Army Guy

jdobbin: That was not my piont i was trying to make , Ever since this post was started you've constantly posted up the death of all the NATO soldiers. For what reasons i do not know, So make your piont. The situation in Afgan is not even close to that of Iraq, sectarian violence "where did you get that" the violence is between coalition forces, the taliban, and occasional drug lords. NATO has already taken up the task, hence why all the deaths on both sides. My Webpage Not saying that NATO has made a difference yet or not, come this spring we will know for sure as the taliban would have had thier rest ,mountain passes free from snow. And when we yell across the valley GAME ON and nobody replies then we'll know....until then the British Gen is blowing smoke up your bum.

I'm just curious what exactly were they on a fact tour for. Did we actually pay them to go over and find out if the Hezbullah is a terrorist organization , or was it something else. And when are they going to Israel. or did they run out of klenex and crying towels and have to come back.

72 taliban killed yesterday, not that we are keeping score right jdobbin. My Webpage

The 747 is a good aircraft, for what it was designed for hauling small cargo boxes etc and passengers, and in a military use it great for getting large amounts of troops and small cargo into a strategic airfield.. such as what our polaris pas/cargo ac do in Saudi , from there smaller a/c are used such as the herc to bring all this equipment forward into a tactical airfields such as kanadar. However even thou the C-17 is a strategic airlifter if need be it can also be flown into tactical airfields. This would be done, if equipment that was required could not be flown in by herc, such as hvy armour vehs. The difference between a tactical and strategic aircraft is normally just price and size...both share most if not all the designs. A lease is just that, we rent them, and if there was ever a crisies the US could in fact pull them back for there own use, on top of the lease we are responsable for all the maint, and upkeep of those a/c , yes it is alittle cheaper but at the end of the day we do not own them. sort of you dent it , you bought it... Lets also remember that with a purchase you are actually buying into the tech, if further advances are made with this a/c we will be informed and have that opition to purchase those as well...It also allows us to develope our own tech to put on these a/c...where as a lease you don't have that opition...believe it or not Canada does very well in these fields. No there is not other than perhaps buying off the shelf from the US. or if there was enough orders to warrent reopening the assembly line. also keep in mind it is just the assembly line that is closing not the lines which produce the parts. Lets remember who was in power at the time, and how tight the purse strings were....Subs were not on DND's list of things to buy today, in fact they were'nt even on the list of things to buy tommorrow..But DND does not make those decissions, the government of the day does..The subs would have been a great deal if it had not taken 7 years to close it, in that time things went bad , to completely rusted out. Our government process of purchasing things is very flawed, with heaps of red tape,forums, and debates, just going from idea to actual purchase can take as long as 10 years, in that time tech has changed, requirements have changed everything has changed and we are stuck using something that is already obsolite before it's delivered. These new contracts for the C-17 and C130 are supposed to be fast tracked it's been 2 years already, and contracts still have not been signed "close but still not signed" Another flaw is how we purchase items, DND gives the government the specs, for instance our new fleet of trucks, the government "all civilians i might add takes those very broad specs and rounds up a few samples, DND then tests them picks out the top three , the government then decides which one it is going to purchases, in the case of the LSVW we purchased, DND rated it the worse truck of all the samples provided, in fact the government ordered it to be retested until it passed, it was only after DND took it to the desert in the states that it passed. Because it could be manufactured in BC by a canadian firm western star. Most of our equipment is bought this way, not because it is the best but because it has other pay offs like made in Canada, or creates Canadian jobs, which is good, but we tend to forget someones life depends on these vehs and just because it was made in Canada does not mean it is the best.

