Northern Afghanistan is hilly, cold, mountainess and snowy during Winter. Southern Afghanistan has a higher percentage of arable land.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30175599]I have no idea why you're trying to devalue the work that any of the countries are trying to do in Afghanistan. Infact, the countries in the northern areas such as the US, British, German, French and Italians have actually been more successful in ridding the Taliban than the US, British, Canadians and Australians down south.
As for Opium production, it's more to do with the climate. Northern Afghanistan is hilly, cold, mountainess and snowy during Winter. Southern Afghanistan has a higher percentage of arable land.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure if you you figured it out yet but the entire north was almost all Anti-Taliban the main rebel group to them came from the north [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Northern_Alliance[/url] and the fact is that German French and Italians have put restrictions that don't allow there soldiers to be deployed in actual combat in the south.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30175925]I'm sure if you you figured it out yet but the entire north was almost all Anti-Taliban the main rebel group to them came from the north [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Northern_Alliance[/url] and the fact is that German French and Italians have put restrictions that don't allow there soldiers to be deployed in actual combat in the south.[/QUOTE]
What.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30176793]What.[/QUOTE]
The place where the Italians and French are is a anti Tailban area and they have it easy compared to the Canadians, Americans and British.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30163039]Still gonna need some sources for the deployment info and where the Taliban started.[/QUOTE]
Find them yourself you lazy fucking cunt.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;30186237]Find them yourself you lazy fucking cunt.[/QUOTE]
burden of proof
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;30186237]Find them yourself you lazy fucking cunt.[/QUOTE]
He's the one making the claim, thus the burden of proof is on him.
Friendly fire is neither :smith:
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30186007]The place where the Italians and French are is a anti Tailban area and they have it easy compared to the Canadians, Americans and British.[/QUOTE]
After ridding it of the Taliban.
As I said, I have no idea why you are trying to talk down the work of other nations. It's pretty arrogant.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30190991]After ridding it of the Taliban.
As I said, I have no idea why you are trying to talk down the work of other nations. It's pretty arrogant.[/QUOTE]
There was like no Taliban in the north and if there was it was very sparse.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30197281]There was like no Taliban in the north and if there was it was very sparse.[/QUOTE]
Yes, thanks to the US, British and other European nations along with the Northern Alliance...
As I said, why do you keep attempting to downplay the role other nations have played? As said before, it's fairly arrogant and much of what you said is wrong anyway.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30197584]Yes, thanks to the US, British and other European nations along with the Northern Alliance...
As I said, why do you keep attempting to downplay the role other nations have played? As said before, it's fairly arrogant and much of what you said is wrong anyway.[/QUOTE]
For one I'm not trying to downplay anything I'm just saying that the NATO in the south has is worse then the NATO in the north, what exactly is wrong with that?
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30200804]For one I'm not trying to downplay anything I'm just saying that the NATO in the south has is worse then the NATO in the north, what exactly is wrong with that?[/QUOTE]
That's a very different to the original statements of:
"Canada has the most soldiers" and "the Canadian soldiers are doing the most footwork"
Glad you stopped repeating those lines.
[QUOTE=-n3o-;30156939]Huh? Um.. who do you think is doing most of the work over there?[/QUOTE]
What work? Killing people?
[editline]2nd June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Devodiere;30157248]Nah, the general opinion of coalition forces is positive, they like us more than the Taliban. The main thing is though that they would prefer neither were there and they were just left alone. Because it's in both our best interests and theirs if the Taliban doesn't come back, they don't mind so much.[/QUOTE]
General opinion among whom?
