jbg Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) Morris there's been nothing new or acerbic (or did you mean asserbic) about your act for years now. Give it a rest why don't you.I see that you joined on January 5, 2008 and have 22 posts. How do you know about his act for "years now"? Edited January 9, 2008 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 You never knew the old Morris? You'd never know it was the same person. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
White Doors Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 To summarize we need to do the following in the order listed. ... But instead you will be totally ignored and we will going on doing things like we are and you will be just as frustrated and have zero recourse - just like today. Makes me feel proud to be Canadian actually. People like you living here being pissed off with our country only tells me that our country is doing something right. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
Army Guy Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 As I pointed out, I specifically said that war-bonds should be used to replace offensive military spending. I said nothing at all about opting out of paying taxes for things like health-care. Actually you did suggest that very fact, you said you find it offensive that 7 cents of each of your tax dollars is being spent on the military, that you suggested that any offesive military operations be funded by war bonds or as you put it funded by those that actually agree that Afgan is a noble mission....And out of your 7 cents approx 2 cents of that is actually spent on operations in Afgan, the rest is being used in day to day operations here in Canada.... If you get that option then why does the rest of the population not get the same opition by opting out of things they do not agree with...such as UI or our present failing health care program....Hence why i said it would be a double edge sword. Courts and governments have given recognition to an individuals right to conscientiously object, that is, to not be forced to participate in war on moral or religious grounds. Not true here in Canada sorry. Current Status In the current National Defence Act there is no recognition of conscientious objection. And, as Canada currently does not have conscription, there is no legislation with respect to conscientious objection. However, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedom's recognizes the right of freedom of conscience. "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion" (Sec.2). Given Canada's historic record, it is presumed that individuals could make a claim for conscientious objector status on the basis of the charter and historic precedents. Until quite recently, there was no provision for persons in the Armed Forces to apply for a release in the event that they came to a position of conscientious objection while in service. In the mid-1990s, the Defence Department made a commitment to allow persons with a genuine change of heart to leave the military before their five year commitment was up. CO War-bonds would give the act of conscientiously objecting real teeth and it would put the onus on the proponents of war to really come up with solid reasons for going there. By my count Canada's changed it's reason for being in Afghanistan at least three times now. You may percieve this event a victory in regards to your beliefs, but i see it as opening a box for the rest of those with an axe to grind. and opting out of thier taxs. As far as our governments changing reasons for being in Afgan, yes the mission has changed, along with the reasons "thanks for keeping -up", our orginal mission was to rid Al Quadia and the taliban from power, that mission is accomplished, next the "elected" Afganis government asked our nation to stay and assist with security and re building thier nation....sorry if this sounds to "offensive" to you, we as a nation have done this type of operations under UN mandate before, this mission was actually blessed by the UN it self....so what is it that is so offensive to you....does it piss you off that we might be given present day Afganis some rights, the same that you take for granted everyday...Does it piss you off we might actually be improving the Avg Afganis quality of life... what about this mission do you disagree with... I doubt if WD or AG would spend much time differentiating between the country or person who funds their enemy from the enemy itself. You have no idea what it is like over there, as a soldier or for that matter as a civilian. Instead you disregard my reasons for going over there because it goes again'st your beliefs, fine that is your chioce and right....But as you have beliefs so do i, and i happen to think that this mission is a noble one, for several reasons...Canada has nothing to gain from Afgan itself, there is no oil, diamonds etc that would be worth all this effort..... We as a nation are not trying to add another province or bent on world domination...instead we are offering our hand to a country that has had the shit kicked out of it since the begining of time....we are offering to build something they don't have alot of...a few basic rights and freedoms...sounds