[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30226290]"In reality the order of work is: Canada, UK, and US"
Sure didn't sound like you knew.
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.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I meant as in Right to left.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30229433]Yeah I meant as in Right to left.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know that you read English differently in Canada.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30224114]Your very lost, Southern Afghanistan has never been more secure.[/QUOTE]
hahahahaha.
you're funny
[editline]4th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30229433]Yeah I meant as in Right to left.[/QUOTE]
really? just admit defeat. you've been wrong the whole time essentially.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30230619]hahahahaha.
you're funny
[editline]4th June 2011[/editline]
really? just admit defeat. you've been wrong the whole time essentially.[/QUOTE]
Alright so your saying that it was better to walk around in 2007 there then in 2011?
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30240916]Alright so your saying that it was better to walk around in 2007 there then in 2011?[/QUOTE]
In 2007, yep. 2001, nope.
But even then, you're twisting words from their original meaning.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30251636]In 2007, yep. 2001, nope.
But even then, you're twisting words from their original meaning.[/QUOTE]
No the south has steadily been improving since Canadians, Americans and British were deployed there. Also there is a reason the Germans and French said there troops can't be deployed to the south.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30252389]No the south has steadily been improving since Canadians, Americans and British were deployed there.[/QUOTE]
You must be blind. Or mustn't read the news. Plus, what I was referring to is the major Taliban uptake during 2007. It was more unsafe than at the start of the war. Plus the situation is not good or any "better" now.
What's worse though is you keep mentioning Canada, when there are countries such as Denmark, Netherlands, England and America who actually do more work than the Canadians. Please. Please! Get it out of your head. The effort of the Canadians in terms of actually helping the people of Southern Afghanistan is almost negligible.
You've got countries such as Georgia, Netherlands and Denmark along with countries such as New Zealand actually helping to reconstruct the area, which is much more helpful than what the Canadians have been tasked to do.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30252389]Also there is a reason the Germans and French said there troops can't be deployed to the south.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, and what's that?
[editline]5th June 2011[/editline]
incoming ignorant response proclaiming that Canada actually is most helpful nation in planet.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30252713]You must be blind. Or mustn't read the news. Plus, what I was referring to is the major Taliban uptake during 2007. It was more unsafe than at the start of the war. Plus the situation is not good or any "better" now.
What's worse though is you keep mentioning Canada, when there are countries such as Denmark, Netherlands, England and America who actually do more work than the Canadians. Please. Please! Get it out of your head. The effort of the Canadians in terms of actually helping the people of Southern Afghanistan is almost negligible.
You've got countries such as Georgia, Netherlands and Denmark along with countries such as New Zealand actually helping to reconstruct the area, which is much more helpful than what the Canadians have been tasked to do.
Oh yeah, and what's that?
[editline]5th June 2011[/editline]
incoming ignorant response proclaiming that Canada actually is most helpful nation in planet.[/QUOTE]
Nope you see your ignorant, because your informed about the actual situation in Afghanistan. So your saying that what the Canadians are doing is negligible, I almost pretty sure Canada one of the only counties to deploy tanks and step up combat instead of hiding in the north.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30259248]Nope you see your ignorant[/QUOTE]
Good rebuttal, I can see that this post is going to go well.. Let's read on.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30259248]because your informed about the actual situation in Afghanistan[/quote]
Yeah I know.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30259248]So your saying that what the Canadians are doing is negligible, I almost pretty sure Canada one of the only counties to deploy tanks and step up combat instead of hiding in the north.[/QUOTE]
LOL You know why Canadians are the only ones (excluding the US which have a tiny tank platoon located in Afghanistan) to deploy tanks?
Scare tactics. The enemy doesn't have armour, nor is the terrain suitable for armour, especially up north.
I have no idea what step up combat is.
What is resentful is the way you speak condescendingly to the efforts of other countries and incorrectly assert Canada's importance in the area. You're clueless. If Canada was not in the area, the province in which Canada works would not be any worse or better off, as the majority of rebuilding is done by the US in that province anyway.
At this point, I'm going to assume that any reply to this is you just trolling me.
Plus, I also assume you're French Canadian since your previous post made almost zero sense to me.
Actually you're kind of reaching now just to win this argument.
