Signals.Cpl

For politicians and many people yes it is. If a person believes that we need not worry about the military as we have NATO to protect us it seems like a good idea to spend money where it is more visible and where it will earn more votes. You claimed that those those nations shouldn't be in NATO because they have nothing to offer. Wether we should to shouldn't have been nation building is not too relevant when we look at the fact that throughout most of the mission there were people crying for more troops and then you are complaining that those troops should not have been there. Loan? As in they have to give it back/pay for it? Any source BTW? Yes, but it seems that you have a double standard, because the Polish are useless because they have to be led by US general officers and the British are useful even though they have to be led by American General officers. The CF was under foreign command for most of the Afghan mission therefore we would fall in the same category of useless if we used your criteria. You made a claim that was relatively vague and then said it depended on the situation which in my mind means you had nothing specific in mind. So whats the problem again? If they are well trained soldiers, less effective equipment means more creative soldiers. To me the soldier is the most important part of the equation as less effective equipment does not mean less effective soldier, just like state of the art equipment does not mean great soldier. It doesn't matter what they make as long as they make less money then the UN is willing to give to their respective government for the use of the soldiers. If a nation deployed 10,000 soldiers and makes $1,000/month per soldier from the UN but pays that soldier say $100/month then that means that the nation gets a net gain of $900 X 10,000 = $90,000,000 in income for the country. For a third world Nation a deployment on a UNPK mission brings them hard currency while keeping the soldiers home costs them money. Whereas a country like Canada is at a net loss when deploying soldiers for UNPK missions and its cheaper to keep them in Canada. And what do you think? NATO does not let them join, so they will turn to others for mutual defence, wether it would be to unite with the rest of Eastern Europe, or look for Russia for guarantees of protection. Do you think that if NATO had kicked Easter Europeans to the curb Russia wouldn't have been there offering protection and establishing a buffer between NATO and itself once again? I don't get what your point is, we were and are there, and those 8600 soldier came in handy. If you want to engage in a what if scenario where we were never went or didn't stay past 2002 that different. Right now, looking at history we needed those extra soldiers there, claiming that we should have been there does not negate the fact that we were and still are and needed all of the support that they could give. Yep, we just let one of our Generals record the rapes and genocide... But our political will to REALLY help people was non existent, and I mean REALLY help people as opposed to sending soldiers on feel good missions with restrictive ROE's that are more likely to get them killed then let them help the situation. I don't help every homeless drug addict because I don't have the means to do so, but seeing as I have basic first aid, if you are chocking on something I will help you, if you are hurt I will help you... it goes like that, if I have the means(skills) then I can help whereas if I don't have the means I can't help. You can look at it anyway you want, to me if we as a nation have the means to, we have to do our best to make this world just a little better. I don't know where you are getting to with this, but we entered World War 2 to protect Poland, a European nation in a European conflict. So you are complaining that those who have significant resources aren't helping the cause and not investing enough boots on the ground, and those who have less resources but have invested more boots on the ground compared to their abilities are helping too much?

I meant that equalization payments means funds that the federal government gives provincial governments in the "have-not" provinces. The money goes in to the provincial coffers and then used to pay the bills.

