2 more Canadian soldiers dead in afghanistan

[bob sacamano]

news just coming in.

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/index.html#

RIP

[CD]

Two Canadians dead, 3 injured in Afghanistan: military official

11 Apr, 6:54 PM

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Two Canadians have been killed and three injured in Afghanistan, a military official says in Kandahar.

Col. Mike Cessford, deputy commander of the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan, confirmed the casualties to reporters at the base in Kandahar.

He did not say where the soldiers are from.

But during a service in New Brunswick, Lt.-Col. Paul Kearney says the military unit involved in the latest attack is from Petawawa, Ont.

The news comes the same day bodies of six Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan last Sunday are to arrive in Trenton, Ont.

Earlier today, military officials reported 10 Afghan civilians were injured when a suicide car bomber targeted a Canadian military convoy west of Kandahar city.

But Canadian military spokesman Lt. John Nethercott said no soldiers were hurt.

The bomb damaged a Canadian Forces tanker truck.

[Dash-Ate]

This will continue forever, 2-10 killed per month.
Make a choice to end it now. You are either a part of the problem, or a part of solution.
We must never get used to this or ignore it.

More families shattered forever.

[Crazymax]

This will continue forever, 2-10 killed per month.

Who are you to make this assumption....

Max

[Crazymax]

My opinion 1000000%

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Comm ... 80675.html

If Canadians are going to be derailed from our mission in Afghanistan by the loss of 51 soldiers and one diplomat, we should never have sent them there in the first place.

Honouring the dead and respecting the grief of their families and comrades is one thing.

But using every death to argue the mission should be abandoned, as so many in Canada's chattering classes do, is obscene.

Yes, war is hell. Yes, talking is better than fighting. Yes, peacekeeping is honourable.

But sometimes talk fails. Sometimes, there's no peace to keep. Sometimes, a freedom-hating enemy must be defeated, if a freedom-loving nation like ours is to stand for anything meaningful in this world.



Nice talk won't stop the Taliban. Nice talk won't deter al-Qaida.

Nice talk won't prevent Afghanistan from falling back under the iron-fisted rule of dangerous religious fanatics who turned it into a training ground for terrorists, while forcing its civilian population to live under a reign of terror.

If opposing that, if trying to prevent that from happening again, isn't something Canada stands for, then we stand for nothing worthwhile.

And if we stand for nothing, if every soldier's death is enough to make us doubt why we fight, then let's bring our soldiers home from Kandahar, now.

Then we can become what too many Canadians want us to be -- an ineffective, self-righteous, boring scold, forever lecturing from the sidelines at enemies who will laugh at us and ignore us because, having taken our measure, they've found us wanting.

That wasn't the defeatist attitude of the Canadians who fought at Vimy Ridge, or the Somme, or Ypres, or Passchendaele, or Ortona, or Hill 70, or Juno Beach, or Dieppe, or Normandy, or in Hong Kong, or at the Battle of the Scheldt, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, or in the Italian campaign and Korea.

It's not the attitude of the 2,500 Canadians who have volunteered to serve us in Afghanistan today.

Each day, they risk their lives for us, asking only that we remain certain of why we sent them there in the first place. Surely, we owe them that.

By Lorrie Goldstein

EDIT: Second Quote added

While the prime minister was overseas marking the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge — the historic First World War battle that cost nearly 3,600 soldiers their lives but helped forge this country as a nation — Canada did not need six more dead soldiers to show us the horrors of war.

On the holiest weekend on the Christian calendar, Easter, Canada did not need six soldiers dying in what is now this country’s bloodiest day in Afghanistan to show us the meaning of sacrifice.

But there is no good time — no “proper” time — for soldiers to die in the line of duty. Not for them, not for their families, not for their comrades in arms, and not for their country.

Canadians don’t want soldiers to die. But we grimly accept that is the reality of their chosen profession. As do they.

And if it is any comfort to the many brave members of Canada’s Armed Forces, it’s that this country is no longer apathetic about its military.



From the terrorist acts of 9-11 to the friendly-fire deaths in Afghanistan in 2002 and the dozens of soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan since, this is now a nation that has by and large rallied around its troops and shown them enormous amounts of support.

Yes, there are Canadians who do not approve of the mission in Afghanistan.

