Army Guy

At the time the US president was presented "what everyone thought was facts" (later some of it was to be proven wrong) he had a list of choices or actions that could of been taken....from this list of choices he picked perhaps the worse one or a bad choice..... He was not wrong in the choice, as at the time all the actions available where reasonable measures that were justified by the information he was presented at the time....

I gave you that example to show you that sometimes being moral and ethical does not matter, it is what is law that takes precedance...that being said the War in Iraq has not been declared Illigal, by any inter-national court or the UN. persoanl believes do not count, legal is defined as US law, inter-national law, or signed conventions....so far none of those have declared the war in Iraq illegal. I'm confused by your statement, would it change your mind if War was not declared in Iraq, like in Afganistan. would that give combat any different meaning.... Correct me if i'm wrong, After a regular force person retires or quits after fullfilling thier contract , he is done his duty and is free to live thier life as any other US citizen....To become a reserve that regular force person, must make that choice once again, to sign up and volunteer thier services...and in doing so knows that in the reserves he maybe called upon once again to serve his country....So if you had a problem with Iraq in the regular force, Why would you then volunteer to transfer to the reserves.... Basic training is not just to teach you the basic of warfare,but also an indepth study of the indiv, can they handle high levels of stress, are they mentally stable, are they physically fit, any unseen medical issues....if the US army exams were anything like ours, the doctor asked me if i had flat feet, told some jokes, asked me if i had any medical issues, then sent me on my way....i fella in our plt had a glass eye, it was not discovered until week six of our training during hand to hand combat, when it fell out of his head after being smacked....Surprise, you need both eyes.... No they would not have been informed of any operations or future operations....that being said Basic training is going to give them a great insight as to what they will be doing in thier new chosen profession....training for war, not doing dishes in some grease spoon....Soldiers do not pick thier enemies, governments do.... Soldiers who sign a contract and volunteer for military duty do not have a say in which war they fight, They may assume that there government has thought out the decission to use military force, but when the commander and chief says mount up "thats what they do" "who ya".... It gives conditions and expections of US army recruitment and re-enlistment....If a soldier wanted to become a CO then there are legal ways to do that....nobody is forcing anyone to fight, those that claim they are.... have not done thier homework....or are not very creative....Morris had an excellant suggestion, tell them you perfer the same sex, and poof, your trading in your uniform for a pink tutu and moving to San fransico.

I disagree, at most it was a bad choice, and only after the fact was that proven....but not wrong, i believe that the US did have enough to atleast go in and slap Sadam around again....this time removing him from power....sending a message to those countries that might try the same thing in the future...

But we as a nation have already decided that there are rules to follow when governing a nation, declaring war, or deploying troops is in those rules....But i would agree that if there was time to debate ....then parliment should debate the fact....the matter of letting it go to referendum would not be practical, hence why elect people to represent us, if referendums were to be used why not have every issue solved this way...and disband our current method of parliment and government. But those same billions where not subjected to the same amount of intel as the US president was....Do you think that there may of been a reason for his decission that the public was not privey to....

So when can we expect an article or post about other extremists other than those in the form of Israelis...

Do we know that as fact, can we honestly say that at the time the president made the decission to send US military forces to Iraq for Gulf war II, that he knew for certain that his reasons where false...I hav'nt heard or read anything that sugests other wise, can anyone out there provide a source or link that proves that the US president knew his reasons for deploying to Iraq were in fact false before hand... If not then at best he deployed his military under bad advisment, and faulty intel...Not under false pretense or lies.... There has been alot of talk about illigal wars or unjustified fights, What constitutes a illigal war or unjustified fight. Are we saying that the orginal gulf war was not justified, i mean Iraq did invade Kuwait did it not ? The world did not have a problem with slapping the Iraqi's down for invading.... What the world had a problem with was after....upholding all the sanctions placed on Iraq, nobody wanted to be the cop, nobody really gave a damn about how Sadam dismissed most of the sanctions, disregarded his restrictions placed upon his military, in fact he went out of his way to make things harder, how many times did Iraqi A/c engage US naval jets, how many times did Iraqi air defenses engage coalition A/C, and to top it all off there is the kurd crisses....sadams breaking the restrictions and sanctions agains't him are to many to list here... So when do we draw the line in the sand and take action such as Gulf war II, or do we just make the rules and for those that break them or disregard them there is no consquences.... yes many of the other reasons given have been regarded as false, Wpns of mass destruction, etc....but at the time did the US and coalition have the grounds to launch another ground operation?...and if so how can the war be classified as unjustifiable, or illigal ?

