Wut.

Our troops rock

OlafTheBent: Our troops rock

Seconded. I wish the work that goes on at the PRT in Kandahar City got as much press as the ramp ceremonies.

I think it's because American troops need more advice on how to be polite while killing.

40below: Seconded. I wish the work that goes on at the PRT in Kandahar City got as much press as the ramp ceremonies.

Agreed. A bunch of old comrades from my Regiment are heading over soon for 3rd and 4th tours, and they say the differences they see everytime they go back are incredible.

strathcona: A bunch of old comrades from my Regiment are heading over soon for 3rd and 4th tours, and they say the differences they see everytime they go back are incredible

Heard the same thing. This is my favourite pic from over there - Polite Canadian Door Gunner:

strathcona: Agreed. A bunch of old comrades from my Regiment are heading over soon for 3rd and 4th tours, and they say the differences they see everytime they go back are incredible.

Hopefully, there aren't as many tank-catching ditches.....

Bob_Laublaw: Hopefully, there aren't as many tank-catching ditches.....

Hehe. I was on parade with the Old Guard for Moreuil Wood a few weeks ago and the reviewing officer (a former CO) said something similar ...

I haven't RTFA (yet), but success in what friggin' area? Are there long-term benefits to our being in Afghanistan that I don't know of? It seems like when we leave, it'll turn back into a dog's dinner again where the strong rule over the weak by intimidation and violence...the only benefit I see (if you can call it that) is the combat experience our soldiers will bring home, to pass on to other soldiers - not something that can be undervalued surely, but the Afghanis aren't going to be too thrilled when coalition forces pack up and leave.

gopher321: Are there long-term benefits to our being in Afghanistan that I don't know of?

Well, there have been some incredible improvements in both physical and administrative infrastructure/public services. We'll leave Afghanistan better than we found it.

Then, it will all likely crumble again from corruption and tribal hostility. But at least the opium trade will once again thrive, so we'll have that going for us.

Bob_Laublaw: Then, it will all likely crumble again from corruption and tribal hostility. But at least the opium trade will once again thrive, so we'll have that going for us.

Thank you Sister Mary Sunshine... lol (you're probably correct... mores the pity)

One day, I hope that the Highway of Heroes as seen it's last hearse though...

OlafTheBent: Thank you Sister Mary Sunshine... lol (you're probably correct... mores the pity)

Honestly, I dislike my own cynicism here. This particular culture is so bloody entrenched in middle-ages thinking that I don't think it possible to impose a contemporary democracy from the outside in the foreseeable future.

Bob_Laublaw: Honestly, I dislike my own cynicism here. This particular culture is so bloody entrenched in middle-ages thinking that I don't think it possible to impose a contemporary democracy from the outside in the foreseeable future.

Agreed... and that opinion is based on the numerous unsuccessful attempts over the past few hundred years by various nations.

It's like a horse that just can't be ridden.

Judicious application of military force? That sounds like pinko thinking to me.

OlafTheBent: It's like a horse that just can't be ridden.

The nipple that cannot be caressed.... the beer that cannot be opened....

I will make fun of the way Canadians talk, their recording artists, their food, their government, and even William F'in Shatner. But their troops are entitled to free beer in any bar in which they find me.

Bob_Laublaw: The nipple that cannot be caressed.... the beer that cannot be opened....

That's HAWT

I'm always up for some Canadian jingoism, but TFA is absolute crap.

My question: What about those women? Saudi Arabian women likely wouldn't dream of marching through the streets in defence of their rights. Nor would Kuwaiti women, I would bet. Nor would Sudanese women. These Afghan women showed incredible courage and hope. We promised that we would help them. They believed us. Now we should abandon them?

Balls. There are feminists everywhere, and they aren't just women, either.

Saudi women have had protests, I think I recall a driving protest in the early 90s. Kuwaiti feminists have regularly demonstrated for their rights for decades. Sudanese women are in a totally different cultural and historical context. I don't think you can even generalize how "Sudanese women" would act without considering whether they are Northern or Southern, for example. If you can ever generalize how "women" would act at all without considering things like social class and education.

