Army Guy

I agree, sounds similar to the laws regarding being a traitor, rarely used because they may not hold up to constitution review. This one i don't see justice being done, just sending the problem away for someone else to deal with it....perhaps tougher new sentences could be the answer....but then again Canadian jails would be a vacation home for these guys....

And voting Anyone But Harper is very sound decision making...something you see in a school yard.....

Could it be that NATO has left afghan, along with it , it's funding, and aid......or could it be this is a result in our cut and run tactics......Canadians grew tired of the war, even when the job was not finished......

Do you think your responsibilities end with following the laws of our nation, voting every 4 years is that how democracy works now....Even Russians get to vote every 4 years.....but wait a minute do they have a democracy....Any government that wants to get voted back in has to listen to the people, i'll leave it there for you to figure it out.... Maybe next time you can run the next conflict....you seem you know exactly what is needed....or maybe it was a lot more complicated than you make it out to be.....Canadians did not give a sweet fuck about anything going on in Afghan.....lost interest until young men and women started coming home in aluminum caskets.....and even then once the days news was over, nobody even remembered the soldiers name....and from a soldiers point of view, Canadian citizens had forgotten us , like yesterdays news....sure everyone had those neat little stickers showing support for our soldiers, even had a few rallies to show the government they were not happy with the war.....but nation wide nothing and i understand, they had no skin in the game....but the when soldiers needed you the most, Canadian citizens left them on the battle field...with no support, very little funding, the wrong equipment, wrong vehs, the list goes on....and on....

I think Gwynne Dyer is a good military historian, but his opinion here has some flaws. it does not take into account that the average Afghan citizen was more than happy to see the taliban get pushed out....more than happy to see NATO troops on the ground, providing a much safer quality of life.... While according to Dyer it is what the terrorist want western interference to boost recruiting numbers......let me ask this, the Taliban controlled 3/4 of afghan they had established control over most of the 32 million Afghan citizens, and were living out their own twisted version of Islam....they could do what ever they wanted with no fear of outside interference......SO how would the benefit from kicking the hornets nest , It was'nt for more recruits, they already had as many as they wanted....it wasn't because they want the US attention.....they had nothing to gain and everything to lose..... You mention NATO attacks and actions creating more terrorist, it is true, i 100 % agree that those actions did cause some to convert sides....but your way of thinking is a double edge sword.....you see 80 % of Afghans killed were done by terrorist forces....And NATO had plenty of Afghans lined up will to assist us in our endeavours, Afghan army had more recruits than it could train....and still does....but that fact gets swept under the table.... And while i respect Mr Dyer, i'm pretty sure he did not wonder the streets of Afghan and talk to actual people, who would pull you off the street and offer up the last of their bread and Kai.....and thank you over and over again for getting rid of the taliban, for making their streets safer.... How does this make us safer ? ....How does having a group like the taliban in the world make us better human beings, how does turning your head when they were killing thousands how does that make us better human beings....it is not our problem....your right it is not, here we had a chance to help the people of Afghan live a normal life....a safer world to rise their children in.....we took that chance, instead of burying your heads up our own asses because we don't want to have blood on our hands.....and yet we are happy just not thinking about afghan, we know whats going on i don't want to think of it....Hockey is on tonight.........until a picture shows up in the media....then.... then we can wake up, and make it an issue....we have to do something.....they cry....but that is all they see, the killing continues....and all we can do is send them parkas, and boxes with teddy bears in them....

When your saluting your Daughter it will finally sink in.....

Actually there are a few military guys, or ex military guys on the forum, I think On Guard for thee , Signals.Cpl, Over there, Smallc is well read on things military, i know i missed a few guys but they are out there.

He's was a Canadian Naval Aviator....And ya he's not bad with the many tongues of the airforce.

Although lockmart wants all the buyers it can get, i think all this political footballing is a waste of time and effort, sure it will temporily shut them up until the results come back F-35 then it will be something else, it was scewed some how, some where....And i think it makes Canada look like a risky investment, not sure how that could be translated into a better deal....

