M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Smells like......Kosovo! I for one fully supported our (Nato) actions in Kosovo and Serbia. The only criticism about the strategy that I can muster is they were 10 years late. I would also like to add, even though the actions on Iraq were fully legal, they were still politically and strategically wrong, in my opinion. Iraq wasn't going anywhere, there would have been plenty of time to take care of Iraq after the Afghan mission was complete. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Yes, that sounds about right. The IIs on lease will have to go through a refit when they return, and after that we should have 40 2A6, a decent number of 2A4+ and some 2A4 units for training only. Not really those 20 on lease will be returned out of the 100 A4's we purchased, they'll be brought up to A6 standard leaving us with 80 of the A-4's ....those orginal 20 that were leased some of those have recieved battle dammage and are unrepairable, and most of them have already been rebuilt once some twice already...i think they'll be ready for the bone yard in 2011, on top of that we have to subtract those tanks already in the bone yard due to battle damage, and any future losses....so whats left is less than 80....and maybe some A6's after you take war stocks and mission stacks out and armoured school stocks of that there might be 40 or 45 tanks left....enough to outfit or so they are talking 1 tank sqn per tank regt which there is 3 of them, not bad a tank regt with only 1 sqn of tanks the rest of the Sqns are made up of Coyotes ..... 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.
waldo Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Sure there was..resolution 1441, section 13I would say invading was serious, and authorized. No further resolution was needed. Well... you would... and you could say whatever - as you now are. But the members of the UNSC did not, per the majority required, provide that actual authorization the U.S./UK sought, per their draft resolution. We could have some real fun here Dancer... we could get into the depths of the detailed discussions surrounding that draft resolution... the BBC did an exhaustive - and unchallenged - study of the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq. Much exists to skewer the U.S./UK efforts in attempting to secure those UNSC votes for their draft resolution seeking UNSC support for force - for the invasion..... efforts that you suggest were not needed. As you state, "no further resolution was needed". Why didn't they just listen to you Dancer? Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 As you state, "no further resolution was needed". Why didn't they just listen to you Dancer? Because my voice would have been redundant. They had lawyers. Try to answer my question, it's simple, I used small words. Are you trying to say (a)the US and the UK didn't go back to council and raise the issue, as requested in the resolution, or are you saying (b)they needed a new resolution?If "b", plese find for me in 1441 were a new resolution is required. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
waldo Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Smells like......Kosovo! like clockwork... like a broken record. You should not think hesitancy exists to go after Clinton on the complete and total record/account of Serbia/Kosovo. At some point... Quote
eyeball Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Because my voice would have been redundant. They had liars. Fixed it for you. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 I for one fully supported our (Nato) actions in Kosovo and Serbia. Agreed, but technically the NATO mission was to force Milosevic back to the peace process, not "human rights". The only criticism about the strategy that I can muster is they were 10 years late. Yea...that's about right. I would also like to add, even though the actions on Iraq were fully legal, they were still politically and strategically wrong, in my opinion. Iraq wasn't going anywhere, there would have been plenty of time to take care of Iraq after the Afghan mission was complete. True, but the political window of opportunity opened by 9/11 was narrow. The important relevance of Kosovo, much to some members chagrin, is that the interventionist policies were socialized to all of NATO, an organization in search of a post Cold War mission. It was a simple matter to add Saddam to the list since we had to go out and buy some milk anyway. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Are you trying to say (a)the US and the UK didn't go back to council and raise the issue, as requested in the resolution, or are you saying (b)they needed a new resolution?If "b", plese find for me in 1441 were a new resolution is required. are you trying to say (1) Resolution 1441 did not dictate the need for the U.S./UK, upon the report of paragraphs 4 & 11, to return to the UNSC (to gain for force authorization)?, or are you saying (2) the subsequent return to the UNSC from notice of a reported Resolution 1441 (paragraphs 4 & 11), was not to solicit a force authorization resolution from the UNSC? if "(2)", please detail exactly what was the intent of the failed U.S./UK draft resolution - the draft resolution that only gained 4 of the required 9 UNSC member votes. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 are you trying to say (1) Resolution 1441 did not dictate the need for the U.S./UK, upon the report of paragraphs 4 & 11, to return to the UNSC (to gain for force authorization)?, or are you saying (2) the subsequent return to the UNSC from notice of a reported Resolution 1441 (paragraphs 4 & 11), was not to solicit a force authorization resolution from the UNSC?if "(2)", please detail exactly what was the intent of the failed U.S./UK draft resolution - the draft resolution that only gained 4 of the required 9 UNSC member votes. (2) Political expediancy. It would have been nice, but like white wall tires, they aren't needed to make the car go. Now see if you can (i expect since you have avoided it , you can't..so sad too bad) answer my question. Are you trying to say (a)the US and the UK didn't go back to council and raise the issue, as requested in the resolution, or are you saying (b)they needed a new resolution?If "b", plese find for me in 1441 were a new resolution is required. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Tell me again why the Americans can afford 20,000 vehicles but we can only field 200? The US spends more money on defence than every other country in the world combined. Terrible comparison. Quote
Smallc Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Not really those 20 on lease will be returned out of the 100 A4's we purchased, Yes I realize that. I was wrong on the numbers. We don't really need all that many tanks for what we'll probably be doing after Afghanistan. We'll have a few, and that will probably be enough for our uses. not bad a tank regt with only 1 sqn of tanks the rest of the Sqns are made up of Coyotes ..... Coyote is on its way out. It and the RG - 31 will be replaced jointly by a new vehicle. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 The US spends more money on defence than every other country in the world combined. Terrible comparison. Inaccurate. The world, not including the US spends more...to the tune of about 198 billion dollars more Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) Since when? Actually, you're right, that's no longer current. They spend more than the next 45 countries combined. Edited September 24, 2009 by Smallc Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures World total 1,470,000,000,000 Less US 636,292,979,000 give you roughly 834,000,000,000 Minus US Gives you 198,000,000,000 Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Wow, they only spend 40% of the world total. Quote
wyly Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Eeewww... a Canadian who thinks an American doesn't know American history. Yes, It was the slogan of a presidential candidate. Evidently you don't realize "presidential candidates slogans" don't 'speak for the U.S.' Furthermore, that was just one of his campaign slogans. He "used" others to "get elected" ... by a narrow margin. Now if you think any slogan a PM uses in his campaign "speaks" for "Canada," so be it, but that's not how things work here in the States.54 40 or fight...you claimed it came from extremists...it came from the future President....and you didn't know...Polk was a proven meglomanic waging war on Mexico in order to satisfy the manifest destiny.... Ohhhh, I see. "Plausible denial." If you say so. < ohh I see...a military force of thousands is armed and assembled for an invasion and no government official notices...if you say so...usa desires to annex Canada were allways a part of it's early history from 1776 onwards...Really? No other nation can approach the record of the US? And the US is right up there with Nazi Germany? And you accuse ME of not knowing history. Methinks you are in dire need of some history classes. very few know history as well as I do, and you're not in that number...you might want try crack a book sometime instead of believing everything you hear on Faux news...Let's say this is true, just for argument's sake. How do you think British Columbia got "control" over that area? You think it was unoccupied before it became "British Columbia?" Or is "the US attacking Canada" worse than "Canada attacking First Nations people?" Because I'm thinking the First Nations tribes weren't greeting you with open arms and the deed to their land.actually the first nations were very friendly, violence with Canadian/british colonizers and aboriginals was very rare...aboriginals came to canadian controled lands for protection from the US forces...in Canada's history since it's confederation total death settlers and native combined is estimated at less than 100....the us plan for control of the north-west was the same as it was for the south west...instigate a war and take all-manifest destiny...Mexico was easier to bully than Britian.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
