Signals.Cpl

Care to back that up with some facts?

You are absolutely right, the Taliban are down right humanitarians... bastard Americans being animals and all... I don't know if you know anything about the Taliban or any group that shares their beliefs wether they are muslim or christian, but if the US was trying to make them look less than human, they don't have to work hard at it. Looking at their philosophy on religion, women, education and those who do not share their "religion" would be more than sufficient grounds to label them animals and the US does not need to do a damn thing but point at their actions,beliefs and history.

They are dangerous, but for thew most part the insurgents can account for that themselves, I'm not saying he presented no danger but all that information eg numbers and weapon types could be come by through simple recce.

He was a Private, the most damaging information he could have possibly been in possession, would have been changed the second they thought he deserted/was captured. I doubt he had much information to give in the first place.

Do you want me to use smaller words next time?

Coming from someone like you who couldn't debate his way out of paper bag, I would think you calling someone else a "piss poor debater" is a compliment. I mean I get dumber every time I read one of your posts so if you call someone a piss poor debater that to me means the exact opposite. In this thread just like any other I have seen you "participate" in, you throw a tantrum and demand proof, you get proof and then throw a bigger tantrum to make yourself feel good... You contributed nothing to this discussion and seeing your piss poor level of understanding of BASIC facts about the world we live in, I suggest you start reading a wide range of literature rather than the propaganda that your political party of choice provides and maybe just maybe you can have an intelligent discussion...in 20 years or so.

I believe the logic behind this is that he is one of ours, he might have deserted but we want him back and deal with him ourselves. A US navy officer I believe put it this way, you might fall of the ship or jump off but we will come back and look for you regardless... So its kinda like leave no man behind wether he deserves to be left behind or not.

My god you are hopeless, they did not happen because they were prevented... You can stick your head in the sand and pretend something does not exist but the reality is that it does exist. Prove that those events were not real...go ahead show me solid evidence that those plots if left alone would have come to nothing. I realize your laughable political beliefs do not allow you to live in the real world but at some point I assume even you can see that just because the authorities did their job and prevented such attacks does not mean that we are not under threat...

I would say its easier as a whole, but harder on the physically smaller people as one of the components involving a casualty drag of 245 pounds which in some cases is significantly larger than the person doing the drag. The test is not hard at all but I suspect that the division by age and sex is coming sometime soon since it is a new test they are still working out the standards and someone is bound to complain about the weight disparity between some of the people and the casualty drag. But I don't know if they will change it since the average soldier weights above 250-280 pounds once all body armour, weapons, kit and rations are on them so lowering the drag standard means that should you ever need to do the drag in real life it would mean that you would have to strip the casualty out of their body armour, and all their kit which is not always possible under fire...

Again though, the goal is to prevent war crimes(slaughtering unarmed civilians, executing wounded enemy combatants, executing POW's on capture). It is meant to prevent crimes against humanity and if not prevented to punish those responsible, also to guide in conduct with regard to POW's etc. Its one thing for a German soldier in WW2 to kill a Canadian soldier in Combat, it is another thing for same soldier to execute a Canadian soldier who has surrendered. Its ok to fire on a soldier, not ok to fire on unarmed civilians just because you want to. It doesn't affect the conduct of the war unless the strategy one side is pursuing is genocide, or in the case of the insurgents, exciting POW upon capture.

So in your mind prevented=never happened, in my mind prevented means a lot of casualties were prevented...

First one does not mean anything, it simply states that they experienced it too, not that they experienced it exclusively. Ok, now that I read that article I think I should complain about sexual harassment, and harassment in General... I have experienced it as has pretty much anyone else. Granted Minorities and women do experience proportionally more of the harassment but does not in anyway mean we should paint a target on their backs by affirmative action. As for sexual assault, men are much less likely to complain about any harassment let alone sexual assault... All of this does not mean that women and minorities are targeted for sexual harassment and assault, they just suffer with the rest of the CF... this has not prevented white males from joining in large numbers and it does not account for the shortage of minorities and women. This is a problem and it should be dealt with, but making the groups in question bigger targets is hardly the way to do it... Tell me what part of women and minorities should meet the exact same standard as the rest of the military and should get no preferential treatment in the recruiting phase, training, courses, postings and promotions is offensive or not helpful in any way? If a women meets the standard set out for me she can work alongside me, if she does not then she shouldn't have the same job as me... Its common sense really, why should I meet a higher standard to get a job and attain a promotion while someone else meets a lower standard, gets promotions because of their race or sex and al the while gets equal pay? Military recruiting carrer progression should be gender and race neutral, it should be irrelevant wether you are a man or a women, white or black, what it should look for is if you meet the requirements and then select the best candidate for the job. If that is 100% white males then so be it, they were the once who earned it, if it is 100% women then again so be it... but as long as they attain it because of their actions and abilities rather than their reproductive organs or their skin colour.