jdobbin: 747 is a civilian airliner, which requires a very large prepared runway, military operations require an aircraft that has a shorter landing and take off capabilities, and has the landing gear to handle unprepare airfields, it's wieght alone prevents it from landing on anything but prepared tacmac surface. where a C-17 could land on a semi prepared dirt runway. the 747 does not have a rear ramp to allow large vehs to roll on roll off, it's side cargo doors are not large enough to handle say a LAV armoured veh. it's cargo floors are not reinforced to handle the wieghts of armoured vehs. because of this lack of ramp, it requires more specialized equipment to load and off load. That and the fact the 747 is a much larger a/c than the c-17 so space is a factor when your handling alot of aircraft in a short period of time. Also the 747 takes longer to off load, On the C-17 the cargo floor actually allows the cargo to slide out the back and dropped on the ground allowing the entire a/c to be offloaded with no equipment at all in mere minutes...The aircraft actually does not stop, it taxis up with the area they want the cargo off loaded the ramp is lower and Aircraft pallets pushed out the back onto the ground. or the veh is actually driven off . All while the a/c is still in motion once off loaded it puts the ramp up and proceeds to back on to the runway and takes off again.. As for the 747 how long does it take you to get your luggage from an aircraft, and how much equipment does it take...remember these aircraft operate in war zones, and make for big targets, not something you want when your the pilot. or a baggage handler.

Gnam: Although it may be an unoffical UN defination, it is the best one out there. Here is where our piont of views split. And perhaps i've missed your piont, but i don't think this defination applies to nations, governments whom are at war, or conflict with another indiv, group or nation. to clarify, the act of Hezbullah launching rockets at Israel is an act of war, the kidnapping of two Israelis soldiers an act of war, The act of murdering that 4 year old child an act of terrorism.. because the act was full of malice and hate it's message was malice and hate..and it was carried out knowing this, and for this sole purpose. If we are about to study every act within war, then yes you would be right to say that every nation east and west would be guilty of some form of terrorism...but there has to be a line we draw like the one drawn by the UN where it states terrorism is a war crime comitted in peace time. It's not hippocritical, that some in the Hezbullah have practiced Terrorist activities in the past. and to be honest so have some of the Israelis. What political options have the Hezbullah left Israel, i mean really even if Israel gave them back all of thier POWS and the convicted terrorist, gave them back the farms do you honestly think that the Hezbullah will take up farming..So what other polictical avenues are there ? And your right , there is no intelligent discussion that can be had over peace in the middle east. there has been to much blood spilt, to much hate been fostered, and nobody is willing to take what action is nessicary to procure peace that will last in the middle east. Yes, a political generated message, that is strictly meant to change the minds of the people or governments through 'terror" in time of peace or war. For example the The Nazi's mass killing of certain "undesirables' (thier term not mine)could have been considered a terrorist act, along with the bombing of cities with out military targets in them, for the sole purpose of creating panick and terror in the population could have been considered a terrorist act. Shock and awe is used for the same thing only it's targets are military and in time of war. although its message is meant for both military and civilian. You'd have to go way out on a limb to make that connection, a man whom prided himself in becoming the best at what he was doing in this case knowly shipping millions of jews etc, to their deaths for no other reason than to rid the riech of thier kind..and justifing it because he had seen dead german civilians in a bomb shelter...and i thought it was the allieds that bombed them not the jews.. and then we compare the him to the men that involved in dropping a bomb that ended the war early and saved the lives of thousands of american soldiers.. I find it difficult to draw a similar comparison between them. I also find it difficult to believe her opinons to be unbaised, yes she was a jew, but she was also married to a man whom was investigated with war crimes. Hezbullah is a group that not all of it's members are terrorist, but firmily believes in the use of terror as a wpn again'st Israel... The people of Lebanon have made a chioce, be it via the voting stations, or by thier support of the Hezbullah. that they approve of the hezbullah actions again'st Israel..one has to just watch thier comments on the News to suggest that a large group of lebanese approve of the hezbullah and their actions. They are both the same group of people so why is there a clear distinction when there is not. You can't have your cake and eat it to, yes we approve of your attacks on Israel, we as a nation refuse to do anything about that. Yes the Hezbullah are part of our government, yes they make up a part of our military. So in that regards lebanon is guilty of of attacks again'st Israel period. Is it a cheap parlor trick, to fire rockets next to the same building then vacate knowing that it will draw an Israelis reaction. yes it is, but one both sides use it to thier advantage. No the facts do not contradict me, put yourself into thier shoes. They have lived there for many years, they could judge the situation by just how the israelis were reacting, they knew very earily that this was not a typical response...in fact the Israelis had told everyone very early that there was going to be a ground offensive, they made it very clear with the call up of thousands of reserves it was not going to be a typical response, they knew by the growing amount of armour clearly visable it was not going to be a typical response... All that would tell me it's time to hit the road, like the thousands that did. be it by car, train boat, or lastly by foot...So did they have choices i'd say a good majority did, poor or rich, if millions of Rwandians could cover hundreds of KMs to get to safety with no more than bare feet then lebanese civilians could also. Those few that were asked on tv why they stayed most said they were afraid that when they got back everything they had would be gone, again a choice, life over material things. Am i being cold hearted perhaps, but like i said earily i've seen the effects of war, and the choices that needed to be made would have been easy for me, leave, by any means possiable. Those that could not leave be it medically OK you've got me there, But war is brutal in the fact that many innocents are going to die, regardless of modern tech or what preparations we take the lebanonese government knows these, so does the lebanonese people. knowing all this they still made thier choices and drew the line in the sand.

