More Fiscal Incompetence from the Conservatives

[Guest Derek L]

Like everything else in life, if you are not willing to share the burden then you do not get the rewards either.

What rewards did Canada garner by German caveats on troop deployments?

Thats the exact reason we need to restructure NATO, its not a means to fight a war with Russia anymore. Warsaw pact is dead, many of its members are now part of NATO, so the main reason NATO existed over the decades of the Cold War has evaporated, the need for the alliance is not gone, its just morphed in to something else completely. What the Warsaw Pact countries offer is willing partners who are working hard to meet the standards put forth by NATO.

I don’t doubt the Eastern Europeans forces have good intentions, but what real good are they when they have to be equipped, trained, supplied and commanded by Western forces, and only then, can offer a token contribution…….What good is 200 troops really from Lower Slobbovia if we have to hold their hands?

I don't know about the other,but I know that the Bulgarian Army deployed over 1,000 soldiers to both Afghanistan and Iraq, Estonia deployed around 200 soldiers Latvia and Lithuania deployed similar numbers as Estonia and Poland deployed upwards to 5,000 soldiers to both Iraq and Afghanistan. I would have to say that I prefer having smaller countries willing to help then larger nations with more capabilities unwilling to help. If we look at most East European countries, I woulds say they deployed more soldiers per total population (1.3mil for estonia they deployed 155 soldiers) (Macedonia deployed 177 soldiers with a total population of just over 2mil) Bulgaria(600 soldiers deployed out of 7.5million population) (Poland deployed 2500 out of 38mil)

I thought you just showed disdain for third world forces deployed under the auspices of the UN? Are barely second world forces that much better?

If anything, African forces should police conflicts in Africa, and European’s in Europe……..

France and Germany both deployed relatively small number of troops compared to their overall population and strength, I would say the newer members are more willing to play within the framework or NATO then its more established members.

Again, first world “allies” that won’t deploy forces are as valuable as second and third world allies that can’t……..Our involvement with NATO is a millstone that could require us to one day deploy our own forces, to help defend those that can’t or won’t……….In reality, in the case of Georgia Lower Slobbovia, if they have a dispute with the Russians, if it doesn’t directly concern us, should we involve ourselves? If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was us in a dispute with the Russians, could we expect help from our allies that won’t or can’t deploy forces?

Edited June 11, 2012 by Derek L

[Signals.Cpl]

What rewards did Canada garner by German caveats on troop deployments?

What does that have to do with anything? Right now the burden is carried by few, while the benefit is felt by many, primarily the benefit of the US military carrying the most weight.

I don’t doubt the Eastern Europeans forces have good intentions, but what real good are they when they have to be equipped, trained, supplied and commanded by Western forces, and only then, can offer a token contribution…….What good is 200 troops really from Lower Slobbovia if we have to hold their hands?

Can you describe what you mean by this? All I have seen is a standard that is set and East European nations are working hard to meet and maintain the standard. Switching from large conscript armies to processional forces and modernizing equipment and doctrine. And what good are 200 soldiers? I guess we would have to ask ISAF if they are better off without those 200 soldiers.

And again please define what you mean by holding their hands?

I thought you just showed disdain for third world forces deployed under the auspices of the UN? Are barely second world forces that much better?

East European nations have well educated and well trained personnel who can be used as a fighting force. My problem with third world military forces is that most of them deploy on UN PK missions exclusively for the financial incentive. When the UN pays over $1,000 per soldier deployed and then adds more financial benefits for personal equipment the developing countries deploy their soldiers for the financial gain rather then the mission. When you pay someone $50 a month and you get $1,000 a month from the UN plus all of the upkeep of the soldier that brings in nice pocket change. What I'm hearing here is that you want nations to pull their weight, but you don't want the once without too much weight. And lets be fair, some of those "nearly second world" forces are in better shape then the Canadian Forces see Poland for example where they have modernized their military over the last 2 decades. Did Canada pull its weight in Afghanistan if we compared them to the states? And what about the fact that the US has to hold our hand to and from Afghanistan and during the entire mission? The US repeatedly bumped us ahead of their own units to get equipment in order to be effective. What are the chances we could have deployed the forces we did deploy if we had to use only our own resources to move to Afghanistan and maintain our forces there? Where would we be without American or British CAS?

If anything, African forces should police conflicts in Africa, and European’s in Europe……..

Im all for that, but who is going to supply them with equipment and train them and keep them operational? Many of the African countries depend on western aid to survive on a daily basis without adding a military mission to their problems.

Again, first world “allies” that won’t deploy forces are as valuable as second and third world allies that can’t……..Our involvement with NATO is a millstone that could require us to one day deploy our own forces, to help defend those that can’t or won’t……….In reality, in the case of Georgia Lower Slobbovia, if they have a dispute with the Russians, if it doesn’t directly concern us, should we involve ourselves? If the shoe was on the other foot, and it was us in a dispute with the Russians, could we expect help from our allies that won’t or can’t deploy forces?