Canada has provided a lot of effort combat wise, reconstruction in the area would be quite a bit harder without combat operations performed by Canada. I don't agree with yaika's fanciful idea of the work order, but now you are downplaying Canada's involvement.
[editline]5th June 2011[/editline]
As far as fighting goes, he is right, Canada has seen and pushed more vicious fighting than the french or Italians have seen since they first got in country. The Italians don't really have a big role in the war TBH, a few years back their SF was pretty active but not so much anymore.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30259248]step up combat instead of hiding in the north.[/QUOTE]
Again, you insist this, but you should know it's not true. You can see quite clearly that not only are the majority of the NATO forces in the south are American, but also in the dangerous areas of the East and in the more secure areas of the North. Literally the US has more soldiers in Afghanistan than every other NATO nation [B]combined.[/B]
[editline]5th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30259815]As far as fighting goes, he is right, Canada has seen and pushed more vicious fighting than the french or Italians have seen since they first got in country. The Italians don't really have a big role in the war TBH, a few years back their SF was pretty active but not so much anymore.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe we're arguing that Canada's doing any less than nations like France or Italy, merely that Canada isn't doing most of the work in the south, as he initially suggested.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30259815]Canada has provided a lot of effort combat wise, reconstruction in the area would be quite a bit harder without combat operations performed by Canada. I don't agree with yaika's fanciful idea of the work order, but now you are downplaying Canada's involvement.[/quote]
I don't mean to downplay the role Canada plays in attempting to help Afghanistan, but I was merely replying to yaik9a's statement that Canada is doing the most work. Regardless, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Denmark's delegation in Afghanistan is very minimal only only makes up a tiny fraction of the whole coalition forces in Afghanistan. Probably only a couple of percent.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30259815]As far as fighting goes, he is right, Canada has seen and pushed more vicious fighting than the french or Italians have seen since they first got in country. The Italians don't really have a big role in the war TBH, a few years back their SF was pretty active but not so much anymore.[/QUOTE]
As for fighting - it comes with the turf. Canada was 'unluckily' delegated a southern province along with Denmark, Australia and Georgia, and so combat operations are going to be fierce due to the wealth / and vast number of Taliban in the area.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30259659]Good rebuttal, I can see that this post is going to go well.. Let's read on.
Yeah I know.
LOL You know why Canadians are the only ones (excluding the US which have a tiny tank platoon located in Afghanistan) to deploy tanks?
Scare tactics. The enemy doesn't have armour, nor is the terrain suitable for armour, especially up north.
I have no idea what step up combat is.
What is resentful is the way you speak condescendingly to the efforts of other countries and incorrectly assert Canada's importance in the area. You're clueless. If Canada was not in the area, the province in which Canada works would not be any worse or better off, as the majority of rebuilding is done by the US in that province anyway.
At this point, I'm going to assume that any reply to this is you just trolling me.
Plus, I also assume you're French Canadian since your previous post made almost zero sense to me.[/QUOTE]
Also 1, I'm being sarcastic and 2 you have no actual idea of what its like on the ground there
and two if the north is so dangerous why are the NATO up there not allowed to be deployed in the south.
[editline]5th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30259848]Again, you insist this, but you should know it's not true. You can see quite clearly that not only are the majority of the NATO forces in the south are American, but also in the dangerous areas of the East and in the more secure areas of the North. Literally the US has more soldiers in Afghanistan than every other NATO nation [B]combined.[/B]
[editline]5th June 2011[/editline]
I don't believe we're arguing that Canada's doing any less than nations like France or Italy, merely that Canada isn't doing most of the work in the south, as he initially suggested.[/QUOTE]
I don't mean most of the work because that would be be america because they are pretty much the only ones to use there Air force and shove a lot of force around. I'm really just trying to make the point the NATO in the north is not even close to doing what they are doing in the south.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Neotaliban_insurgency_2002-2006_en.png[/img] This may clear thing up. So will this [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_Afghanistan_War[/url]
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30261078]Also 1, I'm being sarcastic and 2 you have no actual idea of what its like on the ground there
and two if the north is so dangerous why are the NATO up there not allowed to be deployed in the south.[/quote]
By being sarcastic, you did not help your point. It only detracts from whatever you had as a point. As for not having any idea what it's like on the ground - you're right, but nor do you. I do know someone that has been deployed there though. What it's like on the ground isn't really pertinent to the topic.