Yaro: First of all, Boeing does not make the C130 Lockhead-Martin does, two entirely different manufactures, two separate purchase contracts. what is being talked about is the C-17 heavy lift transport... Yes, Boeing A/C are expensive, when you compare them against other european /russian A/c of the same type. "But wait", the is none that you can directly compare them with, the A400m is much smaller, and the An124-100 is much larger ( about the same size as the C-5 galaxy) But then again you get what you pay for, for russian a/c you get an airframe that just passes north american standards, with tech that is not the same standard as the wests, hence the agreement to build these same A/C with western tech, better engs etc..but this project never got off the ground....why price..and when all said and done it was still a sub standard a/c Boeing A/C have been setting world records for servicabilty, times available, it is also noted they also set records for safety...all these were set in combat conditions in Iraq, and Afgan... It's these above items that make the Boeings look so good. There are other reasons as well Russian a/c have been sold to or copied by most of the 3 world, including some of the wests "unfriendly countries" such as china, north Korea,the list goes on and on. and you don't want to be flying the same piece of garbage as the bad guys. plus you want a reliable source of parts not one where you might be in conflict with someday. Do you have any proof of this, or are you just flapping your gums, Since when does purchasing the best equipment on the market for the men and women of this country make you corrupt. or is it that no liberals are getting thier kick back...and that would be a major crime... Yes Canada already has purchased into the NATO airlift plan which allows us 125 hours of use on Russian built cargo planes..piont to note that would barely cover another Dart deplyment. Canada has historically had a much greater need for large transport A/C, IE, ICE storm, Winnipeg floods, just moving our own military around the country to train, or to secure our north. The C-17 is the largest transport plane available that does not require a special airport or special runway length. There are thousands of ways to solve this, but while our government ( past and prssent) and people argue over a few dollars our current military does without at the cost of depts dollars, and lives... but then again since when have lives been a factor...

Can someone please explain something to me....Why are Canadians so obcessed with AIDS...Why is it become our main focus of all the other illiness out there why have we have chosen AIDS. I mean to have Bill Gates donate 500 mil is quite a feat, and will go a long way to finding a cure" i Hope". But why aids. The last stats i found were from 2003, and the death toll in Canada has been historiclly declining thru break thru in medicine and treatments...It was only 83 people.. From what i have read on Aids so far does not make me an expert, but it seems that this diease is all about choices and life styles "for most" that is. Choices to indulge in a certain life style, whether to have protected or unprotected sex, whom we have sex with, All chioces that these people make "before" they get infected.. But what about the other dieases out there that are far better killers, that effect more of our population than say aids "what about them" Lets just take CANCER as an example. last years numbers indictated that 70,400 Canadians died from all forms of cancer of which 260 were children, that made no choices at all.. "piont to note" more in one year than all the years of Aids put together... another piont of that 70,400 who died only 20,500 were from lung cancer and tobbaco use...the remaining 50,000 or so were from dieases which have no personal choices to be made, or effect people at random.. Do we as Canadians have our priorities all wrong, are we backing the wrong horse here..My guess if it interfered with our sex lifes, Cancer would also be sharing the lime light. Perhaps our government should be funding medical research that effect us the most. instead of the few. Perhaps Cancer reseach program should be hiring the people in charge of the AIDs PR programs... My Webpage

