General discussion

Why Americans don't know what Canadian forces are doing in


"PASHMUL, Afghanistan ? NATO forces scored one of their biggest victories here in ferocious fighting in September, flushing out an area of southern Afghanistan that had been swarming with Taliban insurgents. But almost immediately a new and more difficult battle began ? for support of the local people.

"Villagers trickling back to their homes broke into an argument over who was to blame for the heavy destruction, NATO or the Taliban.

"?My house was bombarded and my grape store destroyed,? said Hajji Bilal Jan, 48, a farmer from the upper part of Pashmul. ?The coalition forces are cruel, without reason. There were no Taliban in our house. Why did they bombard the house??

"Another man, Neamatullah, 45, who like many Afghans uses only one name, stopped to listen and then countered: ?Why did you let the Taliban come to your village? You brought them to your village.?

"The battle here, the biggest for the American-led forces in the country since March 2002, was a long-awaited success for NATO forces in a year in which the Taliban have revived with surprising strength."

Not until the 7th paragraph are the dead "American led NATO forces" identified as Canadian, and then only as casualties. The entire effort in the province around Pashmul is a Canadian Forces operation with American air support.

And you wonder why Canadians resent being taken for granted by the US and not even given credit for their efforts, only for their losses.

Still, please note the comparative death rate of 100 to 1, not bad for the forces of a country "that the United States has protected since 1776" according to some here.

New York Times Oct 3. Usual Speakeasy login and password.


Discussion is locked
Reply to: Why Americans don't know what Canadian forces are doing in
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Why Americans don't know what Canadian forces are doing in
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -

weve carried the majority of the war
bought time canada did there share eh!

- Collapse -
Canada is 1/10th the size of the US. America now spends

as much money on Defence as the whole rest of the world combined. What do you deem a fair share? Do you want all the troops Canada has? Conscription? What?

You're just overly attached to the whine of your own voice crying "Oh, the poor United States and the burdens it has volunteered to shoulder!!" and remain ignorant and uncaring about anyone else's efforts.

Canada is fulfilling her commitments with honor and the thanks of the American Commanders on the ground at least if not from George W. Shame you don't hear about it, or can't see it or understand it.

My point, since you don't understand, is that the US press ignores all countries' contributions but the US's own by lumping them under "US led" giving the impression that they are US forces and that nobody else is doing anything. Naturally the Canadian news gives a different picture by including both US efforts, and British, and Canadian operations as separate news items and thus gives a clearer picture than the news from the States. Of course the Canadian news is 2 separate one hour long broadcasts at 6PM and 10PM and therefore has more room to discuss issues at length, including American news. When you consider the amount of fluff, or straight "The Administration said today..." items on the news down south, that leaves them free to cover the real news in the US pretty well and still have plenty of time for Canada and the rest of the world.

Oh, and Mark, Canada has been there since day one, I have posted a number of items like this each of which you have dismissed in this same discourteous manner. Get a grip and get some perspective.


- Collapse -
Please provide facts

As the whole rest of the world? Guess that includes China, Russia, North Korea....
Once again you throw out unsubstantiated statements.


- Collapse -
You are your own reason/excuse

Care to find a few qoutes perhaps from yourself or your fellow loonies making fun of the "coalition of the willing" and the belittling of them ?

- Collapse -
I'm sure you will get what you wanted with this

post, Rob. That being a bunch of negative finger-pointing crap and likely a locked thread.

It's a shame, really. The article in a United States newspaper appeared to focus on a victorious result in the "world" fight against terrorism. Your comments focused on yet another of your "Why I don't like the U.S. and it's current administration" tirades. What you turned this news into is a disgrace for the Canadian soldiers that lost their lives and their loved ones. Just like Sheehan, you use their sacrifice for freedom from terrorism as your pulpit for discord.



- Collapse -
Actually it's not, but I regret you think that.

It's more a puzzled shaken head comment from a former American at the blindness and inaccuracy in reporting of the American media generally, and their failure to give credit where credit is due. It has nothing to do with the Administration, particularly because this is the one decision by the Bush Administration that I applaud whoeheartedly, and a conflict that is just and appropriate.

The fight against terror in its primary hiding place was and is a necessary fight in which Canada joined most willingly despite apparent conventional wisdom in the US. I didn't mention the Administration even once in the post.

It was the New York Times reporting "American led NATO forces" rather than the more appropriate "the Canadian contingent of American led NATO forces" that I objected to. Four words would have made all the difference, and the blame lies squarely with the reporter and the NYT. That's what was in my mind when I wrote and that's what I still think.


- Collapse -
Good job

You just explained how the media treats GW "the blindness and inaccuracy in reporting of the American media generally, and their failure to give credit where credit is due." Thanks

CNET Forums