Although being moral and ethical is fostered within the military, it is trumped by the law....for instance you superior gives you an order do not allow any one to cross that bridge....a young boy approaches the brigde with a basket in his hands....he is smuggling food and ammo to the bad guys and you know this for a fact....what should you do....is it moral right to kill a young boy, is it ethical, No atleast not in Canada or the US ....but it is legal, the boy is a combatant and can be engaged... A soldier must follow all legal orders, period.... I don't know...i assume it would be international law, but let me ask this question if it is illigal war, why is someone not chasing down the US , why is someone or some country not hanging from the rafters yelling "this war is illigal" we want bush for war crimes.... Really, combat is combat, what about the war on drugs in columbia, it's not UN or NATO backed the US has alot of combat interests not UN or NATO backed.... come on the war started in 2003 and regular enlistments are not more than 5 years, but i could be wrong.... No basic is to see if you can qualify to join, if you don't pass then your not excepted....and thier are plenty of reasons you can fail....so no it's not a done deal, but rather the begining... No they are not, but if you are in the combat arms trades you will get your turn in short order, alot of US army types are on thier 3 tour....it's been mentioned here before, as a soldier you don't get to pick the fights just fight them....don't like the fight then get out.... Website

One can not compare US army pers, with NAZI's....big difference between the too....Todays US army is one made up of Volunteers, be it the regular army or reserves...one must make that chioce to walk in to the recruiting office and and sign up, and even if the recruiter was not very forthcoming about what a US service person is expected to do in the run of the day it would become very apparent in basic training....So the excuse that i did not know i would be sent to war is really a moot piont... The NAZI did'nt need a contract, you served or where imprisoned, or worse.... As for german soldiers following orders, any illigal order is not obligated to be followed, however, i think most were being realists, they either gas the jews, or where gas themselfs, or forwarded onto more dangerous assignments, like the russian front...But they did have a chioce.... Really, we are talking about the US military, are we not, it would be easier to name the times that the US military machine was not engaged, than it would to list all the different conflicts that have involve US military personal. Being a US citizen you should know, that joining your military, there is a very very good chance of seeing combat, some where in the world....And joining during the Iraqi war those odds only get better and better, of seeing some sort of combat.... A person does not go thru basic training and not pick up on the fact that most of the training involves carring out military duties one of them includes closing with and destroying the enemy....why train someone to do that if they did not expect you to carry out that task....why train them on the use of wpns if they did not expect you to use them....the theme is carried out thru out basic training ...so if after 13 weeks or more you still don't know that maybe you might be asked to kill or harm someone then yes i would say your a lair or mentally challanged.... No one asked them to lose thier ethics, they willing walked in and signed a contract, "and to do that with the Iraqi war still ongoing and not agreeing with the whole ethics thing to start with is a bad decision gone terriably wrong....and your just asking for the stupid stick.... As for an illigal war, it maybe, but not all americans see it that way, but thats another topic....

My question is this, "Is there anyone out there right now that does not know what a soldier does for a living"....Ok i will give a small percentage of people the benifit of the dought....But how could those same people go thru basic training and "NOT" fully understand what thier new profession does for a living.... This is not about refugees, or immigrants, whether the war ws justified or not....it's about desertion, and failing to live up to a contract they signed willingly, knowing the consquences well before hand, anyone saying different is a liar, or mentally challanged........and these people are looking for a cheap way out....Send them back and have them to face up to thier problems under US law....

Good one morris....

Nice to know that you have such affection for me. Maybe peters right, you do need a hug. I know, i know just not from an A-hole like me.... Approval of Canada's new militaristic policies, where did that come from, the NDP website....living up to agreements and our status as a G-8 nation, does not mean "new" militaristic policies. As for the williness shown by our soldiers to get the job down, is nothing new....Those jobs being given to them by the freely elected government of Canada...not something they ( our Nations Soldiers) just came up with on thier own, and certainly not just to showcase thier job skills, and training.... What your proposing is a military within a military, one for defense and one just incase our elected government decides to use our military for political gains outside our borders......it brings about so much baggage it becomes non feesiable. Nor does it solve any of your concerns, albiet one small one who is going to pay for offensive operations....but what about equiping such a force, supporting such a force, etc etc ....it does nothing in keeping with your PD of non interference....or pissing off other nations....Keeping in mind that orginally the majority of Canadians where in favour of getting involved in Afganistan.....

Worked well for us in the past, WWI, WWII.... .Bullshit....Ask mother Russia how many nukes where aimed at Canadian cities, how many still are...why is there so many foreign spys operating here in Canada, because of of world domination plans, or because they percieve us as a threat... Poor example the swiss live in an armed camp, where part time military service is a must until your 55, A long time if you hate the military and everything that comes with it....As for nobody attacking them, perhaps but they where influenced internally by outside forces....