Actually the planned to land over 160,000 troops, of which only one div approx 10 to 12,000 would be Paras, it would be later discovered that they would not have been able to muster even 1/2 of that due to losses in Holland.. Yes barges were to be used, River barges ones that would sink in anything over sea state 2 or as the british mildly put it a destroyer passing by at high speed could have sunk those barges, without firing a shot. each barge could only handle one piece of armour at a time, even those would not be the heavy armour such as tiger, hvy SPA arty,etc etc. Not true, infact 11 group which was responsable for the south still had 672 a/c of which 570 were spit fires and hurricanes, add to this that 10 and 12 groups were well rested and at full strenght, yes they were up north, but when faced with an invasion could have quickly been moved south. The orginal plan which was almost put into action was to withdrawal the 11 group further north out of the range of german fighters... True but remember the airfields in the south were always being pounded, in fact alot of the smaller fighter sqns had already been dispersed to rolling fields, thier ammo in trucks as well as there fuel trucks. not in the qtys that were available at the perment airfields but enough to keep them going as for repairs they were already sending a/c north for repairs something that could have still happened. Not many historians have anything good to say about the invasion plans. other than the fact they were Hilters dream of the week. with a very low chance of success. My Webpage My Webpage My Webpage

I think your giving to much credit to the actual damage that the luftwaffe had done to the airforce. britain still had well over 1000 a/c and pilots in the north. That fact played a big part in defeating the Nazi's in the bombing of the cities...has to say something. As for airfields all they needed was rolling fields, theres plenty of them. which could be used as forward bases for the A/F.. The radar chain although damaged was still in tact,any large luftwaffe gathering would have been spoted, Any naval floatila that was launched would have been noticed, by spies, air recon or resistance and reported. The Nazi's amb forces were made up of mostly towed barges, that would need perfect weather to make a chanel crossing. not to mention where would they land, certainly not on the cliffs of dover... So even if they had perfect weather, suitable landing sites, the odds were stack again'st them..even more so than D-day landings and those were a robust amb force for it's day. I think the british would have been better off actually if the invasion had gone off, what would that have done to hilters plans if he had lost 2 or 3 div's to the chanal, a larger chunk of his air fleet, not to mention his naval forces..How would that effected the rest of the allied coalition, and thier involvment in the war. would have the US gotten involved more heavily, what about Canada, or the other british common wealth what would have been thier reaction..

BD: So what are thier choices, keeping in mind the present day situation, present attitude of both sides on the border, and for good measure lets throw the terrorist in lets not forget them. What does Israel have to do for peace, i mean going to the market without an Uzi. Israel actions to date where of ones that the west allowed them to do nothing more. Israel took a chance with world opinion and got as much out of it as they could... The hezbullah got more than they could chew. but i think they got the message now, but for how long...