Major difference between not wanting to participate in a mission in Afghanistan and a NATO member being directly attacked. And again Canada happens to fall in the can't deploy category when we still have to rely on the US for strategic lift for anything larger then a battalion.

How many wars in the 20th century truly had a direct effect/threat to us?

WW2-Did not directly effect us as it was primarily Europe and China's problem

Korean War-Korea's Problem

First Gulf War-Kuwait's problem

Balkan Wars-Europe's problem

Afganistan-Asia's problem

None of the Combatants in those wars attacked us until we were already at war.

NATO is collective security, plain and simple, I agree some nations pulled more in Afghanistan than others, but when it comes to one member nations being attacked I think all members will devote energies to protect the one under attack.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[dre]

That’s the rub, do we need an alliance, with the majority of members not willing to share the burden? As to expansion (Of Eastern Bloc nations), not to sound bigoted, but the former Warsaw Pact countries have little to offer in terms of an expansion of capabilities and power projection…….In a conflict/Scenario with Russia they may act as a speed bump and allow the Alliance a little more time to formulate a defence via trading ground for time, but the likelihood of such a scenario in the near term is nil.

Which brings us back to the reality of modern conflicts and those nations that are truly willing to intervene, which is namely the Anglosphere nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and a few select others like the Dutch, Norwegians, Danes, Japanese and South Koreans……….What do the Greeks, French, Italians and Estonians really have to offer Canada?

The problem is we took a cold-war organization design to create a firewall against Russian aggression/expansionism, and now we try to use it to police the world, take sides in civil wars we dont even understand, and further the economic interests of Nato countries and folks that make missiles, planes, and tanks.

A defense pact would be a lot more practical. If any Nato country is attacked, then all members must come to their aid.

[Argus]

I figure someone that thinks as highly of themselves as you do would know that equalization payments have nothing to do with provincial expenses.

What possible relevance would that have to the point at hand? It is absolutely undeniable that Alberta sends a lot more money to Ottawa than it ever gets back in the form of services, even shared services. That excess is sent to Quebec, among others. Quebec gets billions MORE back from Ottawa than it ever sends. And that money comes from the excess Ottawa collects from 'have' provinces.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

As the feds collect taxation from all Canadians across this country. This should come as no surprise.

You want a military you have to pay for it.

You want waste and incompetence in the military bureacracy, then continue to change the subject.

The subject is all over the bloody map. All we actually know is that the mandarins at DND weren't able to answer a question when it was put. I'm sure they're working on it and will explain in due time.

[Guest Derek L]

What does that have to do with anything? Right now the burden is carried by few, while the benefit is felt by many, primarily the benefit of the US military carrying the most weight.

You spoke of rewards…..What rewards has Canada received to date?

Can you describe what you mean by this? All I have seen is a standard that is set and East European nations are working hard to meet and maintain the standard. Switching from large conscript armies to processional forces and modernizing equipment and doctrine. And what good are 200 soldiers? I guess we would have to ask ISAF if they are better off without those 200 soldiers.

And again please define what you mean by holding their hands?

Working hard is all well and good, but like I’ve said, what good are they to us? Where would they be without namely US largesse?

As to “holding hands”, does this really need to answered? When said forces are deployed in donated Humvee’s and US Helicopters, as an element of a US combat team, led by a US officer and supplied by Uncle Sam…..As I’ve said, what’s the difference between substandard European troops and third world African troops?

East European nations have well educated and well trained personnel who can be used as a fighting force. My problem with third world military forces is that most of them deploy on UN PK missions exclusively for the financial incentive. When the UN pays over $1,000 per soldier deployed and then adds more financial benefits for personal equipment the developing countries deploy their soldiers for the financial gain rather then the mission. When you pay someone $50 a month and you get $1,000 a month from the UN plus all of the upkeep of the soldier that brings in nice pocket change.

How much does a Polish NCO make?

What I'm hearing here is that you want nations to pull their weight, but you don't want the once without too much weight. And lets be fair, some of those "nearly second world" forces are in better shape then the Canadian Forces see Poland for example where they have modernized their military over the last 2 decades. Did Canada pull its weight in Afghanistan if we compared them to the states? And what about the fact that the US has to hold our hand to and from Afghanistan and during the entire mission? The US repeatedly bumped us ahead of their own units to get equipment in order to be effective. What are the chances we could have deployed the forces we did deploy if we had to use only our own resources to move to Afghanistan and maintain our forces there? Where would we be without American or British CAS?

As I’ve mentioned prior, this has been a trend with the Canadian Government for decades, and we’ve been skating with namely American largess for that time……..The difference between us and the Eastern Europeans, is that we could afford to do more if we so desired.

