Canadians, Please Answer This???????

A few questions in this one, hopefully you can read first and only for Canadians to answer.

1) Do you feel that Paul Martin was responsible for sending your troops to the most dangerous region of Afghanistan, Khandahar without ensuring that the rest of the Nato allies including the US put in equal contribution in that dangerous region.

2) Do you then feel that Jean Chretian should not have let an incompetent fool like Martin become the Prime Minister of Canada and hang in there until 2005 and get another someone more qualified to run for PM

3) Do you think your leaders give a damn about your soldiers.

4) Do you feel the soldiers were poorly equiped and hence the government basically sent them there to die.

5) Do you feel this war in Afghanistan is to appease the US leaders or do you believe in this war.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I am not Canadian, would love to move there someday and am always saddened to hear about your military deaths.


thanks for the advice and thanks for answering

4 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    1/ Nope. The Taliban were responsible for our troops needing to be there. It wouldn't have mattered who was PM at the time ( other than Jack Layton).

    2/ It wasn't Chretien's decision. That's not how political party leaders are chosen here.

    3/Yes, they do, even Jack Layton does.

    4/Our armed forces have always been under manned and under equipped. Nothing new there. It's been that way since before the War of 1812, yet we've never lost a scrap we've been in. We joined WW2 in far worse shape and at the end of it, came out with the world's third largest Navy.Not bad for starting out with a submarine owned by a Province ( BC) some old destroyers and a WW1 cruiser. The difference lies in the fact that even the sanitary engineers (janitors) are trained to the equivalent US Ranger level of combat skills and since our gear is old, our troops tend to know it quite well and often come up with their own modifications to make it more effective

    5/ If we wanted to appease US leaders, we would have joined in Iraq. We didn't and we don't really give a rats butt what American politicos think. We joined in the sanctioned NATO op in Afghanistan because it's that. A sanctioned NATO op against an oppressive regime that provided training facilities to terrorists and others willing to kill innocent people world wide.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    1. yeah kinda, so was stephen harper, we should get jean back, he was a nice guy who actaully cared about canadians.

    2. yes, sadly he retired. which sucks because i thought he was a great PM, paul should have never become PM because the dumbass needed to take classes to learn french.

    3. some do some dont.

    4. well we have good equipments, but thereslike 5 soldiers dieing each day, which is really sad.

    5. war, the word is just stupid. im not sure, but i think bush asked the canadian pm to help or something. i dont even know why canadians are in afg. they should be where they belong, canada.

    : )

  • 4 years ago

    a million. No. 2. No. (Chretien became into the incompetent fool, no longer Martin) 3. sure. 4. No. (Canadian infantrymen in Afghanistan are very nicely geared up, apart from the want for heavy raise helicopters) 5. This conflict is approximately removing terrorism. As such it somewhat is no longer for the appeasement of the people.

  • 1 decade ago

    I already answered this. Go to travels, then Canada and ask it there. You will get more answers than in this section.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.