There are so many layers of paternalistic bullshiat in that one paragraph. We didn't go to Afghanistan on a military mission solely to improve women's lives. It has become a convenient justification for remaining there, and I desire the improvement of conditions for women in Afghanistan, but we went to Afghanistan to deal with a security risk and have not made significant progress in women's rights. If we were actually interested in improving women's lives via military force, we would have greatly strengthened the UN force in Eastern Congo long ago, for example. I absolutely favour humanitarian interventions, but this didn't start as one, and the limited progress that has been made would be considered a failure in a solely humanitarian mission - which this is obviously not. Social development in Afghanistan will take decades, and a shift in attitudes about the place of women in society will need to originate from the Afghan people. We can't do it simply by having boots on the ground.

Further, attempting a feminist justification for remaining in Afghanistan by incorrectly portraying other nations' women are subjugated, weak, and unable to even dream of popular protest or other actions geared at securing their rights, is what I'd call Failminist. Remaining in a country when there's a massive lack of capacity for human development initiatives, and justifying it with this narrative about protecting the vulnerable women of Afghanistan, presumably via human development? Failminist and foreignpolicyfail.

I've got to apologize for my past broad assertions that many American commentators are buffoons when it comes to international perspectives, because apparently, Canadians have the same issue. How'd this one even make it past the editor's desk?

OlafTheBent: That's HAWT

I'll be in my bunk.

strathcona: I'll be in my bunk.

My nephew (remember him?) is graduating, then off to Officer training... then he wants to go to the sandbox.

At least he's graduating.

OlafTheBent: My nephew (remember him?) is graduating, then off to Officer training... then he wants to go to the sandbox.

What MOC does he want?

OlafTheBent: At least he's graduating.

Always a good thing.

strathcona: What MOC does he want?

Not sure... I'll ask him and send you a note

OlafTheBent: Not sure... I'll ask him and send you a note

Cool. I got a new 80mm achromatic refractor on the way too. With a gps equipped EQ goto mount.

bobbette: I'm always up for some Canadian jingoism, but TFA is absolute crap.

My question: What about those women? Saudi Arabian women likely wouldn't dream of marching through the streets in defence of their rights. Nor would Kuwaiti women, I would bet. Nor would Sudanese women. These Afghan women showed incredible courage and hope. We promised that we would help them. They believed us. Now we should abandon them?

Balls. There are feminists everywhere, and they aren't just women, either.

Saudi women have had protests, I think I recall a driving protest in the early 90s. Kuwaiti feminists have regularly demonstrated for their rights for decades. Sudanese women are in a totally different cultural and historical context. I don't think you can even generalize how "Sudanese women" would act without considering whether they are Northern or Southern, for example. If you can ever generalize how "women" would act at all without considering things like social class and education.

There are so many layers of paternalistic bullshiat in that one paragraph. We didn't go to Afghanistan on a military mission solely to improve women's lives. It has become a convenient justification for remaining there, and I desire the improvement of conditions for women in Afghanistan, but we went to Afghanistan to deal with a security risk and have not made significant progress in women's rights. If we were actually interested in improving women's lives via military force, we would have greatly strengthened the UN force in Eastern Congo long ago, for example. I absolutely favour humanitarian interventions, but this didn't start as one, and the limited progress that has been made would be considered a failure in a solely humanitarian mission - which this is obviously not. Social development in Afghanistan will take decades, and a shift in attitudes about the place of women in society will need to originate from the Afghan people. We can't do it simply by having boots on the ground.

Further, attempting a feminist justification for remaining in Afghanistan by incorrectly portraying other nations' women are subjugated, weak, and unable to even dream of popular protest or other actions geared at securing their rights, is what I'd call Failminist. Remaining in a country when there's a massive lack of capacity for human development initiatives, and justifying it with this narrative about protecting the vulnerable women of Afghanistan, presumably via human development? Failminist and foreignpolicyfail.

I've got to apologize for my past broad assertions that many American commentators are buffoons when it comes to international perspectives, because apparently, Canadians have the same issue. How'd this one even make it past the editor's desk?

Interesting. But if Canada is doing something uniquely beneficial that might serve as a model, isn't the question really whether the benefits of continuing outweigh the costs regardless of what the original mission was?

filth: Interesting. But if Canada is doing something uniquely beneficial that might serve as a model, isn't the question really whether the benefits of continuing outweigh the costs regardless of what the original mission was?