And there are politicians who have and will continue to shamefully use Canada’s casualties as a reason to turn tail and run from Afghanistan.

But for the vast majority of Canadians, our hearts are saddened by the tragic news of the latest deaths, and we grieve along side the families of the fallen.

Canadians who understand the history of this land realize that this is a country with a proud and distinguished military history of fighting wars.

Our soldiers continue to serve — and die for — their country with dignity, pride and honour.

It’s never easy. Nor should it be. Each soldier death should be heart-wrenching for the nation, lest we begin to take our military for granted again.

Our prayers and sympathies to the families of the fallen. Canadians know that their sacrifices will not be in vain.

By MIKE JENKINSON

[oldenoughtoknowbetter]

Great perspectives Max.

Gods speed to family and friends of the fallen lads....

[mellow_pilot]

I agree with much of the articles, however, the use of hyperbole is astounding. I particularly like the term 'freedom-hating'. I'm sure if you ask a Taliban member if they hate freedom that you'd get a confused look. It is such a rediculous statment, it fits well into Harry Frankfurt's definition of bullshit. I would suggest that everyone here read his "On Bullshit", it's a rather interesting idea, and a good short read.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

[swede]

The continual media comparison between ww1 and 2 and the Afghanistan conflict is such horseshit as well. We need to get our guys out and contain any threat if and when and where it occurs - that does not mean their back yard, we have no business there whatsoever.

[Crazymax]

The continual media comparison between ww1 and 2 and the Afghanistan conflict is such horseshit as well. We need to get our guys out and contain any threat if and when and where it occurs - that does not mean their back yard, we have no business there whatsoever.

Let them get back there and build terrorist camps again so they can attack us with greater force... Bravo... What a bright idea...

What did WW2 had to do directly with us, Canadians? Were we directly threatened? I think that the Taliban are a much greater treat to us that the German were during WW2...

We do it to protect our values and our people.

Max

[mellow_pilot]

We do it to protect our values and our people.

Max

Our values? How are our values threatened? What are our values? That's just to vague to be meaningful.

[swede]

We do it to protect our values and our people.

Max

Our values? How are our values threatened? What are our values? That's just to vague to be meaningful.

Yeah its almost as vague as the term "war on terrorism"

[invertedattitude]

Hippies anger me

[LH]

(1) Canada is in Afghanistan honouring a NATO committment. That seems to have been forgotten and the blame for Canada being there is being dumped on the US somehow. Go back and read the date of NATO's involvement there, the UN's involvement there and when Canada committed herself. Shortly thereafter Jack layton was saying we should get out of NATO because of it, there was a big uproar as a result and he shut his mouth on that subject afterwards. That's the bottom line with Canada in Afghanistan.........don't like us there for some reason?..........then tell your MP's to get our assses the Hell out of NATO. Until then.......Canada signed a "mutual assistance" Treaty with NATO many eons ago and I and others expect Canada to honour that signed Treaty and commitment.

(2) The primary soldiers to ask are the ones who have been to Afghansitan. THESE are the people you ASK and LISTEN to.........because they KNOW in the first person. They are the "experts" on this subject and learned it the hard way. Shit rolls downhill and stops at the bottom, so ask those who have to deal with that shit at or near the bottom to make everyone higher than them look better. Also ask the opinions of all of the wives, girlfriends, parents and children of those soldiers that came back to Canada "the hard way". Lastly, remember all of this the next time you see soldiers carrying a casket onboard a waiting transport home to Canada because it's them paying the true "price", but they'll be the last that any of the "experts" at home ask about this subject because "we" at home know better than they do..

[mellow_pilot]

Nicely put.

Swede, just cause I ask the question doesn't mean I'm on the pull-out band wagon. A good spermicidal agent is far more effective than pulling out. So too is a bullet more effective than running away. One costs more, but it is more certain.

Re-reading my posts, I see that they may be taken as adversarial. I assure you all that they are not. I simply believe that it is entirely possible, and proper to raise such questions and have an open, honest discussion, free of hyperbole and meaningless colloquialisms.