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/virginia-moncrieff/taliban-support-increasin_b_150115.html[/url]
[quote=Guy1]Dude if you do X you have a 51% increased chance of Y happening[/quote]
[quote=Guy2]Really? Proof?[/quote]
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;30186237]Find them yourself you lazy fucking cunt.[/QUOTE]
:colbert:
Go to war and die, natural selection at it's best.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30201289]That's a very different to the original statements of:
"Canada has the most soldiers" and "the Canadian soldiers are doing the most footwork"
Glad you stopped repeating those lines.[/QUOTE]
Canada did lose the most soldiers per captia and do a lot of the work.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30210735]Canada did lose the most soldiers per captia and do a lot of the work.[/QUOTE]
Woah. Go Canada!
[editline]3rd June 2011[/editline]
You think losing the most soldiers means anything?
And you saying "do a lot of the work" too...
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30210735]Canada did lose the most soldiers per captia and do a lot of the work.[/QUOTE]
Russia lost the most soldiers in WWI. Does this mean that they did most of the work? No.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30212045]Russia lost the most soldiers in WWI. Does this mean that they did most of the work? No.[/QUOTE]
Well they did play a major role.
[editline]3rd June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30210753]Woah. Go Canada!
[editline]3rd June 2011[/editline]
You think losing the most soldiers means anything?
And you saying "do a lot of the work" too...[/QUOTE]
Kandahar is one of the worst places for Taliban infestations and we mostly keep it secure so I think thats pretty good.
Australia should ban Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30217491]Well they did play a major role.[/QUOTE]
Certainly, and they contributed the most troops overall. However, they did not do most of the work as you are saying the Canadians are in Afghanistan. Most of the deaths as well as most of the troops in Afghanistan are American. If the areas where they Americans are stationed are as safe as you claim, this should not be the case. 1,507 American soldiers have died there, as opposed to the 154 Canadian deaths in Afghanistan.
Source for these numbers: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan[/URL]
[editline]3rd June 2011[/editline]
In case this point is still not convincing enough:
[quote][img]http://www.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/world/10/afghan_troops/img/afghan_troops_976.gif[/img][/quote]
Here on this map you can see the various levels of security risk in each area. Do note that NATO sectors also include US troops not directly involved in Operation Enduring Freedom. Kandahar Province is indeed an area of high risk, but so is a lot of the East.
[quote][img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IsUx-7-9NYg/TXdl20UOx3I/AAAAAAAABGg/ix80igDbGX8/s1600/ISAFPlacematMarch11.jpg[/img][/quote]
Here are the various troop placements by nation. As you can see, the US plays a large role not only in dangerous areas in the East, but in Kandahar Province as well.
Here's another map of the same thing:
[quote][img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44941000/gif/_44941970_afghan_troops_466_coloured.gif[/img][/quote]
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30217491]Kandahar is one of the worst places for Taliban infestations and we mostly keep it secure so I think thats pretty good.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and no NATO nation has been successful in keeping South Afghanistan "secure". You're very lost on the situation.
I should also note that of the ~35,000 NATO troops in Kandahar, a good majority of them are American. There simply aren't enough troops from Canada or any similar nation overall to have it be otherwise, and as you can see in the second map, Kandahar is a joint Canadian-US area.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30217599]snip
[/QUOTE]
I know that america does most of the work.
[editline]3rd June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30218047]Yes, and no NATO nation has been successful in keeping South Afghanistan "secure". You're very lost on the situation.[/QUOTE]
Your very lost, Southern Afghanistan has never been more secure.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30224114]I know that america does most of the work.[/quote]
"In reality the order of work is: Canada, UK, and US"
Sure didn't sound like you knew.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30224114]Your very lost, Southern Afghanistan has never been more secure.[/QUOTE]
Yes, thanks to the Americans. There are 35,000 NATO troops in the South, primarily in Kandahar, and Kandahar is a joint Canadian-American sector. Canada has around ~2,750 [B]total[/B] troops in Afghanistan. Now, this can only mean that most of the other troops in this group of 35,000 are American. Canada is not doing the most work in [I]any province[/I]. If southern Afghanistan is as secure as you insist, it is because of the American effort if it is because of any one nation. However, I would say it is the result of a joint effort led by the Americans, working with the Canadians.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