Gnam: Actually i thought the wikipedia entry had a definition to fit just about everyone, with most of them repeating basically the same thing. But i think that the below UN version has most of the meat. Taken from. My Webpage If the whole piont of this exericise is to use the provided definition in another augument to suggest that the west has also sponsored forms of terrorism or have performed War crimes in war. your right they have. history is full of examples. But you willing go as far as saying that those definitons do not meet your standards, and if you are going to pass judgement on them then you must also be prepared to define them. Look your obviously an educated person, myself am just a Soldier, if the UN could not come up with a workable solution do you honestly think we can ? I will give you what i concieve to be a terrorist act. Cutting off the head of a soldier or civilian on tape or other media outlet to use as a threat for other gains be it polictical or what ever... That is an act of terrorism. what is not a terrorist act. The cutting off the head of a soldier in the heat of combat with a sword. when the act was not to send any message but with the only intention of slaying of the soldier. that is not a terrorist act but a brutal fact of war. Another act of terrorism. Conducting a planned cross border raid, with the intention of commiting murder of civilians, but not just killing them, but to kill them in such a way that sends a clear message to the masses and general public...such as bashing a 4 year olds head on the rocks until her life is forever lost. No that takes a special person to carry out that act...that takes a terrorist, a coward. Explain how the example of Hannah Arendts is a good example. And how you tie the two together. in one example we find a man who was in charge of transporting millions to thier deaths, at one piont becoming the 'Master" his words not mine, with only one goal in mind the final solution... And in the other example we have an action that was taken to save american and allied lives by ending the war early. I have not read her works or her book on Eichmann, but from snippettes i've read she is Pro germany considering her background. Your right, the definition must be black and white and must apply to all ,in all circumstances, no exceptions. The definition i used is the one current used in Canada, or which is a modified version of the UN's. I was not suggesting that you approved or disapproved ,the event . I think the event or what has been publish of the event is self explanatory, and does not require a whole lot of context. To most those facts although not actually stated more or less jump out at you..Why would he have killed them in this matter if not to send a much larger message. I not demeaning the pain and anguish that is felt by those that experiance war. As i've seen the effects of war first hand, the sights ,sounds and smells. But it is what it is, a bombing during a war in which they are a part of by they're own choice, meaning they were warned to vacate, they had the means to vacate, they were lots of choices that they could have made. Things would have been alot different if those same people were dragged out of that same complex by Israelis soldiers and force to watch as they beat the brains out of the children with rocks. Yes the result is the same they are dead, but the intention or malice is not. one is a form of war the other terrorism. No, the piont is a nation is allowed to defend it self, to protect it's citizens be it Israel or Canada "all nations are allowed by inter-national law, and the UN conventions to defend it's self and citizens. once that happens all those actions are covered under the laws that govern conflict period...those laws that are broken are punishable with war crimes... Show me proof that a crime was committed. but on the other hand the crime of brutally bashing a 4 years old head again'st the rocks for the purpose of a terrorist act is a crime, one committed again'st all of us. From her own words. We've all read it a thousand times , tell me what could have possiable happened in that conflict to excuse this murder or to see this attack as nothing more than a terrorist attack. My Webpage

Right... I guess maybe you missed the point. Forgive me if I was unclear. I was attempting to point out that no sufficient definition of 'terrorist' has been given that would condemn Hezbollah as such. They are not terrorists because you say so... so what are the reasons? Actually there is clear difinitions that clearly define the Hezbullah as a terrorist group. which one would you like. beside the ones below there is also the canadian, us ,and uk verisions all available on goggle. My Webpage My Webpage In 1979, Samir Kuntar led a raid that targeted civilians in Nahariya. His group entered the apartment of a young couple, Danny and Smadar Haran. They took Danny and his 4-year-old daughter, Einat, hostage and retreated to the beach. Trapped there, first, according to witnesses, they killed Danny. The murder of her father would be the last scene Einat would see. For then the raiders killed the little girl — by bashing her head against a rock. Back at their apartment, Danny's wife, Smadar, had escaped execution by hiding in the crawlspace above a bedroom with their other daughter, two-year-old Yael. Afraid the child would reveal their hiding place, she had covered Yael's mouth with her hand. When she took her hand away, the mother realized she had smothered her child to death. I just curious as to how you could compare the above slaughter, which was done with only one brutal aim, to terrorize the family, to inflict as much pain and suffering as they could...To send a clear message of terrorism to the State of Israel and all her people...To a bombing which was done in retalliation to rocket attacks on a military target.. They did not just kill them , the butchered them, like a red neck would do to a bag of unwanted kittens. Next are you going to equally compare the D-Day landings , to the acts that were carried out in Nazi death camps. As for waiting for an explaination, are you serious what could they possiable tell us that would not make this an act other than terrorism. The people of Lebanbon have made thier chioce very clear to the world, they will stand behind the Hezbullah and thier actions...they've done so with thier votes and they've done so with thier actions or lack off.

Temagami Scourge: One must admit all cultures have had there bad days in history, including the christians. But if you could what would you have done to correct the wrongs that yester years Canadians have done to the natives. No i'm not trolling but interested in what your opinon is. Are you saying that all christians rape native children ? Or for that matter are All christians hostile towards natives today. I will agree with you that those responsable should have been castrated with a hot iron in the public square.for all to see.