Max, you are obviously intellegent and need not resort to canned phrases. I would like to hear your own thoughts. (although I think I understand your position)

The death of Canadian soldiers, while tradgic, is not a solid foundation for foregin policy, in and of itself. The cost of deploying military assets should be weighed when deciding whether to get involved in international conflicts, however, said costs are not the only factor. The assumption that this one factor should override all others makes maintaing a military force redundant, as it would never be deployed, for any reason. Surely even those opposed to the Afghanistan mission can understand this point. The Laytons and Dions would like to think that Canadians cannot, or will not understand the bigger picture, and focus on such narrow points in an attempt to garner political support. That said, the "support the troops" mantra of the Conservatives is no better. The yellow ribbon campaign, in my view is not the same as the rhetoric of the politicians. Support from the citizenry for soldiers is not predicated on support for the mission, nor should it be.

[grimey]

We need to get our guys out and contain any threat if and when and where it occurs - that does not mean their back yard, we have no business there whatsoever.

How do you propose to contain threats, swede, if not in their backyard? That's what containing threats is. If it ends up in our backyard, from theirs, it is, by definition, not contained.

[mcrit]

Well put grimey.

[swede]

I just wish someone could define the term "War on Terror" for me, maybe grimey the rhodes scholar from hog town could do it. It's about as ludicrous and disingenuous as saying we are having a "War on War". Don't be surprised if George Orwell (bush I mean - I really am doing Orwell a huge disservice here) starts using the term any day now. The term War on Terror takes on a new dimension of hypocricy considering that the U.S. government which coined it, practices torture at Gitmo, along with things like nice renditions of political prisoners (Arar) to terrorist countries et al for torture, with great gusto. What we are in is a battle between corporate fascism (eg., bush cheney regime) vs. what they term Islamofascism - pick your poison I say. Oh and here is one writers take on why we will be in Iraq, and Afghanistan, forever - or at least till the oil runs out:

Patriotic Iraqis celebrated the four year liberation of Baghdad over the weekend. Thousands of jubilant citizens commemorated the valiant, and continuous, US liberation of oil-rich Iraq by waving flags and honking horns.

"We wrap ourselves in the Iraq flag," said shopkeeper Mufti al Arabi, "to thank Allah we are alive to witness this glorious liberation."

The oil rich land, once ruled by a bloodthirsty despot who openly planned to sell oil in foreign currency, fell suddenly after the terrible dictator mentioned oil and euro in the same sentence.

"Had Saddam carried out his vile plan," said Federal Reserve spokeman, Jerome "Jerry" Goldman, "Our cartel of supplying paper US dollars to US citizens at a profit might have been threatened. Thankfully, Saddam was toppled when he was."

"Yes, Thankfully Saddam is gone," said US Army Major General Frank Abraham, speaking frankly. "You see; I'd like to retire with three stars. I've only got two stars now but if I stay here in the Green Zone for eight more months, I can retire with three and then become a highly-paid defense consultant."

By seeing the big picture, war proponents claim, we can understand WHY it is necessary to remain in Iraq forever. Or at least until the oil runs out in fifty or a hundred years.

Rosy Forecast?

"Things are coming along very nicely," agreed Devlin Cockerham, Halliburton Vice-President, surrounded by the din and dust of heavy equipment in downtown Baghdad. Standing beneath a pair of busy cranes in the Green Zone, Cockerham looked around and observed. "In another ten or twenty years, you won't recognize this place. You'll see a lot more permanent structures, maybe even some corporate headquarters here."

Foreman Dale Whitaker, of Houston, agreed. "We're standing at the hub of Oil City, USA. Sure it looks like a construction site now but just you wait! When we're done building here, all the oil traffic in the Middle east will be funneled and controlled from right here."

"It will be like the Vatican City, except bigger and better armed," added Republican Congressman (SC), Herbert Graham on a fact-finding junket that would take him to nearby Bangkok, Thailand. "But instead of one pope calling the shots, all the decisions will be made by the popes of petroleum."

US Analysts have long noted the overwhelming need for cheap oil supplies while propping up the US dollar, while simultaneously filling the pockets of special interests, while at the same time, exercising the US military in real time war scenarios. No place else in the world fits all those qualifications as does Iraq.

