The death toll is now 44!
2006-11-28 01:48:16 · 9 answers · asked by michelle_greene_ragio 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes.
We have a commitment until at least 2009 to be out there, and we, the Canadian Forces, intend to see this through.
We first went to assist in toppling the Taliban regime. But on our second series of deployments, we went over to pacify the country so that the rule of law can be established.
Save for a very small portion of the country, there is only the law of the gun in place. We are there to make sure that the rule of law, the authority of the government in Kabul, is established. There are millions of Afghans who live in the Middle-Ages, always fearing for their lives, with uncertain water and doubtful food, being all but enslaved by warlords and opium barons.
We went over there to rebuild Afghanistan, to bring them into the modern days.
Yes, we first went in with te Americans, but in the south, around Kandahar, it's primarily us, the Brits and the Dutch who are fighting under NATO's authority, not the Americans'. We are honouring our commitments to larger organizations.
As for the death toll, do not believe for one second that I do not mourn their losses. I might have never met any of our dead, but they are one of ours. They are fellow Canadian soldiers who have given their lives in the line of duty.
2006-11-28 02:27:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Troups", like traveling minstrels? Troupes would certainly be good for moral, kinda like the USO. If you can get Shania Twain over there, that would be great!
If you're talking about TROOPS, though, yes, every country in the world is now affected by terrorism, and, if they believe that's what this fight is all about, and they stand to benefit from an improved situation in that region, then they should bear some of the responsibility in getting what needs done, done.
It's a small world, after all.
2006-11-28 10:14:46 · answer #2 · answered by happy heathen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Canada is a member of NATO. NATO began to relieve the US of much of the duty in Afghanistan for over a year. The Afghanistan conflict fits the accepted criteria for NATO involvement, that of a foreign power attempting to occupy the territory of a NATO member.
The Taliban is a foreign power as is al Qaeda, therefore NATO, including Canada has a responsibility and obligation to lend it's troops as part of NATO forces.
2006-11-28 10:01:57 · answer #3 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Now who made the war in Iraq? Then no other country needs to have troops there! Iraq is not a global issue, as a matter of fact I see it will break up into parts acccording to religion,Iraq is an old world site of ancient astronauts.
2006-11-28 09:53:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes i think so, but i also agree with our (US) troops being over there, and most ppl dont. and 44 is actualy a pretty low number for how long they have been over there.
2006-11-28 09:59:05 · answer #5 · answered by yfz450chuck 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They have been a great help in the war and should remain...to leave now would mean that the sacrifices of those who died were made in vain.
2006-11-28 09:52:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, but I do think they should have troops in Afghanistan.
2006-11-28 09:53:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because their not getting any support from enough countries.
2006-11-28 09:52:17 · answer #8 · answered by Mojo Seeker Of Knowlege 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. We should have our troops joining the Afghani troops to defeat the Amerikkkans.
2006-11-28 09:52:31 · answer #9 · answered by AJ F 3 · 0⤊ 6⤋