BD: So why does that only apply to the under dog, and not to the west. or for that matter Israel in it's operations in Lebanon. whats a few thousand, The world almost had a stroke at those killed in one bombing, shit it even earned a 48 hour bombing cease fire....What has changed since korea, and WWII or the bombings of dresden, and berlin that killed tens of thousands in one night. The genva convention has changed little since then. is it that we grew morals since then. Thats not what i was implying, tragic yes, but why does it not apply to both sides. As soon as a soldier enters a combat zone he drops most of his values, morals, and what he has been taught as right or wrong....where do we in our culture kill the enemy without second thought..By any wpn available...Killing is killing regardless on how it is done the result is the same your dead. be it by napalm, WP, or direct machine gun fire. So yes to protect our values we must abandon some of our values to get the job done. We must be willing to do what it takes to defend our rights and freedoms and to serve as a warning to others that might threaten us. Imagine a terrorist afraid to start his car, or go to the mall to shop if he knows that he is a target. that his family and friends will be subject to the same terror. Would it make him think twice...i mean he's going to be disappionted once already when he finds out there out of virgins...but what will he think if he knows that his family and friends are not safe... What will his family and friends be telling him, it is not worth the risk to them... will it break the current cycle of violence...would it be worth it if we could end this ? Containing thier problems to thier region might be bigger. Do we really want Iran with Nuk wpns, were we better off with mass killers like sadam, taliban,etc...Keeping our cities safe i would hope is a bigger driving force. Not to mention our responsibilities to ensure mass killers are kept in check somehow.

Yes they should to ensure that they contain no info for the bad guys, and second do you think the AVG joe is ready to see a Canadian soldier take the life of a bad guy. War is pretty graphic, nothing like the movies... It is my personal opinion that they are not ready for it. shit soldiers are barely ready for it.

Videos can show them alot of info, to those that know what to look for like equipment thier using, radios, wpns, where they seasoned troops or green horns, how they reacted to the situation, what other equipment they used in their counter attack IE arty, air support...etc. alot of things can be determined and if they know our drills and tactics they can modify thiers to produce more cas.... To the untrained eye it's just entertainment... But what i think concerns them the most is that it is raw footage , unedited, of Canadian soldiers engaging and killing the taliban...Yes the Canadian public knows we are killing bad guys, but they are not ready seeing us doing it...And those that took it should have known better...

How, theres got to be thousands of ways you can support our troops, go to DND web site, e-mail the troops get the answers straight from the horses month.... Why ? Because these guys need your support, they need the support of every Canadian. They want to know that every Canadian has thier back, and that you do give a shit about what they are doing...and if you don't believe in what they are doing they want to know what you are doing to change that. Many years of neglect towards our military, have cast a large shadow over those beliefs that Candians at home do have our backs. Most in the military believe that this neglect was OK with the general population, and that they are just as responsiable for our current state. There is not many jobs out there that has unlimited liability,(meaning you may be asked or ordered to die) while carrying out your duties. In the Canadian military we have "all" volunteered for this job, we ask for little in return except your support, and the knowledge that you do have our backs. Because they need all the support Canada can give them. There choices of where and how they are deployed are very limited, they need to know that if our government does makes bad choices that the people of Canada will have thier back, and have those decissions reversed. It's very hard to go outside the wire when you know your countrymen don't support you , be it buying equipment that will save lives, etc...

Black dog; Sometimes you suprise me BD, I think 9/11 proved beyond a resonable question that the third world has always had the means to threaten and strike the west. Mere speaches by some of the worlds crackpots have sent the west into a lather, how many Bils did we spend in the early 70's on airport security, trying to detect hyjackers, After 9/11 what is the cost of security measures taken todate, world wide i'm guessing hundards of bils... And that was just and few words and the actions of a few cowards. hell a VHS tape brings up the threat to yellow. " these are threats" and most a valid and costing all of us bils...taking away money spent on something else... The threats are real, 9/11 was a wake-up call ,what is it going to take a large smoking hole to prove "yes they are a threat" and we need to do something. 3000 dead in one attack is a drop in the bucket, then why are we concerned with things in lebanon, i don't get your comparison... Why are you so understanding towards the underdog...It's time we stand up and tell these cowards "Enough" GAME ON, and fight them by thier rules... I think there is more to it than the quest for OIL, and control over the entire region...