pretty damn offensive to me... So while you may not agree with my reasons or methods , what have you done to assit the Afganis people or for that matter any of the people in need across the globe...At least i've , along with thousands in our nations military, RCMP, and Diplomatic pool have got off your collective asses and actually put a plan into action...What have the objectors done...Is that crickets i hear.... I'm not anti-military at all when it comes to defending our country from an attack on its border or helping out in disasters at home or abroad So you don't want all of your 7 cents back form each of your tax dollars just the ones that are spent towards Afgan....But then again most Canadian swould say the same thing, that is until it comes to actual funding the equipment needed to do those very things... The attacks on 9/11 were a criminal operation. Terrorism is a tactic not a country or a place you can carpet-bomb or invade Yes it was a terriable criminal act, But the taliban refused to hand over those that planned and organized the attacks...in fact the told the US that they would protect them and use force to throw out any country that tried to bring to justice those Al Quadia members....In thier eyes Al quadia were hero's... Seize whatever assets they have in our country, stop dealing with them economically, send humanitarian aid where we can. Turkey for example should be getting raked over the coals for their incursions into Northern Iraq. Its inconscionable what they are doing. Worked wonders in Iraq just after the 1 st gulf war...Oh wait a second was'nt there another gulf war after that.... Yes very inconscionable of turkey to go after terrorist that have been bombing and terrorizing large groups of turkey citizens...and yes they have tried all your methods....but how do you explain to a people that has grown tried of being bombed ...that we can't deal with these bad people with violence...because that would be nconscionable.... Yep. Non-interference in the affairs of others is going to require a lot of fortitude and its going to be very painful having to watch a lot of unresolved madness unfold Let me get this right it's all right to watch thousands upon thousands die while turning our heads ....but it's unconscionable to take direct military action that could save more lives than it took.... Problem with militarists is they refuse to think outside the box, their solution is to derail any discussion of a peaceful strategy by speculative tangents into things like ice storms and mountain tops while demanding more gasoline to put out their fires. No problem with peaceniks, is they want thier cake but they want it for free....And the men and women who provide all of that do it year after year while sacraficing everything and getting nothing in return except you shoving your ideas down our throats....do more, with less violence...and try and not look like soldiers thier sooo offensive.... A Canadian War on War will be the greatest challenge this nation has ever faced. All that remains to ask is, are you with us or against us? Just so that i'm clear has Canada ever taken part in a war or operation that was declared unlawful, or unjust....So why is thier so much anti military here in Canada....it's not like we live in a policed state...that we travel around the globe kicking everyones ass, because we can....why so much fear.... something else i thought might be useful ...got it from the same link as the one above. Conscientious Objection to Paying Taxes in Support of War Many conscientious objectors argue that paying taxes to support the government's efforts to train and prepare for war is objectionable. Some of the early experiences with fees for militia service are mentioned above. In both World War I and II, Mennonites in Canada successfully applied to the Canadian government to issue specially marked bonds or non-interest bearing certificates that would be used only for relief or other non-military purposes. The opposition to the payment of “war taxes” continues through the work of Conscience Canada (www.consciencecanada.ca). Conscience Canada administers a Peace Tax Fund which provides a way for individuals to protest the use of their income tax money for military purposes. Individuals may file the military portion of their federal tax (or a symbolic amount) with the Peace Tax Fund. Their monies are held in trust until such a time as the government establishes a legal way for COs to designate their military taxes for peaceful purposes. Currently, persons who actually withhold a portion of their tax are violating the law. In the 1990s, a coalition of peace groups and churches, including Conscience Canada, the Quakers and Mennonite Central Committee Canada, made several appeals to the government for the provision of a legal means whereby individuals could designate the military portion of their federal tax to peaceful purposes. At this time, such provisions have not yet been made. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Wilber Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 Well, here's a clue. I opted out of EI years ago.Go figure eh? So that lets out a salaried job. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