Im all for that, but who is going to supply them with equipment and train them and keep them operational? Many of the African countries depend on western aid to survive on a daily basis without adding a military mission to their problems.

And it’s our problems how? If two backwards nations are going at it on the other side of the globe, and it effect us little, why should be involve ourselves?

Major difference between not wanting to participate in a mission in Afghanistan and a NATO member being directly attacked. And again Canada happens to fall in the can't deploy category when we still have to rely on the US for strategic lift for anything larger then a battalion.

How many wars in the 20th century truly had a direct effect/threat to us?

WW2-Did not directly effect us as it was primarily Europe and China's problem

Korean War-Korea's Problem

First Gulf War-Kuwait's problem

Balkan Wars-Europe's problem

Afganistan-Asia's problem

Up to the First Gulf war, those conflicts did effect us in terms of global destabilization and trade………..The FRY, that truly was Europe’s problem……..Afghanistan, clearly global terrorism could effect us, but the ten years of “nation building” we could have done without.

None of the Combatants in those wars attacked us until we were already at war.

NATO is collective security, plain and simple, I agree some nations pulled more in Afghanistan than others, but when it comes to one member nations being attacked I think all members will devote energies to protect the one under attack.

Like the other partners did for the Americans in the dirt box?

[dre]

And it’s our problems how? If two backwards nations are going at it on the other side of the globe, and it effect us little, why should be involve ourselves?

You are NEVER going to be able be able to sell that to todays breed of neo-liberal, global-socialist, world-policing do-gooders. If theres so much as a barfight somewhere else in the world these folks will want to rush in there guns-a-blazing and waste Canadian blood and treasure on trying to make assholes be nice to each other.

I used to feel the same way... All I can tell you is that its a totally different mindset.

[Guest Derek L]

You are NEVER going to be able be able to sell that to todays breed of neo-liberal, global-socialist, world-policing do-gooders. If theres so much as a barfight somewhere else in the world these folks will want to rush in there guns-a-blazing and waste Canadian blood and treasure on trying to make assholes be nice to each other.

I used to feel the same way... All I can tell you is that its a totally different mindset.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve no problem with intervention if it suits Canadian interests, with that said, I find it both funny and hypocritical when some argue for intervention in some shitholes but not others, all the while dictating Canada not need a military with an expeditionary capability………

[Signals.Cpl]

You spoke of rewards…..What rewards has Canada received to date?

40 years of defence cuts?

Working hard is all well and good, but like I’ve said, what good are they to us? Where would they be without namely US largesse?

At home, not dying.

As to “holding hands”, does this really need to answered? When said forces are deployed in donated Humvee’s and US Helicopters, as an element of a US combat team, led by a US officer and supplied by Uncle Sam…..As I’ve said, what’s the difference between substandard European troops and third world African troops?

1)Can you provide sources as to how many of the East European countries had donated equipment in the form of Humvees and Helicopters?

2)The Polish Detachment to Iraq deployed included in to that detachment were soldiers from a number of other East European nations working independent of the US.

3)Define led by US officers, are they eld at the platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade or division level? Because if we are talking about General officers we can just as well ignore that point as it applies to us.

3) And again, do you had e a source that they were being supplied by the US? Because once again, if we use this criteria we(Canada) falls in there as well because over the years of the Afghan mission we have heavily depended on US support in many ways From equipping our forces to assisting in training CSOR.

4)How do you judge East European soldiers as substandard?What is the criteria? Do we look at Canadian forces deployed on missions in the 90's as substandard because of the abysmal state of their equipment?

How much does a Polish NCO make?

How much does a Canadian, or Australian NCO make? Ive worked for Polish officers in Gagetown and they sure were professionals, teaching on our Sniper courses.

As I’ve mentioned prior, this has been a trend with the Canadian Government for decades, and we’ve been skating with namely American largess for that time……..The difference between us and the Eastern Europeans, is that we could afford to do more if we so desired.

I don't know, if East European countries are going to benefit from economic interactions with the west including Canada and the US, then they might as well bleed with us. What you are saying is that we should ignore the countries willing to help because they can't help as much as Canada COULD if it WANTED to? If the Eastern European countries cannot find collective security with the west, they will look elsewhere and I don't know about you, but I would prefer the soldiers they could mobilize to be fighting with us then against us.

I'd like to hear your your proposal to make up the 8600 soldiers in Afghanistan in 2009 that were from East European countries, seeing as they were less then useless we could have send them home and deployed 8600 more soldiers from...Germany? Or France? No wait, Canada can deploy another 8600 soldiers right?

And it’s our problems how? If two backwards nations are going at it on the other side of the globe, and it effect us little, why should be involve ourselves?