I used those to small examples to demonstrate just how small and effective our military really is when dealing with smaller issues....of course it does not include things like Combat, that would make everything thousands of times more difficult to mange.... and require more than just 3 Army brigades to handle anything larger.....Use the Afghanistan example as a table of measure.....at most we could deploy 4000 soldiers overseas, and only for a short period of time....while domestically we could deploy a little more but would have no replacements..... That would be some rescue group, hence why it was tasked out to the military.....because we already have most of the equipment and would mean paying for similar equipment all over again, but of course you already knew that..... It dragged on because there was a lack of men and equipment to respond.....which is my point , our military is over tasked and under manned.... I'd like to see that news cast from the PM.....well folks, shit happens, sorry but we do not have the men and equipment to come to your aid.....maybe next time....

Sorry i transferred your posts for the ship thread. Once again all your choices have failed to beat out all or most of the F-35 current capabilities.....let alone in price, benefits to industry, etc, etc... while they may be better at a few items, that does not make it the better aircraft.....and they are all 4.5 gen aircraft.... 5.0 generation aircraft are the next generation, advanced tech , and not just in stealth, the most of the aircraft's capabilities have been improved on over the 4.5 gen A/C , or still being worked on..

So how is the super hornet going to fair up again'st the latest the commies have ? How many times is it going to take this fair , transparent process.....do we try until we get another result, anything but the F-35 result..... Yes they have the french have promised us the moon with gravy....but what is it we are looking at the best aircraft or who will give us the most benefits....because that is going to save lives.

I put the question up again for you to read it..... None of those are 4.5 or 5.0 generation aircraft, and none of those outperform all or most of the F-35 specs....Not to mention Canada does not buy Russian or chinese copies of Russian aircraft for good reasons....please keep you list to say western block aircraft.....

And what aircraft are you championing again, was'nt it the super hornet....How is this aircraft going to stand up to foreign aircraft still in the testing phase....how many of these Russian and Chinese aircraft been made todate.....

I'd like to see a source that confirms that both the Russian and chinese jets are better or whatever out maneuvered means....maybe a western source.... You suggest better equipment , but don't say what..... The old Avro myth.....i think there is more to it than some conspiracy theory the American had ordered it destroyed.....

What are you saying it is unfathomable to support any industry that produces weapons designed for one purpose to kill ....Every since man could walk he has been searching for better weapons to kill with.....Man's entire history is constantly filled with someone killing someone one could argue it is in the genes.....it is what humans do, we use violence for what ever gains you seek.....Weapons are tools we use to use in this violence..... Want to take the high ground, then perhaps we should stop using products that have been invented from this effort as well, things like Intra net,GPS,Digital cameras,some Anti Biotics,Can food, AMBULANCE SERVICES,MICROWAVE OVENS,TAMPONS AND PADS,Radar, sonar, radios, pesticides, aircraft, ships, trucks, all designed for the military, all invented to assist in killing bad guys....Do we stop using these products as well.... And what about the ability to defend one self or a nation.....what do you propose we use....and then once we have eliminated all the above what about products that can kill do we ban them as well....

Name one generation 4.5 or 5 aircraft that will be cheaper.....That outperforms the F-35, in every aspect but stealth.

Even a clock is right twice a day Eyeball.... you have this thing with referendums thinking it will be the end all be all............ when we can't even get 70% to turn out to vote in a election....let alone in a referendum.....