The Canadian Government spend the money in other more appealing ways.Probably 98% of the people in the country don't care that we have a military and know painfully little about it, the benefit lies in the fact that Canada spend the money on its people instead of its commitments. Yeah it is, but then they wouldn't have the coveted position in NATO, and we would have to find another 8600 soldiers to put in a war zone thats already short on soldiers. Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania. And you mean mobility like they provided to Canada for much of the war? Overall command does not matter, as that would apply to the British, Australian, Italians and Spanish forces along with a ton of other nations that also fought in Iraq.Polish soldiers answered to Polish officers who answered to Americans, just like every other western power that deployed to Iraq. Depends on the example you had in mind rather then the situation.You either had a nation in mind when you said it, or you were assuming/guessing. Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania. Bad equipment != bad soldiers. No, because the Canadian government would get roughly $1,000 dollars per soldier but would spend 3-4 times that to pay and maintain that soldier on deployment, and in fact might even be giving the soldiers the allowance whereas other major contributors who pay their soldiers at a rate much less then the $1,000 a month tend to deploy many soldiers to bring revenue for the government. Essentialy when the cost to a country is 50-100 dollars a month to deploy a soldier and that country receives $1,000 then there is a net gain for the contributing country, whereas when the contributing country pays a Cpl $4,000 base pay tax free, plus depending on the situation danger pay and a few other allowances plus medical,dental and logistics support it adds up to well over $6,000 a month to deploy 1 Cpl which means that there is a net loss for Canada. Well not necessarily fight against us, but if they can't find collective security with us, then Russia is the way to go. There were mistakes made in 2001-2003 that contributed to this, what should or should not be happening is irrelevant because we were and are there and need all the support we can get. If the 8,600 soldiers are there and ISAF was still crying for more soldiers then one would assume that refusing perfectly capable soldiers would be ludicrous. Not that many. So you are saying that if Germany had not started the War but was openly murdering millions of defenceless people we shouldn't and wouldn't have acted? How does a stranger chocking on something effect me? It doesn't, wether they live or die my life goes on, but it would be expected that if I had the ability to prevent the death I should act on it. There are things that are national interests and should take priority, but then there are national values that should be acted upon if we have the means to act. Just because 800,000 Rwandans dying didn't have much effect on our country doesn't mean we should have sat around and watched them get raped and murdered. Yeah but we got involved before that happened, how would you explain that? We were involved in a European war to protect Poland from the fate of Czechoslovakia and Austria. Did they not go to Afghanistan with the rest of NATO? Please explain how they failed the US. America was attacked NATO moved in and used military force in order to assist the US which included and invasion of Afghanistan. Care to explain at which point the NATO members failed? I personally think that some NATO members are more then justified to GTFO from Afghanistan due to recent events.

40 years of defence cuts? At home, not dying. 1)Can you provide sources as to how many of the East European countries had donated equipment in the form of Humvees and Helicopters? 2)The Polish Detachment to Iraq deployed included in to that detachment were soldiers from a number of other East European nations working independent of the US. 3)Define led by US officers, are they eld at the platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade or division level? Because if we are talking about General officers we can just as well ignore that point as it applies to us. 3) And again, do you had e a source that they were being supplied by the US? Because once again, if we use this criteria we(Canada) falls in there as well because over the years of the Afghan mission we have heavily depended on US support in many ways From equipping our forces to assisting in training CSOR. 4)How do you judge East European soldiers as substandard?What is the criteria? Do we look at Canadian forces deployed on missions in the 90's as substandard because of the abysmal state of their equipment? How much does a Canadian, or Australian NCO make? Ive worked for Polish officers in Gagetown and they sure were professionals, teaching on our Sniper courses. I don't know, if East European countries are going to benefit from economic interactions with the west including Canada and the US, then they might as well bleed with us. What you are saying is that we should ignore the countries willing to help because they can't help as much as Canada COULD if it WANTED to? If the Eastern European countries cannot find collective security with the west, they will look elsewhere and I don't know about you, but I would prefer the soldiers they could mobilize to be fighting with us then against us. I'd like to hear your your proposal to make up the 8600 soldiers in Afghanistan in 2009 that were from East European countries, seeing as they were less then useless we could have send them home and deployed 8600 more soldiers from...Germany? Or France? No wait, Canada can deploy another 8600 soldiers right? How was it our problem that Germany liquidated the jews? Or Rwanda slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people? Why is it our problem what a bunch of nut cases in the balkans were doing to the people? World War 2 was Europe's problem too right? Well asia's problem as well. World War 1 was exclusively Europe's problem, we didn't get a say then. Korea was Asia's problem... If we do nothing to prevent the mass murder of innocent people then we are no better then the killers. I have no idea what you are referring to...

Animal cruelty, if you see something that you think is animal cruelty you can act to protect the animal.