weaponeer Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 Not so, aside from the usual daily inspections, commercial airliners undergo monthly checks that take two days or more and yearly heavy maintenance checks that take two weeks or more. That's from new and the amount of maintenance required increases as the aircraft age. While the military probably won't average the same number of flying hours, the aircraft will be subject to more severe use than a civil aircraft. It will be a very lucrative contract for whoever gets it. Let the whining begin. Actually the routine monthly & yearly checks are done by Air Force techs. The day to day maint is done by the Air Firce. Civy maint only comes into play for DLIR, Depot Level Inspect & Repair, after some many hundreds of hours of use. A new C130J will be in service for 4 -5 years before it would require DLIR. CAE in Edmonton used to do maint on the C130's also, not sure if they are still in on it. If we really wanted to save $$ we would simply let the US contractor due the maint, cheaper option by far. Canadian aerospace companied cannot compete with the US one because we do not have a military aerospace industry in Canada. No Canadain company makes military aircraft, they make civilian ones we paint grey and call military (DH8, Griffon helo, CL61 etc...). With the C17s doing most of the strat airlift, the C130Js will be used for the tactical airlift, this will reduce maint as we are using them for what they were designed for. Our present Herc fleet was driven into the ground by miss use, as is the case with our CP140 Aurora fleet. Quote
weaponeer Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/news...007_10/01_e.asp Here is a good article on current AF priorities.... Quote
Wilber Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/news...007_10/01_e.aspHere is a good article on current AF priorities.... Thanks Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
weaponeer Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 Yup. I was dubious of the military pushing it as the deal of the century. I believed the government should have been preparing for a new class of anti-submarine destoyer.And now the Tories have been swept up in all of this with the massive tender to get these useless subs in the water. Moreover, they are looking into a new sub purchase. No, anti-sub destroyers do not exist, they are a myth. It is the ships helo that detects and kills a sub. The best and usually only way to kill a sub is with another sub, this is what my navy friends tell me, but what would they know:) You have to get out of the cold war mantaliy of subs!! Subs do much more these days, much more than they ever did in the cold war. Anti-shipping, anti-sub ops are still there, add on recon, spec ops, troop insertion, intel gathering etc... They are busy people..... Surface ships are good for fighting other ships, shooting on land targets, supporting anti-sub ops and as anti-air platforms. Our navy ships do anti-air Ok, but they have sub-standard radars for this. Quote
weaponeer Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 Glad our forces are getting the new heavy lift aircraft no matter who gets the maintenance contracts. In todays modern military world we need to be stop hitch hiking. The Sub deal with Britian was wrong from the start and we should admit it ,scrap the money holes now! If we are to have Subs,and I think we do then lets get a couple of Nukes from a reliable source so we can hold onto our soverienty in the Artic. We are going to lose it you know unless we act like big boys. If we were smart, we would have bought 4 Virginia class subs from the US. We could have arranged to tack on 4 subs to the overall USN order, saving time & $$. But this is Canada....... Quote
Wilber Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 No Canadain company makes military aircraft, they make civilian ones we paint grey and call military (DH8, Griffon helo, CL61 etc...). Question for you regarding the Griffon. Is the UH-1 a militarized 204 or is the 204 a civilianized UH-1? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
weaponeer Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 That's right, which is why offensive military adventures outside our border should be funded through war bonds. I'm a conscientious objector its as simple as that, and war bonds are the only fair way I see to separate the doves from the hawks and ensure the hawks pay their own way in the world.Lest you believe I'm willing to sit passively by while other countries and governments simply go on rampaging around the world, I think Canada should unilateraly declare the export of arms across international borders to be a crime against humanity. Arms manufacturers and merchants should be regarded as being worse than pedophiles, the simple fact the world is so awash in arms is why there is so much death whenever people are conflicted over something. We should invite other conscientious countries to join us in applying full economic sanctions against any and all countries who continue to trade in military weapons, of any kind. We have vital natural resources that other countries need and we should be exploiting them in more creative ways than simply