How was it our problem that Germany liquidated the jews? Or Rwanda slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people? Why is it our problem what a bunch of nut cases in the balkans were doing to the people?

Up to the First Gulf war, those conflicts did effect us in terms of global destabilization and trade………..The FRY, that truly was Europe’s problem……..Afghanistan, clearly global terrorism could effect us, but the ten years of “nation building” we could have done without.

World War 2 was Europe's problem too right? Well asia's problem as well. World War 1 was exclusively Europe's problem, we didn't get a say then. Korea was Asia's problem... If we do nothing to prevent the mass murder of innocent people then we are no better then the killers.

Like the other partners did for the Americans in the dirt box?

I have no idea what you are referring to...

[Guest Derek L]

40 years of defence cuts?

That's a reward how?

At home, not dying.

Isn't that a better deal for them?

1)Can you provide sources as to how many of the East European countries had donated equipment in the form of Humvees and Helicopters?

Pick a force/nation. To clarify, the reference to helicopters was the mobility provided by US ones.

2)The Polish Detachment to Iraq deployed included in to that detachment were soldiers from a number of other East European nations working independent of the US.

Bullshit. All Forces in Iraq fell under you US command and garnered US support (Aircraft, Helicopters, logistics etc).

3)Define led by US officers, are they eld at the platoon, company, battalion, regiment, brigade or division level? Because if we are talking about General officers we can just as well ignore that point as it applies to us.

Depends on the given situation………As to us, I know, I mentioned that already.

3) And again, do you had e a source that they were being supplied by the US? Because once again, if we use this criteria we(Canada) falls in there as well because over the years of the Afghan mission we have heavily depended on US support in many ways From equipping our forces to assisting in training CSOR.

Which Armed Forces/Nation do you want to know?

4)How do you judge East European soldiers as substandard?What is the criteria? Do we look at Canadian forces deployed on missions in the 90's as substandard because of the abysmal state of their equipment?

Yes.

How much does a Canadian, or Australian NCO make? Ive worked for Polish officers in Gagetown and they sure were professionals, teaching on our Sniper courses.

You brought up the point with regards to UN subsidy…….Do Canadian forces participate in UN missions to supplement their income?

I don't know, if East European countries are going to benefit from economic interactions with the west including Canada and the US, then they might as well bleed with us. What you are saying is that we should ignore the countries willing to help because they can't help as much as Canada COULD if it WANTED to? If the Eastern European countries cannot find collective security with the west, they will look elsewhere and I don't know about you, but I would prefer the soldiers they could mobilize to be fighting with us then against us.

So they are going to be fighting against us?

I'd like to hear your your proposal to make up the 8600 soldiers in Afghanistan in 2009 that were from East European countries, seeing as they were less then useless we could have send them home and deployed 8600 more soldiers from...Germany? Or France? No wait, Canada can deploy another 8600 soldiers right?

Simple, , We (As in the West) shouldn’t have been rebuilding the country in 2009.

How was it our problem that Germany liquidated the jews? Or Rwanda slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people? Why is it our problem what a bunch of nut cases in the balkans were doing to the people?

Well if the Germans hadn’t of started taking over Europe, the West wouldn’t have involved itself in German domestic polices………How many Jewish refugees did the West take in during the 30s?

As to Rwanda….How did that effect Canada? How was the conflict in the FRY effecting Canada?

World War 2 was Europe's problem too right? Well asia's problem as well. World War 1 was exclusively Europe's problem, we didn't get a say then. Korea was Asia's problem... If we do nothing to prevent the mass murder of innocent people then we are no better then the killers.

No, as I alluded to, once the Germans, Italians and Japanese started destabilizing the planet it became our problem……

I have no idea what you are referring to...

The level of enthusiasm for combat by some of the NATO partners…….Are you new to this conversation?

[Signals.Cpl]

That's a reward how?

The Canadian Government spend the money in other more appealing ways.Probably 98% of the people in the country don't care that we have a military and know painfully little about it, the benefit lies in the fact that Canada spend the money on its people instead of its commitments.

Isn't that a better deal for them?

Yeah it is, but then they wouldn't have the coveted position in NATO, and we would have to find another 8600 soldiers to put in a war zone thats already short on soldiers.

Pick a force/nation. To clarify, the reference to helicopters was the mobility provided by US ones.

Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania. And you mean mobility like they provided to Canada for much of the war?

Bullshit. All Forces in Iraq fell under you US command and garnered US support (Aircraft, Helicopters, logistics etc).

Overall command does not matter, as that would apply to the British, Australian, Italians and Spanish forces along with a ton of other nations that also fought in Iraq.Polish soldiers answered to Polish officers who answered to Americans, just like every other western power that deployed to Iraq.

Depends on the given situation………As to us, I know, I mentioned that already.

Depends on the example you had in mind rather then the situation.You either had a nation in mind when you said it, or you were assuming/guessing.