Toronto 18(prevented),VIA rail plot(prevented), 2004 firebombing of a Jewish school(attack succeeded), just because the authorities are good at their job(preventing attacks) does not mean that there is no one trying.

1)There are rules of war, many nations signed the treaty, some choose to obey others not so much. Some didn't sign the treaty and thus don't even pretend to obey. 2) The rules are not restrictive, they are there to give you certain protection should you be captured... protecting you for lawful actions committed in the war. If you don't obey the rules you are not treated as a POW and are liable in some cases to the death penalty after a trial that is. 3)No that would mean that those who dress in civilian attire and have no visible identification are illegal combatants. A uniform does not need to be identifiable by much, it needs to be identified as a combatant. If Special Forces, wether they be American, Canadian or British play by the rules(identified by uniform) or if they choose civilian attire and hiding their weapons they would not be covered. But then again what our forces do is irrelevant as they do not expect quarter to be given should they be captured: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011516/Scott-McLaren-British-soldier-paraded-Taliban-chiefs-killed-insurgents.html wether NATO SF obey the rules or not, they know that should they be captured they will be tortured and executed and then mutilated and not necessary in that order. 4)That uniform is part to identify friendlies, and part to form unit cohesion,loyalty etc... it was added to the definition of legal combatant since it predates the treaty but it makes sense. 5)We are not talking about combat, we are talking about POW's if you do not obey the rules of law, you end up being an illegal combatant and thus your actions were/are illegal. The difference is after capture if I wore a uniform and met all other requirements a civilized nations will treat me as a POW thus giving me some sort of protection e.g. WW2 both sides on the western front, the Western allies and Germany tried to treat POWs to some level of decency some more than others. Whereas both sides on the Eastern Front and the Japanese in the Pacific did not treat POWs to any degree of decency which led to huge numbers of dying in captivity. 6)Identification could be as simple as a visible armband, badge or anything else that makes you identifiable as a combatant of a force. it could be simple thing like an armband or a badge. http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=9&level1=13336&level2=13374&level3=13458 7) The rules govern capture as well as conduct during the war. Example of the referee is the Nuremberg trial, the Tokyo trial and all subsequent war crime trials. The idea is to prevent events like the Rwanda Genocide and if that fails as it does on many occasions, it is to punish as many of the guilty party as possible. If the rules of war do not exist, slaughtering millions of people would be a perfectly legitimate action, it is legitimate action right now because no one is willing to interfere in many of those conflicts but eventually those guilty of war crimes are brought to trial.

Or this is the first NATO soldier who has been captured, held for a number of years and then is freed... usually they slit the throat after some torture and call it a day... it is newsworthy.

Typical answer there buds, if we used the rules that the insurgents play by we would slit their throats upon capture and let them rot.

Victim card? Are we talking about the same event?

If you knew anything on the subject you wouldn't say that, but then again not really surprised. The reason that NATO troops are considered POW when captured and insurgents are not is simply because they don't meet the criteria. The first thing that comes to mind is the lack of a uniform or any other form of insignia to identify them as combatants... something NATO does NOT lack...see we wear uniforms and all. Then there is the requirement to carry arms openly something NATO does, but by and large insurgents don't unless they are firing at you, at other times its well hidden...