Although bobbette's made a good point, I tried to counter with a similar idea, but couldn't do it as succinctly as you.

Bob_Laublaw: filth: Interesting. But if Canada is doing something uniquely beneficial that might serve as a model, isn't the question really whether the benefits of continuing outweigh the costs regardless of what the original mission was?

Although bobbette's made a good point, I tried to counter with a similar idea, but couldn't do it as succinctly as you.

Well, I truly do not know the answer to that question, and I wouldn't presume to tell Canada how to answer it.

I'm happy to see there's progress in Afghanistan. I really am.

The soldiers are doing the Canadian nation proud.

I accidentally the White House in 1813. Is this dangerous?

/Fire it up!

Canada has an army?

/kidding...thank you, boys!

Bob_Laublaw: Honestly, I dislike my own cynicism here. This particular culture is so bloody entrenched in middle-ages thinking that I don't think it possible to impose a contemporary democracy from the outside in the foreseeable future.

20th century Afghan history disagrees with you.

filth [TotalFark] 2009-04-24 02:35:57 PM
"I will make fun of the way Canadians talk, their recording artists, their food, their government, and even William F'in Shatner. But their troops are entitled to free beer in any bar in which they find me."

Just don't call us "mashed potatoes without the gravy". That phrase gets our jambusters all steamed up.

Dead or Canadian

whereisian: 20th century Afghan history disagrees with you.

So what they're saying is that the Canadian troops have the map?

whereisian: 20th century Afghan history disagrees with you.

Unfortunately, 21st century Afghan history to date doesn't.

Tenebreux: I accidentally the White House in 1813. Is this dangerous?

Well, that all depends on the verb.

Remember that time they burned down the White House?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.....

IXI Jim IXI: So what they're saying is that the Canadian troops have the map?



Pffft we got the GPS


/military GPS is badness

Phil Herup: Pffft we got the GPS


/military GPS is badness

I sure hope it's better than TomTom. I can't tell you how many times the voice of John Cleese has ended up getting me lost.

crab66: Remember that time they burned down the White House?

Pepperidge Farms remembers.....

The British?

I have so many mixed feelings about the Afghan mission that I don't like taking a strong position on the stay or leave side.

Yes, we do good. Yes, we do wrong. It's hard to determine which one we are doing more of. Like many Canadians, I would like to see us performing in our traditional peacekeeping capacity where possible. It's not clear is shiat has settled down enough (and by many accounts it hasn't) for us to actually do that.

Afghanistan was generally improving before it became a pawn in the cold war. I'd like to see Canadians help Afghans return to the promising future they once had.

IXI Jim IXI: I sure hope it's better than TomTom. I can't tell you how many times the voice of John Cleese has ended up getting me lost.


It only works if you are walking. You know, kind of silly.

Canada is definitely punching above their weight in Afghanistan. They're doing an awesome job.

whereisian: II'd like to see Canadians help Afghans return to the promising future they once had.

2 no..... 3... yes 3 goats.

IXI Jim IXI: I sure hope it's better than TomTom. I can't tell you how many times the voice of John Cleese has ended up getting me lost.

Oh wow...that one's going in the profile.

whereisian: I would like to see us performing in our traditional peacekeeping capacity where possible.

Kicking ass in foreign wars is the canadian tradition. Peacekeeping is what the canadian army did when they had nothing else to do.

Phil Herup: whereisian: II'd like to see Canadians help Afghans return to the promising future they once had.

2 no..... 3... yes 3 goats.

Two for food, one for wife.

Bob_Laublaw: whereisian: 20th century Afghan history disagrees with you.

Unfortunately, 21st century Afghan history to date doesn't.

Well, nine years isn't much to judge by... and to anyone that argues that Afghanistan can't change because they've been primitive/theocratic/whatever for 'centuries', it might be worthwhile to take just a brief backward glance in history and think about what might have been.

yogaFLAME: *quizzical dog*

Afghanistan was an emerging democracy, punctuated by occasional political upheaval, but generally heading towards being a secular democracy in the early to mid 20th century. It wasn't until the communist party invited the Soviets to help out, and the US decided to start funding the other side, that shiat got really bad.

They had buildings, infrastructure and a parliament that was about as stable as Italy.


small gallery of Kabul - 60s vs 90s
wikipedia