As for why the countries operating in the North are not allowed down South, well that's because they're operating in the North as delegated by the heads of the Coalition, not because they're "not allowed down south". Where do you get this crap from?
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30261078][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Neotaliban_insurgency_2002-2006_en.png[/img] This may clear thing up.[/quote]
It certaintly did not. Infact it's absolutely meaningless to your point, as no one is dismissing how dangerous the south is.
[QUOTE=yaik9a;30261078]So will this [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_Afghanistan_War[/url][/QUOTE]
[i]Canada did not have a significant role in the first few months of the invasion of Afghanistan that began on October 7, 2001[/i]
Well that's just the start I guess.
[i]Canada took on a larger role starting in 2006 after the Canadian troops were redeployed to Kandahar province. Roughly 2,500-2,830 Canadian Forces (CF) personnel are currently deployed in Afghanistan as part of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).[/i]
That's 2% of the currently deployed 135,000 troops as part of the ISAF coalition. Relatively small.
In order of Canada doing the most work, well, they obviously can't with such a small troop base.
It also means that the amount of combat that the Canadian troops encounter is also relatively small compared to the British and Americans who operate in the same province!
No one is saying that the Canadians are bad. No one is saying that the Canadians aren't doing a good job. No one is saying that the Canadians aren't involved in combat. What is being said however is that the role of the Canadians is relatively small in comparison to other countries in Afghanistan due to their size.
I expect a reply with the same rehashed points in the next hour or so.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30261523][i]Canada took on a larger role starting in 2006 after the Canadian troops were redeployed to Kandahar province. Roughly 2,500-2,830 Canadian Forces (CF) personnel are currently deployed in Afghanistan as part of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).[/i]
That's 2% of the currently deployed 135,000 troops as part of the ISAF coalition. Relatively small.
In order of Canada doing the most work, well, they obviously can't with such a small troop base.
It also means that the amount of combat that the Canadian troops encounter is also relatively small compared to the British and Americans who operate in the same province!
No one is saying that the Canadians are bad. No one is saying that the Canadians aren't doing a good job. No one is saying that the Canadians aren't involved in combat. What is being said however is that the role of the Canadians is relatively small in comparison to other countries in Afghanistan due to their size.
I expect a reply with the same rehashed points in the next hour or so.[/QUOTE]
This is as simple an answer as we need.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;30261523]By being sarcastic, you did not help your point. It only detracts from whatever you had as a point. As for not having any idea what it's like on the ground - you're right, but nor do you. I do know someone that has been deployed there though. What it's like on the ground isn't really pertinent to the topic.
As for why the countries operating in the North are not allowed down South, well that's because they're operating in the North as delegated by the heads of the Coalition, not because they're "not allowed down south". Where do you get this crap from?
It certaintly did not. Infact it's absolutely meaningless to your point, as no one is dismissing how dangerous the south is.
[i]Canada did not have a significant role in the first few months of the invasion of Afghanistan that began on October 7, 2001[/i]
Well that's just the start I guess.
[i]Canada took on a larger role starting in 2006 after the Canadian troops were redeployed to Kandahar province. Roughly 2,500-2,830 Canadian Forces (CF) personnel are currently deployed in Afghanistan as part of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).[/i]
That's 2% of the currently deployed 135,000 troops as part of the ISAF coalition. Relatively small.
In order of Canada doing the most work, well, they obviously can't with such a small troop base.
It also means that the amount of combat that the Canadian troops encounter is also relatively small compared to the British and Americans who operate in the same province!
No one is saying that the Canadians are bad. No one is saying that the Canadians aren't doing a good job. No one is saying that the Canadians aren't involved in combat. What is being said however is that the role of the Canadians is relatively small in comparison to other countries in Afghanistan due to their size.
I expect a reply with the same rehashed points in the next hour or so.[/QUOTE]
Okay so your saying saying that the NATO in the north is just assigned there and not just there because of the home country wishes. Every NATO Country is allowed to put restrictions on how there soldiers are used, the nations in the north have these restrictions so there soldiers don't end up deployed in the south where they are needed.
Yes, every country was delegated an area, but nothing is stopping a country from adding restrictions...
Geez, come on dude.
Oh man, you people have derailed this thread so much.
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;30275961]Oh man, you people have derailed this thread so much.[/QUOTE]
welcome to being on an internet forum
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
