This Is Total B.S

ToadBrother · January 14, 2009

History is proof of all you say, just like the Inca people themselves did not disapear after conquest just the society it had created.
Victory in war doesn't mean the destruction of a people eyeball.

Actually the Spanish conquests in the New World are a rather good example of how a much larger populaces were conquered and saw their language and culture all but wiped out by a very small group. In many areas of Latin America, Indians and Mestizos are prevalent.

It appears that that is exactly what happened in Britain as well with the arrival of the West Germanic tribes. Rather than the replacement/exile theory that had been around since the Venerable Bede's day, it appears that relatively small groups of West Germanic peoples over several decades overwhelmed the Celto-Romanic chieftains that had ruled since the Romans picked up and left. The victorious Germans forced their own customs and language on the largely Celtic populace, and, for the most part, other than a few words and place names, within a couple of centuries, everyone from the Offa's Dyke to Hadrian's Wall was speaking one form of Old English or another.

Edited January 14, 2009 by ToadBrother

eyeball · January 14, 2009

The Aryans conquered most the Indian Sub-continent without wiping out the locals. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes conquered much of the Isle of Britain, and recent genetic surveys indicates that the English have a very high percentage of Celtic genes, suggesting that the old stories about the Celts being driven into Wales and Scotland don't reflect reality. More often than not, invasions represent a mixing of the peoples, not a replacement, and quite often, as with the Turkish invasions, while language and culture may have the foreign stamp, the fact is that the populace still ethnically remains much the same as it did before the conquest.

Like I said virtually the whole planet has been mired in one vast seemingly endless war for generations now. The difference today I suppose is that war requires ever increasing amounts of resources not to mention a certain amount of moral candy-coating. Both are getting harder to come up with. I suspect the reasons for WWII and WWI before it were probably a lot more complex than history would lead us to believe. Perhaps WWII wouldn't have occurred if North American's had minded their own business and not got involved in WWI.

Anyone ever watch or read Starship Troopers? Much of the story is based on the idea that only after civilians become soldiers can they progess to becoming citizens and vote. Perhaps people who are against the idea of civilians voting whether to go to war or not would prefer this sort of society to the one we have. I bet a military industrial complex would go for it.

eyeball · January 14, 2009

Victory in war doesn't mean the destruction of a people eyeball.

All the more reason to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans if that's the case don't you think?

Alta4ever · January 14, 2009

Anyone ever watch or read Starship Troopers? Much of the story is based on the idea that only after civilians become soldiers can they progess to becoming citizens and vote. Perhaps people who are against the idea of civilians voting whether to go to war or not would prefer this sort of society to the one we have. I bet a military industrial complex would go for it.

Civilians do vote (last I checked MP's and elected government officials are civilians and the general public votes for them) on whether or not to go to war it is called an election. Foreign policy from democratic nations comes from the populace of the country.

eyeball · January 14, 2009

Civilians do vote (last I checked MP's and elected government officials are civilians and the general public votes for them) on whether or not to go to war it is called an election. Foreign policy from democratic nations comes from the populace of the country.

You're a real trooper alright.

BigAl · January 14, 2009

Like I said virtually the whole planet has been mired in one vast seemingly endless war for generations now. The difference today I suppose is that war requires ever increasing amounts of resources not to mention a certain amount of moral candy-coating. Both are getting harder to come up with. I suspect the reasons for WWII and WWI before it were probably a lot more complex than history would lead us to believe. Perhaps WWII wouldn't have occurred if North American's had minded their own business and not got involved in WWI.
Anyone ever watch or read Starship Troopers? Much of the story is based on the idea that only after civilians become soldiers can they progess to becoming citizens and vote. Perhaps people who are against the idea of civilians voting whether to go to war or not would prefer this sort of society to the one we have. I bet a military industrial complex would go for it.

I agree with you that the conflicts -- particularly those of the 20th century -- are part of one long chain of events. The point I was trying to make with the Second World War analogy is that at that time the lines were fairly clear because it was a fairly standard sort of war -- Our Side Good, Their Side Bad -- and the sides wore uniforms to denote their allegiance. Nowadays we're fighting insurgents and rebels and terrorists who don't look any different than the people we're allegedly trying to protect. The reasons for these conflicts are both incredibly complicated and -- on some level -- incredibly simple. What it boils down to at the end of the day is money, I think. Every war in history has, on some level, been about material wealth.

And the philosophy of Robert Heinlein is very interesting, though I don't quite know how it applies here.

wulf42 · January 14, 2009

Perhaps the Taliban are made up of the wulfs of Afghanistan.