"If Iraq didn't exist, we'd have to invent it," said Exxon insider, Ebenezer Marley. "We live in amazing times, at the crossroads of opportunity and advantage. Most of the world's crude oil lies right here and since we Americans use most of the world's oil, we're in the right place at the right time. At least, I know I am."

Members at the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who spoke on record, agreed with Marley.

James Whitehurst, longtime member of CFR, said: "We had hoped for a capitulation of the Iraqi people before now, in order to fully open the spigots, but with a few more surges over the next decade or two, we should subjugate, I mean consolidate Iraq, into our sphere of influence."

Architect and site foreman Whitaker agreed. "By 2020, Iraq will resemble east Texas, and that's no hindsight, that's a promise."

Many members of CFR share the same level-headed optimism. "My portfolio is heavy with Iraq investments," Said Richard C. Foulwell. "Once we have divested the country of those few dead-enders living there, I expect trillions in rewards to the risk takers like ourselves."

"Dead-enders," a term long embraced by many council members, was often uttered by CFR favorites, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, to describe anyone not on board the CFR gravy train.

Like increasing members of the US military, patrolling oil-rich Iraq. Like Private First Class, Marcus Cranwell. PFC Cranwell wasn't always so uncertain, however. "But nowadays, nobody in my platoon is sure what are mission is here in Iraq."

PFC Cranwell then added, more than a little chagrined: " This is my third rotation here in Iraq, and maybe by the fourth or fifth, or even sixth tour of duty, I'll understand what I'm doing here."

Cranwell, like many in his platoon, were swayed by promises of government funds for college education. Most, if not all recruits like Cranwell, failed to see the big picture: how their presence in the oil-rich land bolsters the salient image of liberation and security back home in oil-poor America.

"All the Cranwells in America need to continue doing their small part forever," said CFR members Foulwell and Whitehurst, "While we do ours. That's what makes American so great; we all do our patriotic part."

Thankfully, the few naysayer like Cranwell fail to sway the optimism of most knowledgeable people back home in America. In Washington DC and New York City, the only two cities in America that really matter, the image of Iraq is that liberation, and hence occupation, will require centuries.

"Rome wasn't built in a day, " said Republican Senator Clancy McClain. "Rome needed centuries to subjugate their empire and we're no different than Rome. We're making good progress and I fully expect, by the end of the century we'll have fully liberated and peacefulized the peoples of Iraq."

Recently the Arizona senator toured the neighborhood nearest the Green Zone and came away impressed.

"I was impressed with the peacefulness of the marketplace," said McClain. "If you hadn't told me otherwise, I would have mistaken it for a flea market in downtown Phoenix."

Later McClain returned to the bustling Green Zone, accompanied by a convoy of fellow shoppers in Bradley Fighting Vehicles and bargain hunters in their heavily armed Blackhawk helicopters. Those interviewed agreed the downtown Baghdad marketplace was peaceful at all times, right up to the moment they left it.

"I got me five carpets for five dollars," said Republican Congressman, Conan Spense, from Indiana. "If that ain't progress I don't know what is."

However, reports later that day, since confirmed, claimed 22 bargain hunters were missing and presumed tortured and killed, abducted from the same marketplace. Skeptics interviewed in the Green Zone, however, claimed the incident was either an unfortunate coincidence, freak accident or liberal propaganda.

[swede]

We need to get our guys out and contain any threat if and when and where it occurs - that does not mean their back yard, we have no business there whatsoever.

How do you propose to contain threats, swede, if not in their backyard? That's what containing threats is. If it ends up in our backyard, from theirs, it is, by definition, not contained.

I'll tell you how you treat terrorist threats my friend. Maybe I could draw you a picture. Now, lets say terrorists are an infectious disease. If you use the analogy, terrorists are closer to a disease, than to an army of Krauts in WW2, would you not agree? Terrorists are extemely hard to track down and fight, that is the basic nature of terrorism, terrorists, not unlike infectious disease, do not play by any ground rules. They constantly mutate and change their position. To fight an infectious disease, you innoculate your body and combat the microbes when they infect or try to infect it. To combat terrorists you do the same. You beef up your countries security to the maximum, you strenthen your military at home, you clamp down on immigration and do background checks on everyone and every bit of shipping trying to enter the country. You do not go running off to where you think the infectious disease might be lurking, and attempt to vacuum it out of thin air. That my friend, is what our government and those fighting in Iraq are attempting to do. It will not work now and it will never work, that is part of the reason I so vehemently oppose our troops being in Afghanistan, when they should be in Canada, protecting our sovereignty, and innoculating us in a figurative sense against the threats of the infectious disease that terrorism represents. Apparently I am on my own on this one, and I could care less, because I refuse to ever be a lemming. The corporate owned media is rahrahing us to embrace and accept a war which will never be won, and their agenda ultimately has nothing to do with protecting our interests at home.