As of this year there is only one CF wide test, the FORCE test which consists of several tasks. Individual combat arms units do the Battle Fitness test almost religiously along with a number of other tests including Specialized tests for Paratrooper as well as CSOR and JTF2. Needless to say for the Infantry, setting low standards is a killer because on tour they have to carry their weapons, kit, ammunition, rations and body armour which once added up could go over 100 pounds so they do field exercises and ruck marches with as close to combat weight as possible. Yes different support trades are available but the underlying concept is that everyone is a soldier first and should in theory be capable of meeting the most basic standard. As for university degree, there are different education requirements for different positions. For example, most officers require a degree while some NCM trades require college level education and/or the equivalent CF course which requires the proper prerequisite. Until last year the CF fitness test was divided by age and sex, which meant that two individuals applying for the same job could be tested at a different level. "Superior" fitness test results for a women fall short of the minimum test score for a male of the same age group. Meaning I as a male would be seen as barely fit to serve, while a women in my age group would be "very fit" for the same job. I have met women who strive for the bare minimum and nothing more because they are "built differently" and I have seen women who ignore the female standard and go for the male standard for their age group.

Women belong in the military just as well as everyone else, as long as they meet the same standard for the universality of Service. I have seen plenty of women use the "I'm a women" excuse not to meet a standard, and I have also seen women who go above and beyond said standard. Yes it could be harder for a women to meet a set standard for say the infantry but just because that is a fact doesent mean we should lower the standard to accommodate more women.

Its a little more complicated than wether we were in a war or not. Ultimately to be considered for POW status you have to meet certain criteria, NATO forces in Afghanistan meet said criteria, insurgents do not meet said criteria so just because Sgt Bergdahl is considered a POW does not automatically mean that any insurgent including Khadar should be considered a POW unless they fall in the category.

Care to back up your claim of the racist and sexist attitudes and harassment in the forces? And how am I not helping? I am all for minorities and women in the military as long as they EARN their position and EARN any subsequent promotion on merit not race. I couldn't care less wether the CO or the RSM is a man/women, black/white/asian/purple as long as they know what they are doing and are competent. I have the exact same issue with those who use mommy's or daddy's rank to get promotions/postings/OT's/courses etc... and there are enough of those as well, so we need to remove them rather than adding a whole other less than competent bunch of people who used their race or sex to get a job they were not qualified for.

I'm not worried about the "dumb-ass white guys" because no one was ever worried I will cry racist or sexist if they fail me or discipline me. Plus I want to be there and do my job, what I am worried about is those who don't qualify getting recruited because they will make the CF very "diverse", once you implement something as stupid as affirmative action it will extend to all segments of the military not just recruiting. It will lead to quota's on promotion, postings, courses etc which means that when the promotion board looks at a potential MCpl or Sgt, they will look at leadership potential, performance, wether they speak multiple languages and wether they are a "minority", right now people are ranked based on their performance and potential, rather than performance, potential and race or sex. What it seems like is that some people on this board seem to favour racism and sexism over over merit.

And what are those terrible things?

Im not saying that women and minorities are inferior soldiers, I am saying the reason there are so few is because fewer women and minorities apply for the military than white men. Now when you put a quota on how many you have to recruit and it happens that the number of qualified applicant is not enough you have to get them from somewhere, usually it is from the reject pile, the once who failed the fitness test, the aptitude test, medical or any other of the requirements. Now what this leaves you with is one of several options: 1) Hire white males because the applicant far out weight any other group. Problem solved and BTW we are doing this right now. 2) Leave the positions unfilled which hurts the military's readiness and it will probably last for a decade until a recruiting drive aimed at women and minorities brings the total number of applicants up all through that time we will see more and more positions remain unfilled hurting readiness. 3) Pick from the reject pile to make up the shortfall, so either you lower the fitness standard further, add 50 points to the aptitude test simply because they are a minority or you hire them even if they don't have the prerequisites and make their courses no fail. Police, firefighters and paramedics as well as the military are organizations that need to hire the best qualified people for the job rather than hire people so that the organization can be PC. People's lived depend on those organizations, you hire subpar people and people die. Hiring people because of their sex or race is racist/sexist hiring people because of their abilities is not. I have no problem if there are 100 positions and I am the 101st on the list of simply because there are 100 better candidates. I would have a problem if I am 61st on the list and I don't get a job I earned because it has to go to someone else much lower on the list simply because of a racists and/or sexist policy.