Which Armed Forces/Nation do you want to know?

Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania.

Yes.

Bad equipment != bad soldiers.

You brought up the point with regards to UN subsidy…….Do Canadian forces participate in UN missions to supplement their income?

No, because the Canadian government would get roughly $1,000 dollars per soldier but would spend 3-4 times that to pay and maintain that soldier on deployment, and in fact might even be giving the soldiers the allowance whereas other major contributors who pay their soldiers at a rate much less then the $1,000 a month tend to deploy many soldiers to bring revenue for the government. Essentialy when the cost to a country is 50-100 dollars a month to deploy a soldier and that country receives $1,000 then there is a net gain for the contributing country, whereas when the contributing country pays a Cpl $4,000 base pay tax free, plus depending on the situation danger pay and a few other allowances plus medical,dental and logistics support it adds up to well over $6,000 a month to deploy 1 Cpl which means that there is a net loss for Canada.

So they are going to be fighting against us?

Well not necessarily fight against us, but if they can't find collective security with us, then Russia is the way to go.

Simple, , We (As in the West) shouldn’t have been rebuilding the country in 2009.

There were mistakes made in 2001-2003 that contributed to this, what should or should not be happening is irrelevant because we were and are there and need all the support we can get. If the 8,600 soldiers are there and ISAF was still crying for more soldiers then one would assume that refusing perfectly capable soldiers would be ludicrous.

Well if the Germans hadn’t of started taking over Europe, the West wouldn’t have involved itself in German domestic polices………How many Jewish refugees did the West take in during the 30s?

Not that many. So you are saying that if Germany had not started the War but was openly murdering millions of defenceless people we shouldn't and wouldn't have acted?

As to Rwanda….How did that effect Canada? How was the conflict in the FRY effecting Canada?

How does a stranger chocking on something effect me? It doesn't, wether they live or die my life goes on, but it would be expected that if I had the ability to prevent the death I should act on it. There are things that are national interests and should take priority, but then there are national values that should be acted upon if we have the means to act. Just because 800,000 Rwandans dying didn't have much effect on our country doesn't mean we should have sat around and watched them get raped and murdered.

No, as I alluded to, once the Germans, Italians and Japanese started destabilizing the planet it became our problem……

Yeah but we got involved before that happened, how would you explain that? We were involved in a European war to protect Poland from the fate of Czechoslovakia and Austria.

The level of enthusiasm for combat by some of the NATO partners…….Are you new to this conversation?

Did they not go to Afghanistan with the rest of NATO? Please explain how they failed the US. America was attacked NATO moved in and used military force in order to assist the US which included and invasion of Afghanistan. Care to explain at which point the NATO members failed? I personally think that some NATO members are more then justified to GTFO from Afghanistan due to recent events.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[cybercoma]

But they have something to do with the provincial Revenues right?

Not exactly. They have to do with a province's ability to raise revenue, based on what the average provincial taxation rate is across all the provinces.

[cybercoma]

You are NEVER going to be able be able to sell that to todays breed of neo-liberal, global-socialist, world-policing do-gooders. If theres so much as a barfight somewhere else in the world these folks will want to rush in there guns-a-blazing and waste Canadian blood and treasure on trying to make assholes be nice to each other.

I used to feel the same way... All I can tell you is that its a totally different mindset.

You forgot the part where we steal their wallets as we split them up. Because, you know, it's in Canada's best interests.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not exactly. They have to do with a province's ability to raise revenue, based on what the average provincial taxation rate is across all the provinces.

I meant that equalization payments means funds that the federal government gives provincial governments in the "have-not" provinces. The money goes in to the provincial coffers and then used to pay the bills.

[Guest Derek L]

The Canadian Government spend the money in other more appealing ways.Probably 98% of the people in the country don't care that we have a military and know painfully little about it, the benefit lies in the fact that Canada spend the money on its people instead of its commitments.

So our membership in NATO is an excuse to spend money?

Yeah it is, but then they wouldn't have the coveted position in NATO, and we would have to find another 8600 soldiers to put in a war zone thats already short on soldiers.

Who said anything about us having to find 8600 other troops………I said we shouldn’t have been there “nation building”.

Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania. And you mean mobility like they provided to Canada for much of the war?

All three nations used loaned US Up armoured Humvees and MRAPs.

Overall command does not matter, as that would apply to the British, Australian, Italians and Spanish forces along with a ton of other nations that also fought in Iraq.Polish soldiers answered to Polish officers who answered to Americans, just like every other western power that deployed to Iraq.

Isn't that what I said?

Depends on the example you had in mind rather then the situation.You either had a nation in mind when you said it, or you were assuming/guessing.

and

Poland, Bulgaria and Rumania.

Nope, none in particular……..Your selections are fine.