What does that have to do with anything? Right now the burden is carried by few, while the benefit is felt by many, primarily the benefit of the US military carrying the most weight. Can you describe what you mean by this? All I have seen is a standard that is set and East European nations are working hard to meet and maintain the standard. Switching from large conscript armies to processional forces and modernizing equipment and doctrine. And what good are 200 soldiers? I guess we would have to ask ISAF if they are better off without those 200 soldiers. And again please define what you mean by holding their hands? East European nations have well educated and well trained personnel who can be used as a fighting force. My problem with third world military forces is that most of them deploy on UN PK missions exclusively for the financial incentive. When the UN pays over $1,000 per soldier deployed and then adds more financial benefits for personal equipment the developing countries deploy their soldiers for the financial gain rather then the mission. When you pay someone $50 a month and you get $1,000 a month from the UN plus all of the upkeep of the soldier that brings in nice pocket change. What I'm hearing here is that you want nations to pull their weight, but you don't want the once without too much weight. And lets be fair, some of those "nearly second world" forces are in better shape then the Canadian Forces see Poland for example where they have modernized their military over the last 2 decades. Did Canada pull its weight in Afghanistan if we compared them to the states? And what about the fact that the US has to hold our hand to and from Afghanistan and during the entire mission? The US repeatedly bumped us ahead of their own units to get equipment in order to be effective. What are the chances we could have deployed the forces we did deploy if we had to use only our own resources to move to Afghanistan and maintain our forces there? Where would we be without American or British CAS? Im all for that, but who is going to supply them with equipment and train them and keep them operational? Many of the African countries depend on western aid to survive on a daily basis without adding a military mission to their problems. Major difference between not wanting to participate in a mission in Afghanistan and a NATO member being directly attacked. And again Canada happens to fall in the can't deploy category when we still have to rely on the US for strategic lift for anything larger then a battalion. How many wars in the 20th century truly had a direct effect/threat to us? WW2-Did not directly effect us as it was primarily Europe and China's problem Korean War-Korea's Problem First Gulf War-Kuwait's problem Balkan Wars-Europe's problem Afganistan-Asia's problem None of the Combatants in those wars attacked us until we were already at war. NATO is collective security, plain and simple, I agree some nations pulled more in Afghanistan than others, but when it comes to one member nations being attacked I think all members will devote energies to protect the one under attack.

Like everything else in life, if you are not willing to share the burden then you do not get the rewards either. Thats the exact reason we need to restructure NATO, its not a means to fight a war with Russia anymore. Warsaw pact is dead, many of its members are now part of NATO, so the main reason NATO existed over the decades of the Cold War has evaporated, the need for the alliance is not gone, its just morphed in to something else completely. What the Warsaw Pact countries offer is willing partners who are working hard to meet the standards put forth by NATO. I don't know about the other,but I know that the Bulgarian Army deployed over 1,000 soldiers to both Afghanistan and Iraq, Estonia deployed around 200 soldiers Latvia and Lithuania deployed similar numbers as Estonia and Poland deployed upwards to 5,000 soldiers to both Iraq and Afghanistan. I would have to say that I prefer having smaller countries willing to help then larger nations with more capabilities unwilling to help. If we look at most East European countries, I woulds say they deployed more soldiers per total population (1.3mil for estonia they deployed 155 soldiers) (Macedonia deployed 177 soldiers with a total population of just over 2mil) Bulgaria(600 soldiers deployed out of 7.5million population) (Poland deployed 2500 out of 38mil) France and Germany both deployed relatively small number of troops compared to their overall population and strength, I would say the newer members are more willing to play within the framework or NATO then its more established members.

Do you think Harper will turn Canada into a dictatorship?

But they have something to do with the provincial Revenues right?

I think its more of a failure then a coverup.

Not just them, DND needs to be separated from politics completely.

Here's the thing though, NATO was designed for one reason, and now it is being used in a whole other range of conflicts that it was not intended to commit to. I think to revitalize NATO we need to expand membership and restructure as a means of providing the ability to meet a threat anywhere in the world. Include nations that are otherwise excluded exclusively due to geography in to the Alliance and expand on its responsibilities. The UN is incapable of doing the job, and NATO is basically the EU plus us and the states, if we can turn NATO in to an organization with wider membership and use the capabilities of its members to effectively face any threat we can have the chance to prevent war. PK missions run by an organization that has the ability to deploy first world forces to meet any threat globally is much better then an organization that can deploy third world under-equipped soldiers with questionable ethics and skills and only if the first world funds and equips those soldiers. The need for NATO specifically is gone, but the need for an organization with NATO's capabilities but with a wider range of members(All continents) is ever present.

