Both.. In all my life living in canada I have only ever seen 1 tank.RTHKI wrote:
was that supposed to be funny or serious?LT.Victim wrote:
I didn't even think we had 20 tanks.. must have borrowed them from the US.
I never liked "Army of One" to begin with. It was "Be all you can be" with me
Yes, because you've done so well with the mountainous regions of Afghanistan.ATG wrote:
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.
Pakistanis have trouble controlling parts of their nation and they know the terrain, what makes you think you'd do any better?
If anything, India would help in sweeping through Pakistan. Haven't you read about history? The countries hate each other, seriously...you didn't know about the rivalry between India and Pakistan? The 3 and a half wars?Jbrar wrote:
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.Bubbalo wrote:
A war with Pakistan would not go well.ATG wrote:
I just don't understand why our people are not sweeping through Pakistan as we speak.
Although, it's unlikely that anyone would invade Pakistan even though it seems thats where its all coming from. Mainly because, believe it or not. Pakistan is thought of as an Ally to the U.S, although you know how quickly allies can become enemys. Especially in the case of the U.S, but as other people have said. The country has nukes and is being governed by the military. Invading wouldn't be that smart.
Edit: To the guy that said he's only seen one tank in Canada, i've only seen one here in the UK too. It's not like they are rolling on the streets doing daily patrols, lol.
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2006-10-21 10:58:15)
Man guys all i want to know is if you think other NATO country's like Germany and...... should be placing there forces in some of the more dangerous places, because if things continue on this path Canadian citizens will get furious and demand there troops be sent home, and that means more deaths for whichever country takes over Canada's place. Most likely US.
Since when did we Canadians get tanks?????
LOL we do have 70 tanks but really old refurbished ones and thats not my point, everyone already knows that the damn liberals have totally ignored our army for the past 20 years, but the conservatives are fixing it up NOW.
We don't have a lot of tanks because we don't need a lot of tanks. Its preety simple.
Leopard rulz !
Abrams sux...lol
Abrams sux...lol
As much as I like the idea of toppling Pakistan and wiping out the terrorists in the western regions, Pakistan does have nukes. If we go to war with Pakistan, we'll need the help of India.ATG wrote:
In your opinion.smtt686 wrote:
[
This has absolutley NOTHING to do with Iraq. I wonder if you can find Afghanistan on a map?
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.
So... If we can get India to back us up on this, I wouldn't have a problem with invading Pakistan. Until then, it's a no-go.
Pretty much... It would be expensive as hell, but we could do it if we dramatically decreased spending in non-military programs.ATG wrote:
KY?Bubbalo wrote:
A war with Pakistan would not go well.ATG wrote:
I just don't understand why our people are not sweeping through Pakistan as we speak.
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.
India is pretty good at it.JaMDuDe wrote:
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.
Yeah, I don't know what this thread's talking aboot.LT.Victim wrote:
I didn't even think we had 20 tanks.. must have borrowed them from the US.
Noob.venom6 wrote:
Leopard rulz !
Abrams sux...lol
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-22 17:37:18)
Good points, but "controlling" isn't the goal here. Obliterating is...Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, because you've done so well with the mountainous regions of Afghanistan.ATG wrote:
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.
Pakistanis have trouble controlling parts of their nation and they know the terrain, what makes you think you'd do any better?
i bite my nails and i bit too close to the flesh so my right ring finger is really sore right now. really sore.
And how, pray tell, are you going to obliterate a country?Turquoise wrote:
good points, but "controlling" isn't the goal here. Obliterating is...
you mean cave to cave don't you?ATG wrote:
KY?Bubbalo wrote:
A war with Pakistan would not go well.ATG wrote:
I just don't understand why our people are not sweeping through Pakistan as we speak.
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.
There are several options available. This is especially true if we have the aid of India.Bubbalo wrote:
And how, pray tell, are you going to obliterate a country?Turquoise wrote:
good points, but "controlling" isn't the goal here. Obliterating is...
In truth, I'd only be in favor of obliterating the areas dominated by extremists. Those areas tend to be the mountainous ones, so yes, it would be difficult, but perhaps, we could increase production of cruise missiles. We could fly them right into the caves of our enemies on a much grander scale. Hopefully, the explosions would cause the caves to collapse, just in case the initial explosions didn't kill them.
As for the rest of Pakistan... Well, we could let India have its way with them. It would become their problem, not ours. Of course, this is all assuming that India would aid us in the first place.
ahh German powa...
Because its not a rebuilding mission anymore. Its back to all out war, its just the collision can't admit they failed at nation building as they are making the exact same mistakes in Iraqi. I see footage of British solders every night fighting in Kandahar with Canadian forces, so you aren't alone. Although I hear the British are trying to bail out. Canada may be different in a lot of ways, but it too requires power and oil for the future which it see itself protecting in Afghanistan. Its in all western countries interest to see the Afghani oil pipe line kept safe and more importantly under the control of a western friendly puppet government.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 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
Nope you fail !wrote:
Noob.
Please read a bit about the Leopard and compare it with an Abrams.
Leopard rulz over it in much points.For example the Abrams needs a lot of gas so that also sux.Leopard is much faster etc.And please i dont mean Bf2 or EF with it....real life and not the game !
Yeah and i also think their army is one that can effectively handle the mountainous terrain and whatnot. What with most of their wars/operations having been against islamic terrorists in Kashmir/Himalayas long before it became popular. I can see why Bush is going for good relations. A main country when it comes to countering islamic terrorism and even China (?)Turquoise wrote:
India is pretty good at it.JaMDuDe wrote:
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.
yea how is Iraq goingJaMDuDe wrote:
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.
What version of leopard are the Canadians sending to Afghanistan? We ve got a bunch of leopard 2a5/2a6 battle tanks over here and these babies kick ass. Its probably just a good as the Challenger 2. All the dutch a5's are being upgraded to a6, which means a longer barrel and a brand engine which produces 1650 hp.
I heared leopard 2's dont like sand or dust much. As far as i know, not a single dutch leopard 2a6 has been sent to iraq of afghanistan.
I heared leopard 2's dont like sand or dust much. As far as i know, not a single dutch leopard 2a6 has been sent to iraq of afghanistan.
Ya'll know what i think ´bout Canada