I don't think you do understand, Why would you be taking out your frustrations on the military, I think you should take a few extra seconds to rephrase your responses. And piont them at the guilty parties. You continue to implicate that the CDN military controls it's own destiny, it does not....If your unhappy with our governments decission regarding Afgan then that is your right as a tax payer, and voter. But we in the military have little choice where our government sends us, were not asking you to support the war, what we are asking you is show "us" your support...

Actually, very little of that 8 bil in the article will be spent in Canada, last time i checked the Chinnoks and C-17 plants are located in the US. there may be some smaller sub contracts that may be picked up by Canada. but the US will get the bulk of those cheques.

Charles Anthony: I'd like to clear-up something. Canada's military does not declare War on anybody, Canada's elected government has that opition, with approval of the parliment (in most cases). You know the one that the Canadian people have elected. And no they do not have to justify anything to the Canadian people , in fact they make decissions daily that effects us all without justifing anything to the people of this nation...(they may want the support of the people to get re elected but they don't have to justify anything) If what you say is true then what are we doing in Afgan recent polls indicate a majority of Canadians do not support this mission. Has our government broken some law, done something wrong perhaps you can show us a link to back up your argument. Did you get a call from the liberals when they declared War on terrorism, did you get a call from the conservatives when they decided to spend 15 bil on our military. I must have been out that day, because i never got a call... In this Case Canada has declared war on terrorism, and has joined coalition forces in taking that fight to the Taliban and Al quada, where ever they may be. Again the military is a tool of our elected government, not the people of Canada. They are not the same. You may pay taxes which are in turn used to pay for military activities, but the people have no say on how the military is used or how they are equipped..and once again the military does not have a say in whom or what the are used for, those orders come from our elected government. Be it to fight terrorist in afgan or put down uprisings in Canada. You really need to do some reading, i recommend reading up on just how the UN deploys troops, How NATO deploys troops , and what is the difference between peacekeeping operations and all out War operations. Canada does not do anything unless it is in our own interest, they may share the same interest as other nations ,but Canada is serving herself in all she does. You've been given the defination of merc read it, get somebody to explain it to you if you don't understand it. But don't compare those that serve this country in our armed forces as merc's. In doing so you cheapen thier sacrafice, thier contribution to this nation...they've given to much and have asked for nothing in return. Unless you have served you don't have that right.

That depends on what you call innocent does it not, Correct me if i'm wrong but did Koresh not explain to all his people in that compound "what his future plans were going to be", did he not make it clear that he was going to "fight". Why have all those arms if not to use them ? you don't buy automatic wpns for hunting.... Did the good guys(ATF) not, call for those that wanted to , to walk away before the attack on the compound happen, i recall it was made serveral times. Those people made there own decission to stay, and assist Koresh in any matter they could. Or do we let these wing nuts run free , to do what ever they wish while the rest of us try and live in peace by following the rules and laws of the land. What is immoral about defending yourself, defending your nation, defending your rights to exist and live in peace ? Do you really think that if Israel gives back the sheeba farms and releases all it's hezbullah members from prisons that they will stop hostilities? That this will all fade into history.

Charles Anthony: There is always two sides of the story , whether you want to hear it or not, as for history repeating itself, it has been doing just that ever since man picked up a club...we are creatures of habit and we have a habit of killing each other.

