I would guess that at least 159 families would disagree
I’ve heard this sentiment before from Americans. Apparently because more Canadians didn’t die, our military’s contribution in Afghanistan don’t mean anything.
Thanks dude, we’ll be sure to jump at the next opportunity to stand alongside you.
Before this becomes an even more annoying topic - Losses in Afghanistan
US - 2271
Britain - 453
Canada - 158
France - 88
Germany - 57
Italy - 53
Poland - 44
Other - 283
Lots of countries spent blood and money on Afghanistan. It’s a shame we couldn’t keep the focus there.
And now we have the Selfie Prince sending our boys over to join NATO in Eastern Europe, hoping they’ll stand up to Putin’s boys.
Wasn’t Trudeau so adamantly opposed to Canadian forces fighting ISIS? And now he wants to take on the Russian Bear?
Is he simply obeying Obama?
Yes, that’s exactly what he’s doing. Since Blair is gone the American lapdog will be played by Trudeau. :rolleyes:
Or it could be tied into trade agreements with Ukraine. Requests for additional forces from Poland to reassure both new NATO members and Russia that the alliance is willing to put resources in place to deter aggression.
Protecting a sovereign, democratic ally from an invader is worth of derision from bb49. Got it.
Do you not remember Mr Harper loudly and often proclaiming Canada would stand with Ukraine?
So the current PM standing by our promise enrages you ?
And mostly because he takes selfies? In the age of selfies? Or is it because he’s popular? I can’t tell.
It’s a pretty silly position regardless, in my opinion.
There is apparently some confusion here.
bb49 is likely referring not to Ukraine, but to Canada sending combat troops to Latvia. Yes, Trudea and Harper both have refused to recognize the annexation of Crimea and have been highly critical of Russia’s intervention in Ukraine’s affairs, but that is a separate issue.
Latvia is a NATO ally. They are a small, vulnerable nation bordering an aggressive, powerful nation that is unfriendly to them, to us, and to our allies. We have a moral obligation to assist in their defense.
Likely my fault. I brought up the recent Canada/Ukraine free trade agreement. I was trying to argue that Canadian strategic interests in Eastern Europe (the free trade agreement, NATO, Russian destabilization on the periphery and EU stability) far outweigh shifting from an air combat to a local training in Syria.
There is no confusion on my part, other than what Trudeau’s reason is. Obeying Obama? Harper took a lot of flack bowing to American presidents. And now we have Justin.
And regardless of whether it’s Latvia or Ukraine, leave it to the Europeans to resolve. Or our moral obligation will result in many more body bags being needed in eastern Europe than we used in Afghanistan.,
If you look back on history, the Russians don’t count their dead. Their goal is to win at all costs. The dead be damned.
What commands is he obeying?
So you are proposing we abandon NATO? Let’s make it clear; you can’t get the benefits of being in the club if you don’t pay the dues. Think about the possible downsides of that.
Well, no, that is indisputably untrue.
bb49, that must be why Russia stayed in Afghanistan from the 80s onward? To this day they are pouring untold numbers of troops to defeat the mujaheddin. No, wait…
Russians lost 35,000 in Afghanistan and gave up because it was too far away and winning wasn’t absolute.
Russians lost over 11 million in WW2, because it was in their front yard.
How many do you think they are prepared to lose in eastern Europe if NATO pushes them too far? And how many Canadians will they put in body bags protecting their front yard?
How many Canadians are you prepared to sacrifice for America/NATO?
And no, I don’t want to to wait…to find out.
I’m a little lost. From an aggression perspective along currently established boundaries which is more recent? NATO or Russian?
Afghanistan immediately bordered the Soviet Union.
All you did was pick and chose the easy answers. How about:
***How many Canadians are you prepared to sacrifice for America/NATO?
Well, it would appear someone has to.
It depends on the nature of the threat.
<snip>If you look back on history, the Russians don’t count their dead. Their goal is to win at all costs. The dead be damned. <snip>
This is your quote. I am simply pointing out that the Russians do not in fact rush headlong into a conflict and throw bodies at it until it is won. Even they realized after ten years that some battle aren’t worth the cost, as you point out in contradiction to your earlier statement.
Since NATO and the Soviets played that game for almost 40 years, I suspect that even the new Russia isn’t going to seriously contemplate an attack on Europe.
You’re assuming that NATO would lead an incursion into Russia itself which isn’t germane. Ukraine, Latvia and other former holdings of the Iron Curtain are sovereign nations in their own right, which Russia is threatening to annex once again. That is not the same thing as invading Russia.
Since I don’t wield that particular executive power I can only answer, one. Which I was prepared to do for twenty years in the Air Force.
Are you talking about a new initiative to station Canadian troops in Latvia, or is this a reference to the normal Canadian participation in the normal annual NATO training exercises, one of which was held in Latvia last year with a small number of Canadians among the 1,700 troops taking part?