liquidating them for our own immediate benefit. We should be witholding them from any arms exporting nations who refuse to get with the program. Think of it as being like a combination tough love/just say no approach and cut them off. I'm pretty sure this would cost Canadians a lot more than the .07 on the dollar they're wasting now trying to force peace on a violent world but I bet we'd get one hell of a lot bigger bang for the buck. I wonder how many gun registry employees feel the same way? While we're on the subject of people paying their own ticket, I don't own a gun so why should I have to pay for their oversight? I say we invoice the gun owners. You can be a conscientious objector because you live in a free and democratic country that allows you to be. Real men have fought and died fighting histories monsters to give you this freedom. We should destroy the Canadian economy to prove a point?? We should throw thousands out of work to spite others?? We should get rid of our military and scoff that those that do not?? We can do this because we have "vital" natural resources that the world will need?? The world will lay down their arms, stop wars because they need our maple syrup??? Are you F$#KED?? How about the world "will come and take what they want from us because we have no way to stop them"!!!! They will rape our resources becasue we can not do anything about it. What's next, you going to stop screwing your wife to prove a point?? Deny her the pleasure of your conscientious objector manhood until all wars end?? Don't be surprised if she starts "working late" each night!!! Quote
weaponeer Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 Question for you regarding the Griffon. Is the UH-1 a militarized 204 or is the 204 a civilianized UH-1? The UH-1 is the military designation for the Bell 204. Mostly the same helo, however the military version has some different features such as, UHF radios, armour plating in key areas, reinforced floors for weapons mounts, as well as some system redundancies for operating in combat zones. The CF Griffons are actually civil B412s painted green. There is a military version of the B412 called the Griffon, but we do not use them, just the name. That is the reason they are not in Afghanistan. The AF has a project to upgrade some of our helos to "REAL" Griffon status, with armour, weapons mounts etc... They are going to be called escort helos. Quote
weaponeer Posted January 9, 2008 Report Posted January 9, 2008 http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ Here's another good link. Look at the bottom topic, Modest Proposals, you will see a link about armed Grifs, good read..... Quote
jdobbin Posted January 9, 2008 Author Report Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) Hey weaponeer, No, anti-sub destroyers do not exist, they are a myth. It is the ships helo that detects and kills a sub. The best and usually only way to kill a sub is with another sub, this is what my navy friends tell me, but what would they know:) You have to get out of the cold war mantaliy of subs!! Subs do much more these days, much more than they ever did in the cold war. Anti-shipping, anti-sub ops are still there, add on recon, spec ops, troop insertion, intel gathering etc... They are busy people..... Surface ships are good for fighting other ships, shooting on land targets, supporting anti-sub ops and as anti-air platforms. Our navy ships do anti-air Ok, but they have sub-standard radars for this. The Iroquois-class destroyers were categorized as anti-submarine destroyers. You do make a good point that without the helicopters the destroyers have far less reach and far more vulnerable. They become sub killers because they are a platform for the choppers. http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/current/iroquois/ These destroyers were all launched in the early 1970's, primarily as anti-submarine destroyers. The first Canadian warships (other than AORs) to carry multiple helicopters, they were also the first ships to be powered entirely by gas turbines in a COGOG (COmbined Gas Or Gas) arrangement. Well suited to sea conditions in the North Atlantic, they made very effective anti-submarine platforms. I believed the submarines were going to be a drain on resources and I still do. New destroyers with helicopters are far more valuable to Canada. I always hear that submariners say that other submarines are the most effective for killing other subs but does anyone think that the Canadian subs are capable of this? It has been incredibly frustrating see the effort getting these vessels seaworthy and knowing all the problems that we inherited. Edited January 9, 2008 by jdobbin Quote