You don't seem to get it Eyeball! These are not soldiers we are talking about or "freedom fighters" as some of you call them....these "people" hack off innocent hostages heads on videos

kill their OWN women for simply smiling at an infidel, they support Al-Qaeda by supporting training camps so they can do terrorism like 9/11. For the life of me i can't understand how you or anyone else can sit there and defend this garbage.

Edited January 14, 2009 by wulf42

eyeball · January 15, 2009

I agree with you that the conflicts -- particularly those of the 20th century -- are part of one long chain of events. The point I was trying to make with the Second World War analogy is that at that time the lines were fairly clear because it was a fairly standard sort of war -- Our Side Good, Their Side Bad -- and the sides wore uniforms to denote their allegiance. Nowadays we're fighting insurgents and rebels and terrorists who don't look any different than the people we're allegedly trying to protect. The reasons for these conflicts are both incredibly complicated and -- on some level -- incredibly simple. What it boils down to at the end of the day is money, I think. Every war in history has, on some level, been about material wealth.
And the philosophy of Robert Heinlein is very interesting, though I don't quite know how it applies here.

I happen to think Canadians should directly vote on whether troops be sent abroad before they're sent.

eyeball · January 15, 2009

You don't seem to get it Eyeball! These are not soldiers we are talking about or "freedom fighters" as some of you call them....these "people" hack off innocent hostages heads on videos
kill their OWN women for simply smiling at an infidel, they support Al-Qaeda by supporting training camps so they can do terrorism like 9/11. For the life of me i can't understand how you or anyone else can sit there and defend this garbage.

They kill their OWN women? Like I said, leave the Taliban to their own devices and they'll be extinct in no time at all.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 15, 2009

They kill their OWN women? Like I said, leave the Taliban to their own devices and they'll be extinct in no time at all.

Like the soon to be extinct folks in Gaza?

madmax · January 15, 2009

For the life of me i can't understand how you or anyone else can sit there and defend this garbage.

How about this garbage?

NDP MP Peter Stoffer said vets face waits of up to two years to get benefits. Disabled veterans are handed a lump-sum pension when they’re released from the Forces,
Stoffer believes disabled veterans should get a lifelong pension in addition to that lump sum.

He also argued that Ottawa should set up clinics to ensure veterans — regular force and reservists — get followup medical care after they leave the military.

“These men and women are willing to put their lives on the line so you and I can have a good night’s sleep,” Stoffer said.

“What they need, we should be able to provide.”

Veteran Gary Zwicker got a $38,000 lump-sum disability payment after he was discharged in 2002. A year later, he was told that money would be clawed back. He lost his house, which he’d used the payment to buy, and ended up $100,000 in debt.

BigAl · January 15, 2009

I happen to think Canadians should directly vote on whether troops be sent abroad before they're sent.

I would tend to agree with you, actually. Now I understand the Heinlein connection. Given the kind of anti-war sentiment we saw in Canada and abroad prior to the invasion of Iraq, the outcome might have been totally different had we been allowed to vote directly on that issue.

Army Guy · January 15, 2009

I would tend to agree with you, actually. Now I understand the Heinlein connection. Given the kind of anti-war sentiment we saw in Canada and abroad prior to the invasion of Iraq, the outcome might have been totally different had we been allowed to vote directly on that issue.

I disagree, i think to get the results you are seeking one would have to wait well after the Iraq question was solved and under way...the reason i say that is most Canadians were in favour of going into Afgan, and felt that way only because they had flatly denied to have anything to do with Iraq, Afgan was thier ticket to save face....in front of our allieds.

So the direct voting system seems to have some a few flaws, if this is the case....Next question would be how to encourage Canadians to use the system to start with. I say that because we have difficulties getting them to the polling stations, alot of Canadians don't really know the issues, nor do they care about the issues....So now your faced with the education process as well....how to get them interested and educated ?

Army Guy · January 15, 2009

Madmax:

How about this garbage?

Nice curveball, i did'nt see that one coming. your right one can not defend again'st that, it was wrong regardless of which party is in government.

madmax · January 15, 2009

I disagree, i think to get the results you are seeking one would have to wait well after the Iraq question was solved and under way...the reason i say that is most Canadians were in favour of going into Afgan, and felt that way only because they had flatly denied to have anything to do with Iraq, Afgan was thier ticket to save face....in front of our allieds.
So the direct voting system seems to have some a few flaws, if this is the case....Next question would be how to encourage Canadians to use the system to start with. I say that because we have difficulties getting them to the polling stations, alot of Canadians don't really know the issues, nor do they care about the issues....So now your faced with the education process as well....how to get them interested and educated ?