Bad equipment != bad soldiers.

I never said that Waldo.......Less effective equipment = Less effective troops.

No, because the Canadian government would get roughly $1,000 dollars per soldier but would spend 3-4 times that to pay and maintain that soldier on deployment, and in fact might even be giving the soldiers the allowance whereas other major contributors who pay their soldiers at a rate much less then the $1,000 a month tend to deploy many soldiers to bring revenue for the government. Essentialy when the cost to a country is 50-100 dollars a month to deploy a soldier and that country receives $1,000 then there is a net gain for the contributing country, whereas when the contributing country pays a Cpl $4,000 base pay tax free, plus depending on the situation danger pay and a few other allowances plus medical,dental and logistics support it adds up to well over $6,000 a month to deploy 1 Cpl which means that there is a net loss for Canada.

And how does this tie into what a Eastern European or African solider makes?

Well not necessarily fight against us, but if they can't find collective security with us, then Russia is the way to go.

Hey, your words, not mine……..So the Poles are going to go back to Russia for defence if we don’t take them in?

There were mistakes made in 2001-2003 that contributed to this, what should or should not be happening is irrelevant because we were and are there and need all the support we can get. If the 8,600 soldiers are there and ISAF was still crying for more soldiers then one would assume that refusing perfectly capable soldiers would be ludicrous.

Why would we need support if we left in ‘02? Or never went in the first place?

Not that many. So you are saying that if Germany had not started the War but was openly murdering millions of defenceless people we shouldn't and wouldn't have acted?

We didn’t in Rwanda…….And our Military was considerably more effective in the 90s then the 30s…..

How does a stranger chocking on something effect me? It doesn't, wether they live or die my life goes on, but it would be expected that if I had the ability to prevent the death I should act on it. There are things that are national interests and should take priority, but then there are national values that should be acted upon if we have the means to act. Just because 800,000 Rwandans dying didn't have much effect on our country doesn't mean we should have sat around and watched them get raped and murdered.

But we did.......Do you help and/or let in every homeless drug addict you run across? If not, why?

Yeah but we got involved before that happened, how would you explain that? We were involved in a European war to protect Poland from the fate of Czechoslovakia and Austria.

We entered the War prior to the German invasion of Poland?

Did they not go to Afghanistan with the rest of NATO? Please explain how they failed the US. America was attacked NATO moved in and used military force in order to assist the US which included and invasion of Afghanistan. Care to explain at which point the NATO members failed? I personally think that some NATO members are more then justified to GTFO from Afghanistan due to recent events.

Simple, the reluctance of many NATO member States to engage in combat or contribute a significant portion of ground forces……..

Edited June 12, 2012 by Derek L

[Army Guy]

Madmax:

PeaceKeeping missions are not useless. Enough of my friends did multiple tours and useless is not the term they came back with. Some were from the gravy era and some were from the more difficult 90s. If anything Burnout was a huge factor.

Useless... would depend on your view piont and at what piont you were looking in from. Lets also remember that Bosina was the first of our large Rotations, with only 3 brigade to choose from it was not hard to reach burn out...does not say anything about the quality of the mission, be it from the troops piont of view, our Nation, or the people themselfs....and in those 3 terms i think you'd be hard press to find one without a lot of warts....

There is definitely a place for peacekeeping missions. Of course there are always those who suggest different. I expect that in the military. There is always the Gung Ho types. (Beware of fratricide)

Yes, there is a time and place for peacekeeping, just not in all the same places we've tried them. Soldiers were chosen to perform peacekeeping for a reason...i hope you were not suggesting that you don't need a set of nuts to do it, walking between 2 heavily armed sides with just a rifle to settle disputes takes a big set of nuts. i don't care who you are, you need those gung ho types, it is what makes up a portion of being a soldier...to be able to run toward trouble when others are running away...

Peacekeeping and Peacemaking missions can be successful or a debacle. We have seen both.

We have seen both, just more junk than good ones.

And yes the NDP were for Removing the troops from Afghanistan early.

I could never understand how one things 800 frontline combat troops are going to tame a country of 25 million that has been fighting since the mid 70s.

Every soldier was a front line soldier, everyday we lived in that hell, we woke up wiped our asses then went to work killing people, protecting people, digging wells,building schools, firehalls, police stations....But lets not forget that Canadians had it exactly the way they wanted, no more , no less....

The NDP line is affordable and sustainable because it guts our core military strentgh....I'm surprised you can't see that, i guess it is kind of hard through all the smoking mirrors.....

Those touting Peacekeeping missions as the flavour of the day your wrong, Any peacekeping under the UN is as dangerous as it gets, and i don't think we will ever be reliving any of those days any time soon. It's cheaper because you don't need half the equipment or training....but in the long term it will only hurt those soldiers you plan on sending around the globe....