weaponeer Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Hey weaponeer,The Iroquois-class destroyers were categorized as anti-submarine destroyers. You do make a good point that without the helicopters the destroyers have far less reach and far more vulnerable. They become sub killers because they are a platform for the choppers. http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/current/iroquois/ I believed the submarines were going to be a drain on resources and I still do. New destroyers with helicopters are far more valuable to Canada. I always hear that submariners say that other submarines are the most effective for killing other subs but does anyone think that the Canadian subs are capable of this? It has been incredibly frustrating see the effort getting these vessels seaworthy and knowing all the problems that we inherited. Our subs are heavily tasked, although only 1 at a time. The sub force is designed to only have 1 combat ready sub at a time, we only have 4. Subs are a great asset, you can use them for many missions, more so now that nukes have been removed from most (not all) us SSBNs. For Canada they are good to support spec ops (and they do), to control and monitor sub-surface activity in our waters. Subs are a psychological weapon, they are almost impossible to find and cause great concern to naval commanders. 1982 Falklands war, the RN was so concerned about the threat from two Argentinian subs they neglected their air defence plan. The sub threat opened up the door for the Air Force to strike. What we should have done is purchased some new subs from the USA. With those, we could operate under the pack ice up north. Quote
jdobbin Posted January 10, 2008 Author Report Posted January 10, 2008 Our subs are heavily tasked, although only 1 at a time. The sub force is designed to only have 1 combat ready sub at a time, we only have 4. Subs are a great asset, you can use them for many missions, more so now that nukes have been removed from most (not all) us SSBNs. For Canada they are good to support spec ops (and they do), to control and monitor sub-surface activity in our waters. Subs are a psychological weapon, they are almost impossible to find and cause great concern to naval commanders. 1982 Falklands war, the RN was so concerned about the threat from two Argentinian subs they neglected their air defence plan. The sub threat opened up the door for the Air Force to strike. What we should have done is purchased some new subs from the USA. With those, we could operate under the pack ice up north. At present we have no subs operating. That link is in this thread somewhere. We have had the worst luck in Canada of buying and operating submarines. I don't think the U.S would have sold Canada any nuclear subs to be honest with you. Quote
weaponeer Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 At present we have no subs operating. That link is in this thread somewhere.We have had the worst luck in Canada of buying and operating submarines. I don't think the U.S would have sold Canada any nuclear subs to be honest with you. Hi jdobb, hope you had a good holiday, Actually I think they would have sold if we asked. I my experience with NORAD I have seen many things the US has offered us. They seriously want our help with regard to continental defence. If Canadian subs were patrolling the arctic, they would not have too, it frees up their resources. A sub base in the Canadian arctic would send a huge statement out to the world that it is ours!!! 6 patrol boats will not do it, they are a waste of $$ I feel. Now 6 ice breaking frigates... better option, more $$ but worth I think.. Another huge issue with Canadian subs you have to consider is what we gain access too. As sub operators, we have access to US & NATO sub intel, as well as sub operations. In short we know what is where sub wise. If you are not in the sub club, you do not get that info, allied or not, your blocked as it is "need to know only" info. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 ...I always hear that submariners say that other submarines are the most effective for killing other subs but does anyone think that the Canadian subs are capable of this? It has been incredibly frustrating see the effort getting these vessels seaworthy and knowing all the problems that we inherited. You hear that because it is true. A sub's passive sensor system and heavyweight torpedo in the same medium will almost always have an acoustic advantage and longer standoff range. Surface ships configured for ASW attempt to imitate with towed arrays, helos with dipping sonar, sonobuoys, magnetic detectors, etc., but nothing beats being deep in the drink and same thermocline. A diesel-electric on the battery is very tough to find and kill. They are capable platforms for specific missions. But they don't come cheap, and require an extraordinary amount of upkeep (refits and overhaul) because vital systems have to work. If Canada is not committed, or lacks the mission purpose, don't send men to sea in half-ass solutions. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted January 10, 2008 Author Report Posted January 10, 2008 Hi jdobb, hope you had a good holiday,Actually I think they would have sold if we asked. I my experience with NORAD I have seen many things the US has offered us. They seriously want our help with regard to continental defence. If Canadian subs were patrolling the arctic, they would not have too, it frees up their resources. A sub base in the Canadian arctic would send a huge statement out to the world that it is ours!!! 6 patrol boats will not do it, they are a waste of $$ I feel. Now 6 ice breaking frigates... better option, more $$ but worth I think.. Another huge issue with Canadian subs you have to consider is what we gain access too. As sub operators, we have access to US & NATO sub intel, as well as sub operations. In short we know what is where sub wise. If you are not in the sub club, you do not get that info, allied or not, your blocked as it is "need to know only" info. Thanks, I did. Hope you did too. I'm not sure that the U.S. would ever sell a nuclear sub to Canada. As far as the value of the patrol boats for the north, I have to say that it was a bit of a letdown from icebreaker promise the Tories made in the election. I happen to have supported the idea of the the icebreaker. You are probably right that the slushbreakers being a waste of money. I don't know that any amount of money is going to get out subs working. Quote