Direct voting wouldn't have changed anything regarding Iraq. The public wanted nothing to do with it.

As for Afghanistan, we were there 23 months prior to the American invasion of Iraq. So, the public was more acceptable to the Afghan missions long before the fear of participating in Iraq.

The Canadian Government under both Martin and later Harper both felt the fear of participating in Iraq. Harper "the Iraq war supporter", got an out of having to deal with the Iraq mess because the previous LPC committment to the Kandahar region gave him an excuse to not follow through.

So, I agree with you that Afghanistan was a ticket to save face, but that it existed as an option before and after the invasion of Iraq.

I just don't believe that if the public had a direct vote on going to war, that a government should put aside all intelligence, threats or moral responsibility if the need to go to war is of national security or to defend those who are in need.

madmax · January 15, 2009

Madmax:
Nice curveball, i did'nt see that one coming. your right one can not defend again'st that, it was wrong regardless of which party is in government.

Yea, just crossed it by accident and threw it into the mix. Hopefully someone will get set straight.

BigAl · January 15, 2009

I disagree, i think to get the results you are seeking one would have to wait well after the Iraq question was solved and under way...the reason i say that is most Canadians were in favour of going into Afgan, and felt that way only because they had flatly denied to have anything to do with Iraq, Afgan was thier ticket to save face....in front of our allieds.
So the direct voting system seems to have some a few flaws, if this is the case....Next question would be how to encourage Canadians to use the system to start with. I say that because we have difficulties getting them to the polling stations, alot of Canadians don't really know the issues, nor do they care about the issues....So now your faced with the education process as well....how to get them interested and educated ?

Unfortunately, on the subject of Canadian apathy, you're quite right. I know way too many people who would rather live in the relative comfortability of ignorance than educate themselves -- personally, I'm of the mindset that it's the responsibility of a citizen living in a democratic nation to be up-to-date about what's going on both within our borders and internationally. How to go about implementing the tenet of self-education, though, I'm sort of at a loss. For better or worse, it's easier in the short term for people to ignore what's going on.

Also, I don't know if we were (as a populace) in support of the Afghan initiative out of a desire to "save face"...the way I got sold on it was the same way I get sold on most Canadian military activity, in that national media tends to paint our military efforts abroad as "peacekeeping actions", i.e. showing up with medical aid and food and protecting the locals, etc. I know that's not an entirely accurate depiction, but I do know that I'm far more likely to get behind a sales pitch like that than, say, if Canada were to have joined the Coalition of the Willing or whatever they were calling that Justice-League doppleganger. I guess I'm just as guilty of allowing the wool to be pulled over my eyes as the people I'm castigating, no?

eyeball · January 16, 2009

I just don't believe that if the public had a direct vote on going to war, that a government should put aside all intelligence, threats or moral responsibility if the need to go to war is of national security or to defend those who are in need.

I'd insist on having a clearly defined, even a legal definition, of what national security means in terms of committing to military involvement. It should take the threat of an imminent physical military invasion across our border by another country to warrant a simple parliamentary vote on committing troops. In a situation where a less rapid response would be appropriate I'd suggest a number of citizens in every region or even riding be drafted in a jury like assemblies to add at least some legitamizing weight to Parliament's deliberations. The criteria for defending those who are in need must also be clearly defined. Our armed forces have rules-of-engagement to guide them and our country should have something similarily strict like terms-of-involvment to guide it. If defending those who are in need means going into a combat mission such as Afghanistan I'd say we've met the criteria for country wide assemblies followed with a referendum with at least a 60% majority support in 60% of all ridings.

I think the experience of the last 7 years indicates a need to very publicly and very deeply review all of our military agreements and alliances with other countries and subject them to a rigorous examination for any potential complications that may compromise our most fundamental principles. In a sense a country's security relationships are not unlike a person's sexual relationships. In both examples you're potentially getting into bed with everyone else they've gone to bed with and in the case of some of our allies we can be pretty certain that includes some really scummy people.

We have a moral responsibility to future generations to ensure our alliances do not result in them bearing the cost of shame, condemnation or worse. We also have a responsibility to our soldiers to send them into conflicts with enough moral and material support to carry out their mission to a reasonable conclusion. Above all else we should be taking as much of the decision to go to war out of the hands of politicians and putting it into the hand's of the public who's name war is ultimately waged in.