Not necessarily true, the NATO structure might need reorganization but it is not obsolete by any means. The whole point of NATO is as a deterrent, you fight one nations, you fight all nations in the alliance, the alliance needs to be refocused in order to move away from its cold war job of countering the Warsaw Pact but the reality is that NATO is probably the only major international alliance that can intervene in war zones.

No, just the individuals within the party and this individual. You cannot claim one person has the right and privilege to be considered innocent until proven guilty and another person and/or group of people are guilty because you say so without a trill of any sort. Everyone has the same rights or no one has those rights, regardless if you are a murderer or a politician. I believe that I can say I think he is guilty based on the evidence I have just like you might think PM Harper is guilty based on the evidence at hand but when some numpty starts whining about innocent until proven guilty for a murderer but at the exact same time he does not afford the same right to a law abiding citizen thats when it becomes a problem.

How does Blackwater fit in to Alberta and the oil companies?

You use vague terms and you keep switching arguments, ignoring evidence and using false assumptions as facts. Honestly I am wondering why I even bothered to argue with you... But I see something good coming out of this, at least you got some self-esteem boost right? I mean after weaving so many idiotic tales that were outright wrong and trying to confuse the issue you finally win, by default because I don't want to spend another minute explaining anything to you.

Trying to understand what hell it must be like in your head was my struggle... I decided I don't even want to know, I don't think I want to even glimpse whatever demons you have in there.

Awww who is a good boy.... I was expecting an admission but turns out when you are wrong you deny deny deny... You pick a topic you know nothing about, you ignore all facts, when someone proves you wrong you introduce more arguments in order to draw away from the main argument you lost, ignore some more facts...whine whine and whine some more about someone else fabricating things when the organizations themselves are the sources backing up my argument... congratulate yourself, you cannot win an argument but you sure could annoy people at a world class level.

Spell my name right, and thanks for showing me that there are people as close-minded as you. I'm never going take you seriously again... I was wondering why so few did...

Nope, the initial topic not where you dragged it to. The Law is the Law! If you cannot enforce one law, you cannot enforce all law.

Which is?

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ How did that work out for Nicaragua?

From the F-35 topic: First my assessment of the UN is based on facts. United Nations resolutions are meaningless unless the US takes notice of them. The Department of Peacekeeping is nothing but a drain of resources. If China, Russia and the US don't agree the UN is powerless as the power is concentrated on 5 nations, 3 of which generally stand together and 2 of which are generally on the other side of all arguments. Now, on decisions by the world court, the ICJ makes a ruling, and say Russia does not go along with it. What would happen in this case? Well Canada can appeal to the United Nations Security council about Russia's refusal to comply with the ICJ ruling, where a permanent member of the security council can Veto the appeal, oh wait I think Russia has veto power thus we can take it to world court, we win in world court, Russia does not comply with world court decisions, we appeal to the Security council, and guess what Russia can veto any resolution that will force them to comply. Direct source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/International_Court_of_Justice.aspx Further Sources: http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/en/ifaq.pdf on pg. 39 of the document http://www.icj-cij.org/information/en/ibleubook.pdf on pg. 75 of the document http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter14.shtml http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter5 You know what, it doesn't really look that well for Canada if Russia does not comply as well we can once again bring the issue to the security council and the decision would require 9 of the 15 votes, including ALL of the permanent member states( United Kingdom, France, China, United States and Russian Federation). The only chance for us is if Russia votes for us(unlikely), or Russia abstains from the vote, which means we have to pray they boycott the SC. Just because we don't have the means to stop the submarines does not mean we should give up our ability to defend our airspace.

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America in 1984 ICJ

You sir are one in a billion...I don't think Canada can take another nut like you...