M.Dancer Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 very few know history as well as I do, ohh I see...a military force of thousands is armed and assembled for an invasion and no government official notices... Of course the US noticed...the put an end to the raids. very few know history as well as I do, actually the first nations were very friendly, violence with Canadian/british colonizers and aboriginals was very rare... Dollard De Ormeaux disagree with you. Oh to be young naive and out to lunch Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest American Woman Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 54 40 or fight...you claimed it came from extremists...it came from the future President....and you didn't know... Um. Yeah. I did know. Here's the entire paragraph: FIFTY-FOUR FORTY OR FIGHT in U.S. history, phrase commonly used by extremists in the controversy with Great Britain over the Oregon country. The rights of the United States, they maintained, extended to the whole region, i.e., to lat. 54°40′N, the recognized southern boundary of Russian America. It was used as a campaign slogan in the presidential election of 1844 by Democrat James K. Polk, who was elected. ____________________ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright© 2004, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. All rights reserved Now you want to tell me that you know history better than The Columbia Encyclopedia does? Polk was a proven meglomanic waging war on Mexico in order to satisfy the manifest destiny.... I see. You think Polk was a "megalomaniac," but you don't think he was an extremist. ohh I see...a military force of thousands is armed and assembled for an invasion and no government official notices...if you say so...usa desires to annex Canada were allways a part of it's early history from 1776 onwards... It would have been pretty difficult for the president to have had them arrested if "no government official [noticed]." very few know history as well as I do, and you're not in that number...you might want try crack a book sometime instead of believing everything you hear on Faux news... If I actually watched Fox News, ever, your statement would be a little less ludicrous than it is. As it stands, it's nothing short of hilarious. A more accurate claim would be for you to say, 'few know history as I do.' actually the first nations were very friendly, violence with Canadian/british colonizers and aboriginals was very rare...aboriginals came to canadian controled lands for protection from the US forces...in Canada's history since it's confederation total death settlers and native combined is estimated at less than 100.... So you were able to just take their land without a fight then, because they were friendly. So by the same token, if the "Canadians/British" would have been friendlier and just handed over what we both claimed, no one would have had to 'threaten you with violence.' the us plan for control of the north-west was the same as it was for the south west...instigate a war and take all-manifest destiny...Mexico was easier to bully than Britian.... How so? According to you, and I quote, "the Brits ceded most of what was to become Washington state to the USA in order to avoid a war..." Sounds as if it was pretty easy to "bully" Britain, since the threat of a fight was enough to make them give in. Quote
Argus Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Waldo, would you take this crap to another thread, please? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 The US spends more money on defence than every other country in the world combined. Terrible comparison. Your fixation on costs is a terrible comparison. We spend more on the salary and benefits of one private than many nations spend on entire companies, hell, entire battalions for all I know. The fact remains that you have again refused to address the issue raised - which is that we do not have sufficient armored vehicles to equip the existing small military forces we have. That's quite aside from us also not having enough mine resistant vehicles. And all you can say is "Well, we bought three or four of them, so we're going great! Yay us!" Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 We've bought more than three or four, and we're going to buy more in the future. We can't do everything all of the time. You asked a question, and I answered it. The US has a huge military budget. We spend $20B, and that only buys so much. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Wow, they only spend 40% of the world total. We have 300 million people in our country. Per capita, Israel spends more than we do. link As for military spending in terms of % of GDP, the U.S. is 28. Canada is 132. link Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) ...in Canada's history since it's confederation total death settlers and native combined is estimated at less than 100.... Less than 100 ? Does that include the Residential Schools? Or Red River rebellion? Or smallpox? Or the Gold Rush? Or the North-West rebellion? Methinks you need to buy a better calculator. Edited September 25, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 We've bought more than three or four, and we're going to buy more in the future. We can't do everything all of the time. You asked a question, and I answered it. The US has a huge military budget. We spend $20B, and that only buys so much. Fact is Hillier basically said the LAV3 was outdated a year and a half ago. They were not designed with IEDs or mines in mind, and the extra armor which has been tacked on has severely limited range and mobility while providing limited protection. The suspensions weren't designed with all that extra weight in mind, and we need something new. We don't need twenty or thirty or forty. We need about seven or eight hundred of them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted September 25, 2009 Report Posted September 25, 2009 We have 300 million people in our country. Per capita, Israel spends more than we do. I'm sure they do. It doesn't change the fact that the US is the largest spender in real dollars by far and so can afford a great deal more equipment. 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.