[Crazymax]

We need to get our guys out and contain any threat if and when and where it occurs - that does not mean their back yard, we have no business there whatsoever.

How do you propose to contain threats, swede, if not in their backyard? That's what containing threats is. If it ends up in our backyard, from theirs, it is, by definition, not contained.

I'll tell you how you treat terrorist threats my friend. Maybe I could draw you a picture. Now, lets say terrorists are an infectious disease. If you use the analogy, terrorists are closer to a disease, than to an army of Krauts in WW2, would you not agree? Terrorists are extemely hard to track down and fight, that is the basic nature of terrorism, terrorists, not unlike infectious disease, do not play by any ground rules. They constantly mutate and change their position. To fight an infectious disease, you innoculate your body and combat the microbes when they infect or try to infect it. To combat terrorists you do the same. You beef up your countries security to the maximum, you strenthen your military at home, you clamp down on immigration and do background checks on everyone and every bit of shipping trying to enter the country. You do not go running off to where you think the infectious disease might be lurking, and attempt to vacuum it out of thin air. That my friend, is what our government and those fighting in Iraq are attempting to do. It will not work now and it will never work, that is part of the reason I so vehemently oppose our troops being in Afghanistan, when they should be in Canada, protecting our sovereignty, and innoculating us in a figurative sense against the threats of the infectious disease that terrorism represents. Apparently I am on my own on this one, and I could care less, because I refuse to ever be a lemming. The corporate owned media is rahrahing us to embrace and accept a war which will never be won, and their agenda ultimately has nothing to do with protecting our interests at home.

What's the best way to cure an infectious desease? Kill it at the source.

In that case, the source is Afghanistan (where they train and operate from). This is the ONLY permanent way to prevent a decease from spreading.

Max

[RVR6000]

What's the best way to cure an infectious desease? Kill it at the source.

In that case, the source is Afghanistan (where they train and operate from). This is the ONLY permanent way to prevent a decease from spreading.

Max

The 9/11 hijackers were trained in the USA and educated in Europe.

I still support the war in Afganistan, we are fighting for a noble cause. If the troops leave the efforts made over the last 6 years would be wasted.



The 9/11 Hijackers

By Jonathan Yardley

Sunday, May 1, 2005;

The pilot of the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, Atta, came from "an ambitious, not overtly religious middle-class household in Egypt" and had led "a sheltered life" until he arrived in Hamburg, Germany, in 1992 to do graduate study in architecture. The pilot of the second plane, Marwan al-Shehhi, was an amiable, "laid-back" fellow from the United Arab Emirates who had joined the UAE army, "not the world's most effective fighting force but one of its most generous, paying [its scholarship] students monthly stipends of about $2,000," which may have been his primary reason for enlisting; this enabled him to go to Hamburg, though there is little evidence that he "had any serious scholarly ambitions."

Hani Hanjour, the Saudi pilot who flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, "had lived in the United States off and on throughout the 1990s, mostly in Arizona, intermittently taking flying lessons at several different flying schools." He was, in the view of one of his flight instructors, "intelligent, friendly, and 'very courteous, very formal,' a nice enough fellow but a terrible pilot." He finally got a commercial license from the FAA but was unable to find work here or in the Middle East. As for Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, he was "the handsome middle child and only son of an industrious, middle-class family in Beirut," a "secular Muslim" family that "was easygoing -- the men drank whiskey and the women wore short skirts about town and bikinis at the beach." At university in Germany he met Aysel Sengün, "the daughter of conservative, working-class Turkish immigrants"; eventually they got married, but he disappeared for long periods, usually without explanation, leaving her frantic.

[Crazymax]

What's the best way to cure an infectious desease? Kill it at the source.