Charles Anthony: Thanks for moving this topic , i believe it really needs it's own space. Yes it is based on a interpretation, one that was based on private conversations with the maj as they talked regularily, one based on experiance, The gen had been on serveral UN mission during his carear. So he's interputation is pretty acurate. I'm not following your logic here, Yes there was an arms embargo, But enforcing it was next to impossiable, due to the lack of personal. Your making it sound like Muslim and croat forces were running around with old wwI hunting rifles, when everyone knows that is not true. All one has to do is take alook at the numbers of wpns that were handed in by all citizens to be destroyed in a cash for arms Nato deal. Or better yet, all one has to do is be there during the new years eve celabrations and watch the tracer fire across the sky and that was in 2003. The arms embargo did little to stem the flow of arms coming to both the Muslims from Arab countries, and Croats coming in from the west and soviets. The years that the UN was there, the entire country was in total caus, fighting was every where, and the UN did little to stop it, in fact they were concentrating on relief operations not stopping the fighting which could not be stopped without a modern army with all the toys. So explain to me just how the UN and the embargo kept any one from defending themselfs. My Webpage( muslim forces) Muslim Hvy arty we've already covered the embargo unless you can give me proof that it did have an effect. as for the UN being part of the problem, your right it was, they had there hands tied by the host groups( Serbs, Croats, Muslims) before they got there, to suit there own needs and goals... I'll explain, before UN excepted the task all sides in the conflict had to agree on the Size of the UN force and what it could be composed of IE NO tanks, No attack helos, not motars, etc...basically mech lt inf was the heaviest military group allowed. In other words to satisfy world opinon they allowed the UN in, But lightly armed so they could be quickly and easily pushed aside, leaving all sides to carry on with there plans so nothing really changed...except now they had a scape goat to blame things on... The piont he went Right after he retired is a mout one, really he retired and found work, work that was related to his experiance and expertise, are you saying you find fault with that, This was his opertunity for him to explain what was wrong with the mission and UN operations publically as HE COULD NOT when he was serving. The Link i provided you explains that, HE later explains who was paying him to the public. His speaking tour was to explain to those that wanted to hear it, The Myth that not only did most of the world leaders hold but most of the world "that most if not all the war crimes committed in that conflict were committed by the serbs." He clearly pionted the finger at all sides including the serbs, he was setting the record right. The only ones that made a big deal out of it where the croats and muslims, as now alot of people, knew thier hands now had blood on them as well. It was in benifitical to the serbs to pay him to do that, He spoke the truth and did not speak favourily towards any one side. How could you find a fault with that. unless you can prove that what was said was in fact BS. Do you have such proof...because 5 mins in google i can find tons of crimes that the muslims and croats have been charged with and found guilty of in an inter-national court of law...that is not counting the ones that got away with it. I don't think you do understand, the UN at one piont was just providing relief, not peacekeeping as there was no peace to keep. UN personal were routinly held hostage for money, wpns, etc...they were often hyjack for wpns ,vehs etc...they were thrown in to a conflict to soon, with to little equipment and pers, with rules of engagement that only allowed a soldier to observe... For someone who has been trained in warfare, that has good morals, and values it tears them apart to watch and not being able to act..."just like those dutch soldiers" they wanted to bring the fight to the serbs ,they were willing to die fighting , they were willing to kick ass or die trying but where held back by the UN and thier chain of command...And now they are remember as cowards... The UN was as neutral as you can get, it's soldiers as neutral as they could be. I'm not going to defend every UN soldier, but i will comment on my experiances and will say it is extremily difficult to remain neutral when you've seen brutal senseless acts done to the elderly, women and children for no apparent reason other than to terrorise the population.... So in your regards to you pionting your finger and blaming the UN for any of the problems in Bosinia , i would remind you that even with all the problems and inaction the UN is to be blamed for, Nothing and i mean nothing the UN has done or is being blame for, could compare to the acts commited by the Muslim, croat, and serb forces. Yes he is fair game, but you have made unfounded comments which are not comments, but slander. you've yet proven to all of us that they are true. Just offered your opinion , which like arseholes everyone has one and carrys no wieght to your argument. Been called alot of things but never a merc, going by your logic our entire military since WWII have been involved in merc operations. still going by your logic Canada would have had to declare war on all of bosnia forces in order to bring peace....makes since to me...i think i've said this before but this logic deserves it ...."Your Talking OUT your ASS Again" Are you croat or Muslim bosnian ?