Being a peacekeeper first you must master being a soldier....then a diplomate... then a skilled talker...once you've mastered all that then you need an extra healthy dose of common sense, that eludes us while on these missions....

Everyone is shaking their heads , sounds about right, sounds reasonable...UN soldiers show up in white lab coats, hand out blankets, pillows, and lots of candies...but that is not what peacekeeping is about...Thats not what your pushing here...It's been preverted beyond recognition....

then there is the 90's... scared with so much fear and hatred for UN missions....(Sigs guy )has mentioned it here already, UN missions are filled with war crimes , both sides flexing their muscles, raping, murdering, looting, ethic cleansing all right in the front of the UN ...in front of Canadian soldiers....Don't worry we won't embrass you , we'll puke , we'll turn our heards, shit we will try and stop it all only to be told to stand down, not to interfer, record histroy....we'll do our part.......we'll scrub our uniforms to remove all the blood, so we will be parade inspection ready for our return flight back to Canada...Myself , well me and many of my comrads have promised "never" to go on another UN mission again. and if that means retirement then so be it...

Afghanistan was the first mission in a long time we did not have 4 or 5 agendas ,... were we could practice our trade without hanging our heads in shame...take action to save someone...and to kill those that really responsable for a long list of crimes....Thanks NDP, but no thanks...

[Signals.Cpl]

So our membership in NATO is an excuse to spend money?

For politicians and many people yes it is. If a person believes that we need not worry about the military as we have NATO to protect us it seems like a good idea to spend money where it is more visible and where it will earn more votes.

Who said anything about us having to find 8600 other troops………I said we shouldn’t have been there “nation building”.

You claimed that those those nations shouldn't be in NATO because they have nothing to offer. Wether we should to shouldn't have been nation building is not too relevant when we look at the fact that throughout most of the mission there were people crying for more troops and then you are complaining that those troops should not have been there.

All three nations used loaned US Up armoured Humvees and MRAPs.

Loan? As in they have to give it back/pay for it? Any source BTW?

Isn't that what I said?

Yes, but it seems that you have a double standard, because the Polish are useless because they have to be led by US general officers and the British are useful even though they have to be led by American General officers. The CF was under foreign command for most of the Afghan mission therefore we would fall in the same category of useless if we used your criteria.

and

You made a claim that was relatively vague and then said it depended on the situation which in my mind means you had nothing specific in mind.

Nope, none in particular……..Your selections are fine.

So whats the problem again?

I never said that Waldo.......Less effective equipment = Less effective troops.

If they are well trained soldiers, less effective equipment means more creative soldiers. To me the soldier is the most important part of the equation as less effective equipment does not mean less effective soldier, just like state of the art equipment does not mean great soldier.

And how does this tie into what a Eastern European or African solider makes?

It doesn't matter what they make as long as they make less money then the UN is willing to give to their respective government for the use of the soldiers. If a nation deployed 10,000 soldiers and makes $1,000/month per soldier from the UN but pays that soldier say $100/month then that means that the nation gets a net gain of $900 X 10,000 = $90,000,000 in income for the country. For a third world Nation a deployment on a UNPK mission brings them hard currency while keeping the soldiers home costs them money. Whereas a country like Canada is at a net loss when deploying soldiers for UNPK missions and its cheaper to keep them in Canada.

Hey, your words, not mine……..So the Poles are going to go back to Russia for defence if we don’t take them in?

And what do you think? NATO does not let them join, so they will turn to others for mutual defence, wether it would be to unite with the rest of Eastern Europe, or look for Russia for guarantees of protection. Do you think that if NATO had kicked Easter Europeans to the curb Russia wouldn't have been there offering protection and establishing a buffer between NATO and itself once again?

Why would we need support if we left in ‘02? Or never went in the first place?

I don't get what your point is, we were and are there, and those 8600 soldier came in handy. If you want to engage in a what if scenario where we were never went or didn't stay past 2002 that different. Right now, looking at history we needed those extra soldiers there, claiming that we should have been there does not negate the fact that we were and still are and needed all of the support that they could give.

We didn’t in Rwanda…….And our Military was considerably more effective in the 90s then the 30s…..

Yep, we just let one of our Generals record the rapes and genocide... But our political will to REALLY help people was non existent, and I mean REALLY help people as opposed to sending soldiers on feel good missions with restrictive ROE's that are more likely to get them killed then let them help the situation.

But we did.......Do you help and/or let in every homeless drug addict you run across? If not, why?

I don't help every homeless drug addict because I don't have the means to do so, but seeing as I have basic first aid, if you are chocking on something I will help you, if you are hurt I will help you... it goes like that, if I have the means(skills) then I can help whereas if I don't have the means I can't help.

You can look at it anyway you want, to me if we as a nation have the means to, we have to do our best to make this world just a little better.

