Leopard tanks to afghanistan

2006-10-20 15:42:05

#1

shadowkila: Member; +26|6402|Canada

The Canadian forces are sending 15-20 heavy leopard tanks to Afghanistan and expect them to arrive by the end of October.What i don't understand is that at the beginning of this war on terror we were sent there for (mainly)Reconstruction, and now were sending our 20 year old tanks to do convoy escort duty's. Maintenance and reliability issues aside, the high-velocity gun is their main asset. Tanks are not part of reconsrtuction in my mind.

What i don't understand is why is it only Canada that is carrying the burden in the volatile Kandahar region, while some of these other NATO members gets to sit back and let us take all the casualties, We are sending 20 year old (refurbished) tanks while other NATO members don't contribute much in the Kandahar region.
As i am sure they have much more modern tanks than us.LOL

Last edited by shadowkila (2006-10-20 15:54:12)

2006-10-20 15:44:07

#2

RedTwizzler: I do it for the lulz.; +124|6529|Chicago

shadowkila wrote:
The Canadian forces are sending 15-20 heavy leopard tanks to Afghanistan and expect them to arrive by the end of October.What i don't understand is that at the beginning of this war on terror we were sent there for (mainly)Reconstruction, and now were sending our 20 year old tanks to do convoy escort duty's. Maintenance and reliability issues aside, the high-velocity gun is their main asset. Tanks are not part of reconsrtuction in my mind.

What i don't understand is why is it only Canada that is carrying the burden in the volatile Kandahar region, while some of these other UN members gets to sit back and let us take all the casualties, We are sending 20 year old (refurbished) tanks while other UN members don't contribute much in the Kandahar region.
As i am sure they have much more modern tanks than us.LOL

Because the Canadians are backing the USA, and the UN isn't. As I'm sure you're aware, the UN didn't support the invasion of Iraq (OMZ I TUK DA UN TOUR AND EVEN DA GUIDEBOOK IZ SPINELEZZ LOLZZZ) so there's no reason at all that they should be contributing their forces.

2006-10-20 15:46:11

#3

maffiaw: ph33r me 傻逼; +40|6413|Melbourne, AUS

btw it's not UN forces currently in Afghanistan. The forces are under the NATO banner (ISAF).

2006-10-20 15:51:30

#4

smtt686: this is the best we can do?; +95|6623|USA

RedTwizzler wrote:
shadowkila wrote:
The Canadian forces are sending 15-20 heavy leopard tanks to Afghanistan and expect them to arrive by the end of October.What i don't understand is that at the beginning of this war on terror we were sent there for (mainly)Reconstruction, and now were sending our 20 year old tanks to do convoy escort duty's. Maintenance and reliability issues aside, the high-velocity gun is their main asset. Tanks are not part of reconsrtuction in my mind.

What i don't understand is why is it only Canada that is carrying the burden in the volatile Kandahar region, while some of these other UN members gets to sit back and let us take all the casualties, We are sending 20 year old (refurbished) tanks while other UN members don't contribute much in the Kandahar region.
As i am sure they have much more modern tanks than us.LOL
Because the Canadians are backing the USA, and the UN isn't. As I'm sure you're aware, the UN didn't support the invasion of Iraq (OMZ I TUK DA UN TOUR AND EVEN DA GUIDEBOOK IZ SPINELEZZ LOLZZZ) so there's no reason at all that they should be contributing their forces.

This has absolutley NOTHING to do with Iraq. I wonder if you can find Afghanistan on a map?

2006-10-20 15:52:48

#5

shadowkila: Member; +26|6402|Canada

The NATO has taken over command of all the troops in Afghanistan (the exception of some US troops) so they should not have control over where there troops are located and for what purpose. I mean they say they CANNOT have casualties, so they stay behind the combat zones and don't see combat, while the Canadian forces face danger every day.I feel as if the burden should be carried out fairly and that some of these country's should be forced to participate in combat action or to contribute some sort of help.

Last edited by shadowkila (2006-10-20 15:55:54)

2006-10-20 15:53:23

#6

d4rkst4r: biggie smalls; +72|6445|Ontario, Canada

Canada, supports us in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"

2006-10-20 16:06:53

#7

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6521|Global Command

smtt686 wrote:
[
This has absolutley NOTHING to do with Iraq. I wonder if you can find Afghanistan on a map?

In your opinion.