Edited January 16, 2009 by eyeball

eyeball · January 16, 2009

---

Edited January 16, 2009 by eyeball

Army Guy · January 16, 2009

Also, I don't know if we were (as a populace) in support of the Afghan initiative out of a desire to "save face"...the way I got sold on it was the same way I get sold on most Canadian military activity, in that national media tends to paint our military efforts abroad as "peacekeeping actions", i.e. showing up with medical aid and food and protecting the locals, etc. I know that's not an entirely accurate depiction, but I do know that I'm far more likely to get behind a sales pitch like that than, say, if Canada were to have joined the Coalition of the Willing or whatever they were calling that Justice-League doppleganger. I guess I'm just as guilty of allowing the wool to be pulled over my eyes as the people I'm castigating, no?

Which is another reason that a public vote will not work. most of the people are feed and believe in info release from our government and the media, and if they want war, then they shall find a way to have it...."I don't see that as a big problem in Canada" as that is not who we are as a nation....Todays conflicts are moving towards insurgency type warfare, and it looks nothing like yesteryears peacekeeping days, those are gone forever i think....

That being said todays miitary has moved into a 3 block war, providing medical assistance,aid, food, at one block, rebuilding another block, and providing security or fighting on another all at the same time. So you were not as duped as you thought...one of the main reasons we don't here so much about it is that it does not sell papers, people like death and destruction...not about some Dam, major hyway, power plant, school, fire hall being built, and certainly not about foreign political ongoings.

I think education is the key, but even that will be limited, thier are alot of things that our government just can not release to the public be it for National security etc...and for the public to make an informed decision of this magnitude "going to war or Not" they may need it...

Our current system may not be perfect, but it still serves us...

BigAl · January 16, 2009

Which is another reason that a public vote will not work. most of the people are feed and believe in info release from our government and the media, and if they want war, then they shall find a way to have it...."I don't see that as a big problem in Canada" as that is not who we are as a nation....Todays conflicts are moving towards insurgency type warfare, and it looks nothing like yesteryears peacekeeping days, those are gone forever i think....
That being said todays miitary has moved into a 3 block war, providing medical assistance,aid, food, at one block, rebuilding another block, and providing security or fighting on another all at the same time. So you were not as duped as you thought...one of the main reasons we don't here so much about it is that it does not sell papers, people like death and destruction...not about some Dam, major hyway, power plant, school, fire hall being built, and certainly not about foreign political ongoings.

I think education is the key, but even that will be limited, thier are alot of things that our government just can not release to the public be it for National security etc...and for the public to make an informed decision of this magnitude "going to war or Not" they may need it...

Our current system may not be perfect, but it still serves us...

Yeah, like old Churchill said -- "Democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the others." I know it's the best we can do, and I try to swallow that pill with a little sugar.

Here's a question for you though, ArmyGuy -- because I assume you have more knowledge on this subject than the average -- you say Canadians are essentially operating on a "need-to-know" basis, in that a lot of information can't really be released to the public due to matters of national security, etc. Now, I'm a bit of a war history buff, so I understand the need to keep a lid on sensitive information, but what does the Canadian military deem appropriate versus too sensitive to share? You might not know the answer to this question, but if you have any insights I'd be interested to hear them.

Much as I understand the need for that kind of censorship, it always galls me just a bit, because I like to think of myself as part of that 1 or 2% of the population who could actually deal appropriately with sensitive information (rather than being an alarmist or something, you know?)

Army Guy · January 16, 2009

Here's a question for you though, ArmyGuy -- because I assume you have more knowledge on this subject than the average -- you say Canadians are essentially operating on a "need-to-know" basis, in that a lot of information can't really be released to the public due to matters of national security, etc. Now, I'm a bit of a war history buff, so I understand the need to keep a lid on sensitive information, but what does the Canadian military deem appropriate versus too sensitive to share? You might not know the answer to this question, but if you have any insights I'd be interested to hear them.

Alot of things have changed in the Military in the last 10 or so years, our military has tried to be as up front about it's happenings as it can. Within reason. although i would not say transparent but it is working towards that goal....

Anything apprpraite is anything that is released on public domain, or media already....if it will "not" put someones life in danger.

Anything to senstive, would be deemed anything to do with intel, for example how it is gather, by what people, equipment, and it's use, beleive it or not we do use so equipment i once thought only available to James bond....we don't want to tip our hand on what people , equipment, we have or how we use it...allowing them to create counter measures for all of it....chances are if you seen it on tv ( within reason) then it's already been in service for some time....

Anything to with our tactics, once again if they know how we react they can put into place counter measures inflicting more casualities.

Anything about composition of units, sub units, patrols etc etc....ie numbers of pers, types of wpns, abilities of troops, are they green or seasoned... it all gives the advantage to the enemy.

