🚀 go-pugleaf

"Brian Daily" <daily.brian@gmail.com.nomaps> wrote in message 
news:fkrta29il1vkgbtq8mcvm9h7s330repqt1@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 23:16:53 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom" 
> <asandstrom@accesswave.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>"Brian Daily" <daily.brian@gmail.com.nomaps> wrote in message
>>news:mrita2luqf0dlo06p37us1jp9ei9l9gagc@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:59:03 GMT, "Arved Sandstrom"
>>> <asandstrom@accesswave.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, big deal. People get by. It's not like the Taliban aren't roasting
>>>>either.
>>>
>>> They aren't packing 70 pounds of gear and body armor and they have spend
>>> their
>>> lives there.
>>
>>To the degree that "spending your life" in one particular place uniquely
>>equips one to survive there, I don't buy it. People from elsewhere can 
>>adapt
>>fairly quickly. Or not adapt, to the same degree. What often goes unsaid 
>>is
>>that native peoples in harsh environments are paying the price every day 
>>of
>>their shorter lives.
>>
>>> You just don't get it.
>>
>>I think I do get it. I've spent some really serious quality time packing 
>>70
>>pounds or more of gear, and I have a pretty finely developed appreciation
>>for what 25 pounds, 50 pounds, 75 pounds or 100 pounds feels like after 12
>>or 24 hours in various climatic conditions.
>>
>>> Equipment breakdowns are no big deal if you have time to fix it!
>>
>>True enough.
>>
>>> The Taliban don't give them time. Even changing a fucking tire is VERY
>>> risky.
>>> Broken vehicles are blown up and left behind, even those with minor
>>> problems
>>> because there is NO WAY to guard or retrieve them.
>>
>>I'll agree that a down vehicle out in hostile country presents a problem.
>>I'd disagree that the automatic thing to do is to blow it up, because in
>>this particular conflict the objective is to find and fix a relatively
>>elusive enemy; if a broken vehicle becomes a magnet for the baddies, 
>>that's
>>actually a tactical bonus,
>
> Nonsense. RPGs have considerable range.

Well, no, they don't. Within 100 metres they are pretty good, and out to 200 
metres the chances of a good operator are OK, but further than that it's a 
roll of the dice. They do in fact have range - insurgents in Afghanistan 
have used RPGs at over 1000 metres as expedient artillery, but against point 
targets you need to be within 100-150 metres.

> On top of that the Taliban often need
> less than a hour to mine a road in front of a patrol. There would be IEDs
> everywhere between the broken down vehicle and home base in no time at 
> all.

There probably are a great deal of IEDs at any given time. But what makes 
you think that the Canadian vehicles are always using roads?

> PLUS. To 'rescue' a vehicle in Afghanistan costs more in US air support 
> than
> it's worth.
> The Canadian military will NOT ask the US for air support for this kind of
> action making it even more dangerous.

I think evidence indicates otherwise, wrt Canadian units asking for US air 
support.

> BUT MORE IMPORTANT is the soft support in Canada for the Canadian action 
> in
> Afghanistan. Harper can't survive many more deaths. They will not take 
> that kind
> of political risk to save money at this point. So vehicles are being 
> abandoned
> by the MILLION$ right now.

Ask your typical Canadian how many soldiers have died in Afghanistan, and in 
general few respondees will have a clue. The lady FO getting her head 
shredded was a bit of a media blip, as was the US fighter bombing a Canadian 
patrol, but otherwise the average citizen wouldn't know if we have lost 5, 
10, 50 or 500 people.

AHS