But i did attach some subjective evaluation. If a nation spends most of it's time, effort, and funding to such actions then one could easily come to the conclusion that Combat mission are given more attention, and therefore more importance. This is Canada, we don't declare war on a whim or with any regularity....Now we do send our troops on mission that have been approved by the UN council, or has the approval of so many nations that the UN does not make any waves to counter that move... Your losing me here, i thought you were reffing to the Harper government and it's current policies....and yet it was under liberal leadership we took on the Afghan mission....and it was under Harper's leadership that ended the mission early... I agree with you that Canada's population is diverse, not sure if it is to the point that, this is why they are reluctant to go to war....but i would say it must be reflected in there some where. I to agree with Ret Gen Colin Powells doctrine, and while it is a good piece of work it is not the end all of doctrine, it also is written for not only governments to follow but citizens as well.....While Nations and Militaries have a responsibility to follow it as close as possible.. It also needs the citizens to also up hold their end of the bargain as well.... Early in the Afghan mission, all the parties agreed to send troops, as did the majority of citizens, except Eyeball and a few others......So off we went to War, but as it grew unpopular, the citizens failed in all it's responsibilities.....as long as the hockey games, and pogey checks came in on time everyone was cool.......Except those young men and women coming home in flagged draped coffins, taking that long journey down the highway of hero's......Canadians would take a pause, feel some regret, then go about their business.....So while we as Canadians love to point our fingers at someone else.....in this case we need to point those fingers inward..... I think Canadians as a whole really need to sit down and discuss what a strong military really means, what is it we want them to do, and then put our money where our mouths are and ensure that not only is there funding there for them to do all these jobs, but the support as well....For me a strong military is not just about numbers, having a strong military is about having quality training, quality in our standards, and quality of personnel, all of these things along with strong professionalism, ethics, morals and values, but it must also have the tools to do the job, and most importantly the support of the majority of Canadians, who will voice their opinions if all of these things are not followed to a T.....whether our military is one or 100,000 strong... I can't say that i'm looking forward to the next government, i am concerned about what the country is going to look like under a new government, "i'm hoping for a conservative one" particularly on how our entire security apparatus will look like in four years time.. Thanks for you kind words sir, while we may not always agree i do enjoy your posts which are thought provoking and require research, which lends itself to learning more about each topic......

Those new LAV's are going to the Saudis, not ISIL or some terrorist group....It's the Canadian people that agreed if we are going to spend our tax dollars on our military it should always benefit Canadians some how, Hence the London Plant.....I'm sure the sale of these LAV's was approved by our government prior.....not just some CEO of some arms industry.....

I don't think Canadians want a massive Military, there is no need for it really, but for a nation that has one of the largest coastlines in the world, one of the largest land masses in the world....should have a military alittle larger than the one we currently employ....Not for world domination, but for all the reasons we employ them for..... Winnipeg floods years back had all 3 Army brigades, (the whole Army) plus thousands from the navy and airforce and it was still not enough.....Ice Storm 2 Army Brigades, plus half of the third, along with once again pers from the airforce, and navy....and when taking alook at the big picture they really were not big disasters....what would we do if Canada had it's own Katrina....or BC has a major earthquake..... Don't get me wrong the military does a lot more than provide assistance during crises like the ones mentioned above. But if we have a problem with dealing with small crises, what do we think will happen during a medium or large crises strike....or do we just shrug it off, and say shit happens.....

Like i already pointed out, long ago we decided to purchase LAV's for our military, part of the contract was for GM at the time, was to invest part of the contracts worth here in Canada, and they did built a plant staffed it with Hard working Canadians....it was part of getting the most out of our tax payers money.......But Canada's military does not require any more LAV's, so now we export them to keep those hard working Canadians work.....and paying taxes.....I to wish we could build renewable energy or something peaceful, but right now there is a shortage of manufacturing jobs here in Canada can we afford to pick and choose what kind of manufacturing jobs we have... Germany also has one of the largest Military industrial complexes in Europe.....but i do get your point.

Because like any other industry it provides jobs, good jobs that pay well, for not only skilled tradesmen, but unskilled labor as well. We are after all talking about Canada's arms industry, which is not all that large....And most importantly we are talking jobs in the manufacturing sector, which is very short at the time, do you really think we can pick and choose, what is a good job and what is not.... I had a conversation about this with derek, only about shipbuilding, and outsourcing all our equipment to defend our own country and foreign interests, we need the ability to make and maintain these tools of war, and while it may not be a priority of most Canadians to support these manufacturers, the majority also want those dollars spent on our military to benfit Canada in some way...with the building nation investing an equivalent sum back into the nation....that is why we have the GM plant in London, that builds LAV's.....and since the Canadian military does supply enough business to this plant to keep it open, they sell to other nations......

And yet the invited the bloc to the french debates......who while may win more seats than the greens, don't want to rule the federal government but want their own government....I think miss May brings a lot to these debates, one of the few that is fully versed in all the details of most subjects.....and does not rely on those standards long winded answers that have nothing to do with with the question....Just wish she was a *conservative....