Conscription in Canada is a thing of the past, it comes with to much baggage and heartache, aside from a major world changing event such as WWIII it won't happen... As for volunteers that can't wait to go kill so called scumbags, Think again...nobody prays for peace more than a soldier...once you've seen, smelled, tasted, and experienced war, your in no hurry to experiance it again... But there is enough men and women out there that will step up to the plate not because they crave to kill scumbags but because they believe that protecting our freedoms and freedoms of others is an honourable job and profession, as much as you believe that the use of force to achieve polictical means is wrong....

Perhaps i was a little quick to respond, and with to much emotion..

You don't hire a plumber to do carpentry work do you, that is what conscription does, it takes individuals out of thier current occupations and places them in an unfamilar, highly stressful enviroment, with very little training. with one big motivation factor learn or die..... Doing just fine in todays battlefield is not good enough, todays tech requires months and years of training. It's not as simple as picking up a rifle, and pionting it towards the enemy. As for the falsehood, you call it what ever you want, i've seen a truck loads of civilian vistors in Afgan, most react the same way as soon as the shit hits the fan....and it's not good, and the only difference between them and a consript is 13 weeks of training....not enough for combat.... Then you never read the entire article, below is a para that has nothing to do with monie.... There is a major problem with conscription, displinary problems, low moral, not enough training, the list is endless, They just don't have enough time on the job , making them a liability to those that they serve with.... And for you to say it does not happen, i say bullshit, it happens more often than not, and not just to new conscripts, but to professionals as well... Your comment says it all, who better trained than a professional soldier....lets face it a seasoned soldier is a better one there is no comparsion.... Bullshit....his only concern was his tax dollars were not worth the investment, and that they should serve longer periods of time to make it worth while.... I did'nt say we had the monopoly on toughness.

I'm just wondering why the Navy did'nt continue with the tech along different lines, perhaps a littoral capable ship, or SAR, or even coastal patrol...

.Really, So what you are saying is that some guy with 13 weeks training then shipped to a war zone is going to perform just as well as some guy who has made this a profession....Come on...for every example of good conscription performance, i can give you a dozens of volunteer examples....doing just fine does not cut it in a combat zone.. There is more to the conscription debate than acting well under fire, hence why most western countries have switched to all volunteer forces.... conscription vs volunteer Even good training and good leadership, is not enough to make someone perform well in combat....it is everything to do with that individual's ability to overcome and control thier fears, that enables them to function correctly under stress...Can't teach that in a few weeks of training... Don't take the insults to heart eyeball. Its the usual Armed Forces "We're tougher than others" horseshit. Stop holding his hand, he's a big boy.....when he cast those that have served this country in a bad light then he should be able to back those statements up.... all he is worried about is is damn tax dollars, not those that have signed up to serve this country.... As for the "usual we're tougher than others" it's because we are, although it does not make us better than the rest of Canadians it does make us tougher.

I'm not a navy guy but here is my guess....

The only mistake we made purchasing the C-17 was not buying more, the link below reports 2 of the aircraft are being upgraded, the other 2 are already tasked, it was Mr Bernier that volunteered thier services without checking out all the facts, and to keep his promise we are now renting.... C-17 Conscription ya, just what we needed, although the thought of torturing the shit out of the likes of eyeball does have appeal, it would only delute the quality of service members. NO thanks, last thing i want is some tree hugger/ whinner, hanging off my pant leg whinning about why he can't go over the top, to close with and destroy the enemy...NO leave the heavy work for those that want to serve, for those that are up to the challange, for those that believe in our country. As for the tax payers not getting thier monies worth out of thier investment.....That is just crap...every soldier, sailor and airmen that has served one day on active duty has payed back "your" investment with interest.... be it patroling in Afgan, bobing up and down on the high seas, or performing SAR, or close air support in some forgotten country....Your investment is paid in full, if anything is in arrears.....

Morris you big stud. Heres a toast to the women who invented the blowjob, and lets not forget all those that have passed this anicient tech from generation to generation.....here here....