In that case, the source is Afghanistan (where they train and operate from). This is the ONLY permanent way to prevent a decease from spreading.

Max

The 9/11 hijackers were trained in the USA and educated in Europe.

I still support the war in Afganistan, we are fighting for a noble cause. If the troops leave the efforts made over the last 6 years would be wasted.



The 9/11 Hijackers

By Jonathan Yardley

Sunday, May 1, 2005;

The pilot of the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, Atta, came from "an ambitious, not overtly religious middle-class household in Egypt" and had led "a sheltered life" until he arrived in Hamburg, Germany, in 1992 to do graduate study in architecture. The pilot of the second plane, Marwan al-Shehhi, was an amiable, "laid-back" fellow from the United Arab Emirates who had joined the UAE army, "not the world's most effective fighting force but one of its most generous, paying [its scholarship] students monthly stipends of about $2,000," which may have been his primary reason for enlisting; this enabled him to go to Hamburg, though there is little evidence that he "had any serious scholarly ambitions."

Hani Hanjour, the Saudi pilot who flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, "had lived in the United States off and on throughout the 1990s, mostly in Arizona, intermittently taking flying lessons at several different flying schools." He was, in the view of one of his flight instructors, "intelligent, friendly, and 'very courteous, very formal,' a nice enough fellow but a terrible pilot." He finally got a commercial license from the FAA but was unable to find work here or in the Middle East. As for Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, he was "the handsome middle child and only son of an industrious, middle-class family in Beirut," a "secular Muslim" family that "was easygoing -- the men drank whiskey and the women wore short skirts about town and bikinis at the beach." At university in Germany he met Aysel Sengün, "the daughter of conservative, working-class Turkish immigrants"; eventually they got married, but he disappeared for long periods, usually without explanation, leaving her frantic.

Last time I checked, I didn't find any terrorists camps in the States or in Europe.

They might have got training in the States but their cells are (were) mostly operating from Afghanistan.

Now, back to the 4 ships fly bys from the american Texan IIs

Max

Max

[swede]

Last time I checked, there werent any terrorist camps in Afghanistan or Iraq either, if they were known about, we would have Osama by now and have blown the rest of them up and would be home. As to uprooting the terrorists on home turf, we'll get right on that, every muslim nation and who knows how many more countries of various stipe, are potentially unlimited terrorist generating machines willing to attack the west - so were just gonna kill em all are we With current dogma in place, these wars are unwinnable, worse by a long shot in terms of unattainable than was a victory by the U.S. against Vietnam.

[Crazymax]

Last time I checked, there werent any terrorist camps in Afghanistan or Iraq either, if they were known about, we would have Osama by now and have blown the rest of them up and would be home. As to uprooting the terrorists on home turf, we'll get right on that, every muslim nation and who knows how many more countries of various stipe, are potentially unlimited terrorist generating machines willing to attack the west - so were just gonna kill em all are we With current dogma in place, these wars are unwinnable, worse by a long shot in terms of unattainable than was a victory by the U.S. against Vietnam.

Well.. Look at what we have here...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... arunta.htm

Max

[swede]

So I guess the troops can come home now, or is the capture of Osama imminent and they will stick around for just a while longer? And where will the pesky little buggers turn up next time?? By the way, that link you posted is 8 years old, is that the best you can come up with, I think you need to go back to sleep.

[Crazymax]

So I guess the troops can come home now, or is the capture of Osama imminent and they will stick around for just a while longer? And where will the pesky little buggers turn up next time??

Capturing Osama is not the ultimate solution to the problem. We have to remove the cells from southern Afghanistan (where we are concentrating our efforts now) and prevent them from re-creating in Pakistan. This isn't a one day thing. One important part in order to achieve that is to let the population know that we are there to help them. We have to help them reconstruct and make their territories safer. We have 2 distinct mission there. One is chasing the Taliban and the other one is reconstruction. Both mission are essential to each other. You can't reconstruct without protection and you need population support to chase the Talibans.

It's not because we have casualties that our efforts there are in vain. Do you know of any war that resulted in 0 casualty? That's a sacrifice a country has to do. And we are commited to this not because the US requested it, but because NATO and UN did. It's a fully NATO and UN endorsed mission.

Max