eyeball Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 What's next, you going to stop screwing your wife to prove a point?? Deny her the pleasure of your conscientious objector manhood until all wars end?? Don't be surprised if she starts "working late" each night!!! I know that military folks often believe God's on their side so I'm curious, how many people think Jesus would use a similar approach if his beliefs were being challenged? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 And realizing his position was hopeless he tried to change the subject... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Jesus.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Welcome back weaponeer, hows your adjustment to the slow lane going. eyeball: I know that military folks often believe God's on their side so I'm curious, how many people think Jesus would use a similar approach if his beliefs were being challenged? It's funney that you chose to bring religion into this, are you a religious man eyeball, is that why you have declared yourself an CO...I do believe in God to a degree, I'm no thumper but i do believe in a higher existance... that all being said the bible is full of examples of violence, of what God did in order to preserve his beliefs when they were openly challenged...Lets not forget Sodam and gomorrah, my favorite is the tale of the Noah and Ark ( i guess he was just alittle pissed) and killed everything on the planet.... It is also full of references of in which God used armies to throw out other nations and races from the lands he declared for his chosen people.... Which is why i thought it funney that you bring in religion., as it does not support any of your arguments. one day you will come to the conclusion that as long as man walks this planet there will be those that will take what they need or want thru the use of force....and the only way to deal with them is thru the use of force...not turning the other cheek, or telling them "your bad and you do bad things"...but by taking a stick a beating the shit out of them, standing up for yourself,and your beliefs. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2008 Report Posted January 10, 2008 Welcome back weaponeer, hows your adjustment to the slow lane going. eyeball: It's funney that you chose to bring religion into this, are you a religious man eyeball, is that why you have declared yourself an CO...I do believe in God to a degree, I'm no thumper but i do believe in a higher existance... that all being said the bible is full of examples of violence, of what God did in order to preserve his beliefs when they were openly challenged...Lets not forget Sodam and gomorrah, my favorite is the tale of the Noah and Ark ( i guess he was just alittle pissed) and killed everything on the planet.... It is also full of references of in which God used armies to throw out other nations and races from the lands he declared for his chosen people.... Which is why i thought it funney that you bring in religion., as it does not support any of your arguments. one day you will come to the conclusion that as long as man walks this planet there will be those that will take what they need or want thru the use of force....and the only way to deal with them is thru the use of force...not turning the other cheek, or telling them "your bad and you do bad things"...but by taking a stick a beating the shit out of them, standing up for yourself,and your beliefs. Christ was a common sense sort of guy- sure he would turn the other cheek in order to make friends if it was possible...but he would not allow abuse - he would not keep turning the cheek till you knocked out his teeth - the man was a just revolutionary and did advocate the use of the sword when all else failed - IF we are to have a military in Canada then have a military - have the best equipped. Have the best trained - have the best attitude and moral compass that guides us towards justice and peace. If one is to be a peace maker, one must have the abilty to wage war with such percise and deadly intensity - that no one dares offend. Much like the true peace maker - that you respect because if you don't - he is capable of dropping you with a single swift and powerful punch. That is my belief - The nation needs a powerful and above all - A TRUELY HONOURABLE military...if there is no honour - then we may as well sub-contract the Pakistani military to do our bidding and desolve our force. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.