Equipment capabilities, sure they release general info on all our equipment, but anything to with the more tech side of the house is a no no...

Communications equipment and abilities....this subject is very restricted, general info is available to the public but it's actual specs and capabilities are not ...for example it is one of the things that are recovered from any disabled veh or destroyed veh regardless if the comms equip is intact or not....

Body counts, are a no no...although they are kept they are not released....

In short if it places any soldiers lives in danger it's a no no , If it gives our enemy an advantage it's a no no...Most of our enemies including the Taliban have spent big dollars on thier intel gathering abilites, and they are pretty good at collecting it.

Much as I understand the need for that kind of censorship, it always galls me just a bit, because I like to think of myself as part of that 1 or 2% of the population who could actually deal appropriately with sensitive information (rather than being an alarmist or something, you know?)

We all have secrets, or info we do not want our neibours knowing, state secrets are the same....

Edited January 16, 2009 by Army Guy

Oleg Bach · January 16, 2009

We are charging one of our soldiers for putting a bullet in a Taliban peice of Garbage!! what utter nonsense...these scum our killing our soldiers and now we are going to charge one of our soldiers for killing one of them.....that is Total B.S. only in Canada, the man should get a medal for his service!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/06/...u-petawawa.html

First you have to understand that the "victim" was maimed to a point of no return..you could call it a mercy killing - for you to assume that it was done out of malice and spite is a speculation on your part. Secondly - no honourable soldier referes to the supposed enemy as "Garbage" - you are supposed to be impartial and not emotionally hateful in order to fulfill the mission efficently. As for the Taliban - you also have to remember that the people that sent you there are also Taliban - just a richer and more lofty Canadian version of the same damned thing - do you really believe that those in our nation that push this war are any better in character than the Afghanis? They are no different. You also say that this soldier should get a medel of his service ----real hero - hugh - offing a man laying on the ground! You are silly my friend and as rediculous as the High Way Of Heros --- or as silly and curious as that damed corners office that they send dead Canadian solders to to study like dead lab rats...can you imagine giving an autopsy to say 20 million dead Russians during the battle of Stalingrad --- this thing is not a war it's a damned hobby ...I spoke to a black service man who just returned - he said - quote "It's none of our buisness".

BigAl · January 16, 2009

Alot of things have changed in the Military in the last 10 or so years, our military has tried to be as up front about it's happenings as it can. Within reason. although i would not say transparent but it is working towards that goal....
Anything apprpraite is anything that is released on public domain, or media already....if it will "not" put someones life in danger.

Anything to senstive, would be deemed anything to do with intel, for example how it is gather, by what people, equipment, and it's use, beleive it or not we do use so equipment i once thought only available to James bond....we don't want to tip our hand on what people , equipment, we have or how we use it...allowing them to create counter measures for all of it....chances are if you seen it on tv ( within reason) then it's already been in service for some time....

Anything to with our tactics, once again if they know how we react they can put into place counter measures inflicting more casualities.

Anything about composition of units, sub units, patrols etc etc....ie numbers of pers, types of wpns, abilities of troops, are they green or seasoned... it all gives the advantage to the enemy.

Equipment capabilities, sure they release general info on all our equipment, but anything to with the more tech side of the house is a no no...

Communications equipment and abilities....this subject is very restricted, general info is available to the public but it's actual specs and capabilities are not ...for example it is one of the things that are recovered from any disabled veh or destroyed veh regardless if the comms equip is intact or not....

Body counts, are a no no...although they are kept they are not released....

In short if it places any soldiers lives in danger it's a no no , If it gives our enemy an advantage it's a no no...Most of our enemies including the Taliban have spent big dollars on thier intel gathering abilites, and they are pretty good at collecting it.

We all have secrets, or info we do not want our neibours knowing, state secrets are the same....

Okay, I sort of figured it would be information like that. Thanks for the follow up.

But as far as body counts go...they *do* release certain information to the public -- I mean, I guess they have to when somebody's kid comes home in a box -- do they change the information to reflect a lower body count? Or are you referring strictly to "enemy" casualties?

Oleg Bach · January 16, 2009

Okay, I sort of figured it would be information like that. Thanks for the follow up.
But as far as body counts go...they *do* release certain information to the public -- I mean, I guess they have to when somebody's kid comes home in a box -- do they change the information to reflect a lower body count? Or are you referring strictly to "enemy" casualties?

That's a bunch of crap - do you think that the real body count of civilians and service people fighting in Iraq is accurate? Do you actually believe that the real body count of those in Palistine is real and true? It's disgraceful when civlian arm chair critics use the term body count as if those that are dead are not human.