Its a world wide war on terror. Because Pakistan is not doing its job the ground forces and war will be escalated.

I just don't understand why our people are not sweeping through Pakistan as we speak.

2006-10-20 17:39:56

#8

JaggedPanther: Member; +61|6466

smtt686 wrote:
RedTwizzler wrote:
shadowkila wrote:
The Canadian forces are sending 15-20 heavy leopard tanks to Afghanistan and expect them to arrive by the end of October.What i don't understand is that at the beginning of this war on terror we were sent there for (mainly)Reconstruction, and now were sending our 20 year old tanks to do convoy escort duty's. Maintenance and reliability issues aside, the high-velocity gun is their main asset. Tanks are not part of reconsrtuction in my mind.

What i don't understand is why is it only Canada that is carrying the burden in the volatile Kandahar region, while some of these other UN members gets to sit back and let us take all the casualties, We are sending 20 year old (refurbished) tanks while other UN members don't contribute much in the Kandahar region.
As i am sure they have much more modern tanks than us.LOL
Because the Canadians are backing the USA, and the UN isn't. As I'm sure you're aware, the UN didn't support the invasion of Iraq (OMZ I TUK DA UN TOUR AND EVEN DA GUIDEBOOK IZ SPINELEZZ LOLZZZ) so there's no reason at all that they should be contributing their forces.
This has absolutley NOTHING to do with Iraq. I wonder if you can find Afghanistan on a map?

Because Bushism's are designed to confuse ppl that Iraq is related to everything evil. It obviously worked on that dude.

Speak about Afghanistan; You're speaking about Iraq. Speak about putting food on the family; You're speaking about Iraq. Speak about the State of the Union Speech; You're talking about Iraq!!!

see the connection....

2006-10-20 18:08:58

#9

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6636

its a good time to invest in United Defense

2006-10-20 18:10:06

#10

LT.Victim: Member; +1,175|6555|British Columbia, Canada

I didn't even think we had 20 tanks.. must have borrowed them from the US.

2006-10-20 18:29:14

#11

Hy$t3RiA: Pocket Rocket; +5|6391|Blighty

shadowkila wrote:
now were sending our 20 year old tanks to do convoy escort duty's. Maintenance and reliability issues aside, the high-velocity gun is their main asset. Tanks are not part of reconstruction in my mind.

What i don't understand is why is it only Canada that is carrying the burden in the volatile Kandahar region, while some of these other NATO members gets to sit back and let us take all the casualties, We are sending 20 year old (refurbished) tanks while other NATO members don't contribute much in the Kandahar region.
As i am sure they have much more modern tanks than us.LOL

I think you have answered your own question there. If they are being used as escort duties then they are there as a deterrent not as an aggressor. I've just come back from Kandahar and yes they are Canadians there as well as Brits, Americans, Dutch, Romanian, Australian. In Kandahar air base it is not mainly Canadians but Brits and Americans. Kandahar is bad but not as bad as the Helmand province which is mainly Brits.

The whole country is messed up, just think yourself lucky that you don't have to go out there. I'm lucky enough to be possibly be spending Xmas and the New Year out there, at least I'll have a white Xmas for once!!

Oh and the Leopard is a German tank not American, not bad in there day but yes there are getting on a bit.

2006-10-20 18:32:14

#12

smtt686: this is the best we can do?; +95|6623|USA

ATG wrote:
smtt686 wrote:
[
This has absolutley NOTHING to do with Iraq. I wonder if you can find Afghanistan on a map?
In your opinion.

Its a world wide war on terror. Because Pakistan is not doing its job the ground forces and war will be escalated.

I just don't understand why our people are not sweeping through Pakistan as we speak.

make me president and ill bomb those bastards back to the stone age (at least 5-7 years)

2006-10-20 18:37:53

#13

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi: Why walk when you can dance?; +77|6579|sWEEDen

Hey the don´t forget the swedes....i beleive we have some troops down there. But sweden is not a member of NATO.

2006-10-20 18:41:38

#14

smtt686: this is the best we can do?; +95|6623|USA

JaggedPanther wrote:
smtt686 wrote:
RedTwizzler wrote:

Because the Canadians are backing the USA, and the UN isn't. As I'm sure you're aware, the UN didn't support the invasion of Iraq (OMZ I TUK DA UN TOUR AND EVEN DA GUIDEBOOK IZ SPINELEZZ LOLZZZ) so there's no reason at all that they should be contributing their forces.
This has absolutley NOTHING to do with Iraq. I wonder if you can find Afghanistan on a map?
Because Bushism's are designed to confuse ppl that Iraq is related to everything evil. It obviously worked on that dude.