I guess i must be one of those toxic posters as well, i happen put a high value on Augusts opinon. In fact i'd go as far as saying most people on this forum are good people with good intentions. Can't really contribute if all you got is personal attacks....

quote] But the fact that the Ground Forces are initiating talks, and following the statements of Karzai, Layton, shows that the Army is not "Politically" motivated but practically motivated to achieve its objective. It would be the Lpc/CPC that did not agree with discussion as did many in the Armed Forces. That is no longer the case. 7 years on and something must be done to make practical gains. Nobody is dening that low level talks have been ongoing since the start of the Afgan mission, however those talks are not being done with those that are responsiable for terrorist attacks agian'st the Afgan people....those that have been identified as ordering, or carrying out terror attacks have been omitted to any talks ongoing... As for practical gains, they are there just have to look for them, althu they are slow in coming, they are there. Yes there is, but is the NDP heeding that , do they know how that translates into a military mission.... Most of the crimes being carried out in Darfur are under the orders of the current government, how do you stop them from killing there own,? UN has placed lightly armed UN troops into the area, but will not use them in dirrect confrontation....so other than asking the Sudan government to stop killing there own people, how does the UN plan to stop these crimes?....what is laytons plan other than to throw us into the middle of this mess.... Sudan does not want any western forces there, in fact they don't want UN there at all, and have used military force on serveral occasions again'st UN forces....This is a clear case where the host nation is hostile, does not care about santions or the UN .....If the NDP are serious about this mission then it must include an option of dirrect confrontation, which could lead to a regime change....That being the case then how different is this going to be from Afganistan.... I agree, but making stupid mistakes does not make a Neo-con, or bush follower....it just makes for a bad government....the NDP is willing to follow down the same road ....while pionting the fingers and thumping thier chests screaming bad bad Neo-cons, you war mongers, have you no compassion....all governments are the same , first comes the votes then comes the paying for those votes.....and in this case payment will be in our soldiers blood....

There are 2 major parties in Canada, because that is what the majority wants or votes, if the greens and NDP had anything to bring to the table then they to would be part of the status quo....Hard enough to get one party of like minded people to agree to party lines can you imagine what it would be like with 50 different agendas.... political parties of Canada

He starts off blaming the Neo-cons for most of our military adventures, what has got me confused is how is the NDP's decision to send troops into Sudan any different. he pionts out : , but fails to explain how the above is any different than what we have faced or now facing in Afganistan....And if both missions are similar in nature how could the NDP not be put in the same boat....as the Cons or Libs...are the NDP neo cons as well? Or like much of NDP's decisions they have not done any homework, or risk assetments, they just like the fact that it's a UN mission, and not one under American rule....

Correct me if i'm wrong but did'nt the NDP and green party want combat troops in Darfur...but i guess it's OK to continue the cycle of violence if we are feeding the masses, Actually if you fit into the Cons, Lib, NDP. or Green party, then i'd say yes, they have no problems using our military forces for thier political gains....And yes they accept the dogma that is attached to that. My smear, No. this is not a smear, but an opinion that is shared by myself....A party that condemns our mission in Afgan because it is the wrong mission for Canada, it's American lead mission, everything about this mission is bad....and then in the next interview cheerleads for another mission one in Darfur, which contains everything the Afgan mission has, with an exception "it's not an american lead mission", And it's one being championed by the NDP, with little interest from the other parties....As for being intellectually incapable of distinguishing the difference between the many forms of ruling governments....Thats a big leap on your part, another problem with the left, they have neat little slots they catagory everyone and everything, and if you don't hold they same values or beliefs your automactically slotted into one....For you all it took was my login.... And what do you base that comment on, your extensive background on military operations. perhaps your back ground is with counter terrorist operations, What is your back ground anyways....My guess is you have no background in anything in ref to Afganistan, and that your comment is one based on opinion, not fact....and you know what they say about opinions everyone has one... Your comment is full of holes and lies, or misinformation, you take your pick....but if your going to comment on something you should atleast know the facts or enough to bullshit.... Have you read anything about Canadian military operations in Afgan, i think not, I'd like to show you some pictures of deeds that your buddies have carried out, pictures of a 5 year old with her hands cut off, a man staked out in a field stripped of all his skin, and left to die....the list of crimes is a long one, you don't negotiate with men that mastermind this type of terror, you relocate them....you and Mr Layton, should meet with this guys and sort this whole situation out, but you should study up first and what makes them tick and what they are fighting for.... they don't want a cease fire, or compromise....they want to return things to the way they were before.... It must be nice to sit in your arm chair and make decisions that effect our soldiers lives that you pick out of your ass, but i forgot the left, our non violent brothers and sisters, are experts in warfare, and what is in our best interests....How many soldiers would have to die, so that you and your crazy ideas could be proven wrong. So where were you and your ilk when the decision to send our troops over was decided and what did you do to prevent it...must have been pretty convincing, as we are now deployed....your actions todate have still failed to convince anyone in power to change thier mind....which leaves you here whining and moaning about something you know little about.