Speak about Afghanistan; You're speaking about Iraq. Speak about putting food on the family; You're speaking about Iraq. Speak about the State of the Union Speech; You're talking about Iraq!!!

see the connection....

Evidently you have me confused with someone else. Im not really confused. those 2 places are complete different scenarios but we are where we are and I am glad we are doing what we are doing.

Good luck with your reasoning.. nice slippery slope your on.

2006-10-20 18:45:01

#15

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6553

ATG wrote:
I just don't understand why our people are not sweeping through Pakistan as we speak.

A war with Pakistan would not go well.

2006-10-20 18:51:46

#16

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6521|Global Command

Bubbalo wrote:
ATG wrote:
I just don't understand why our people are not sweeping through Pakistan as we speak.
A war with Pakistan would not go well.

KY?

They have limited nukes. We could accomplish our goals with limited, non-nuke bombarment and a sweep through the tribal regions, hut to hut, in search of OBL.
Then we leave.

2006-10-20 18:52:27

#17

JaggedPanther: Member; +61|6466

UN indicated there was no WMD's in Iraq; GUESS WHAT??

At the time there was no linkage between Iraq and Al-Queda; Now we created one. The only linkage is there was some sympathizers in the country, in that scenario we should also be attacking Syria, Iran, Part of India, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (where the 9-11 bombers came from, I'll quote others here when they justify the Iraqi invation " I"ll never forget 9/11 " but not the country where they came from'

But no, we just invaded where the oil companies wanted us to invade, increasing the tax burden of the average us citizen and profiting.

2006-10-20 18:55:43

#18

Jbrar: rawr; +86|6534|Winterpeg, Canada

Bubbalo wrote:
ATG wrote:
I just don't understand why our people are not sweeping through Pakistan as we speak.
A war with Pakistan would not go well.

Exactly, if you threaten Pakistan, chances are India will join. And i'm sure you haven't seen the brutality of the Indian army up close, it's not pretty. I've been to India 3 times, stayed in total for about a year (all 3 visits added up). I've been threatened at gun point, forced to give up cash, and the list goes on.

2006-10-20 18:59:42

#19

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,736|6729|Oxferd Ohire

LT.Victim wrote:
I didn't even think we had 20 tanks.. must have borrowed them from the US.

was that supposed to be funny or serious?

2006-10-20 19:00:42

#20

JaMDuDe: Member; +69|6769

The only people on this earth that can properly fight a war is america and israel. Nato, the UN, and the EU cant fight "wars". America and Israel ALONE are the only people who are good at owning muslims.

2006-10-20 19:05:36

#21

Hy$t3RiA: Pocket Rocket; +5|6391|Blighty

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:
Hey the don´t forget the swedes....i beleive we have some troops down there. But sweden is not a member of NATO.

Whoops sorry man your right, some of you guys there aswell!!

Last edited by Hy$t3RiA (2006-10-20 19:05:51)

2006-10-20 21:27:58

#22

BVC: Member; +325|6688

NZ also has troops there, ours are mainly reconstruction though...

I don't know if India would get involved with a war on Pakistan. If they did they might just seize the opportunity to grab Kashmir off the Pakistanis. Pakistan is also a nuclear-armed country, remember.

2006-10-20 21:33:46

#23

Marlboroman82: Personal philosophy: Clothing optional.; +1,022|6615|Camp XRay

canada has an army?

https://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l250/marlboroman82/Untitled-8.png

2006-10-20 21:43:54

#24

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6636

smells like hot cheetos

2006-10-20 22:38:31

#25

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6636

i cant smell anything right now, i just came down with a head cold

BF2S Forums Leopard tanks to afghanistan

shadowkila wrote:

RedTwizzler wrote:

shadowkila wrote:

smtt686 wrote:

smtt686 wrote:

RedTwizzler wrote:

shadowkila wrote:

shadowkila wrote:

ATG wrote:

smtt686 wrote:

JaggedPanther wrote:

smtt686 wrote:

RedTwizzler wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

ATG wrote:

LT.Victim wrote:

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Board footer