We entered the War prior to the German invasion of Poland?

I don't know where you are getting to with this, but we entered World War 2 to protect Poland, a European nation in a European conflict.

Simple, the reluctance of many NATO member States to engage in combat or contribute a significant portion of ground forces……..

So you are complaining that those who have significant resources aren't helping the cause and not investing enough boots on the ground, and those who have less resources but have invested more boots on the ground compared to their abilities are helping too much?

[madmax]

Rock On Army Guy

Madmax:

Useless... would depend on your view piont and at what piont you were looking in from. Lets also remember that Bosina was the first of our large Rotations, with only 3 brigade to choose from it was not hard to reach burn out...does not say anything about the quality of the mission, be it from the troops piont of view, our Nation, or the people themselfs....and in those 3 terms i think you'd be hard press to find one without a lot of warts....

Agreed.

Yes, there is a time and place for peacekeeping, just not in all the same places we've tried them. Soldiers were chosen to perform peacekeeping for a reason...i hope you were not suggesting that you don't need a set of nuts to do it, walking between 2 heavily armed sides with just a rifle to settle disputes takes a big set of nuts. i don't care who you are, you need those gung ho types, it is what makes up a portion of being a soldier...to be able to run toward trouble when others are running away...

Agreed

We have seen both, just more junk than good ones.

I doubt that will ever change. I think its the nature of the beast.

Every soldier was a front line soldier, everyday we lived in that hell, we woke up wiped our asses then went to work killing people, protecting people, digging wells,building schools, firehalls, police stations....But lets not forget that Canadians had it exactly the way they wanted, no more , no less....

Sure enough, and I think our soldiers did their part and we could say that many years ago. Eventually you have to go home.

The NDP line is affordable and sustainable because it guts our core military strentgh....I'm surprised you can't see that, i guess it is kind of hard through all the smoking mirrors.....

How is reviewing the cost of the F35s affordable or sustainable and imho, it guts our core military strength by taking long term valuable dollars away from the rest of the armed forces. How is questioning the process of the Defence Bureaucrats gutting our military. Either the purchase can be cost accounted for and presented with good fundamentals or it can be presented as it currently appears.

An open chequebook to a military contractor.

Those touting Peacekeeping missions as the flavour of the day your wrong, Any peacekeping under the UN is as dangerous as it gets, and i don't think we will ever be reliving any of those days any time soon. It's cheaper because you don't need half the equipment or training....but in the long term it will only hurt those soldiers you plan on sending around the globe....

You agreed above it has a purpose and I will leave it at that. As for long term effects, the most current study in the US is showing a casuality rate from Suicide higher then the rate of combat deaths for those coming back from Iraq.

I believe in taking care of the soldiers after they return. I believe in providing all the necessary equipment to do the task agreed upon. Regardless, we are known McGuyvers...

Being a peacekeeper first you must master being a soldier....then a diplomate... then a skilled talker...once you've mastered all that then you need an extra healthy dose of common sense, that eludes us while on these missions....

Everyone is shaking their heads , sounds about right, sounds reasonable...UN soldiers show up in white lab coats, hand out blankets, pillows, and lots of candies...but that is not what peacekeeping is about...Thats not what your pushing here...It's been preverted beyond recognition....

That is why Realpolitik is required BEFORE engaging in any mission, be it Peacekeeping or Combat.

then there is the 90's... scared with so much fear and hatred for UN missions....(Sigs guy )has mentioned it here already, UN missions are filled with war crimes , both sides flexing their muscles, raping, murdering, looting, ethic cleansing all right in the front of the UN ...in front of Canadian soldiers....Don't worry we won't embrass you , we'll puke , we'll turn our heards, shit we will try and stop it all only to be told to stand down, not to interfer, record histroy....we'll do our part.......we'll scrub our uniforms to remove all the blood, so we will be parade inspection ready for our return flight back to Canada...Myself , well me and many of my comrads have promised "never" to go on another UN mission again. and if that means retirement then so be it...

As many of my friends did retire during this period I am not surprised. And as for stories. I got plenty including US forces engaging in human trafficking, thus being no better then the rapists.

And you should know as well as anyone, Canadian forces have stood by in Afghanistan while rapes occurred. Afghan women go to jail if they have been raped.

And I heard many "Friday Jokes"

In a story published yesterday in the Star, former Canadian soldier Tyrel Braaten said that during his tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2006, he witnessed Afghan interpreters bringing young boys inside buildings at Forward Operating Base Wilson, a remote Canadian base outside Kandahar. The boys were then sodomized by the interpreters and Afghan soldiers, Braaten said.

Other Canadian soldiers have complained to chaplains and military medical personnel that officers told them not to get involved because the sodomy was tantamount to "cultural differences."

As for ethnic cleansing and the lot. In Afghanistan there is enough "Bad Actors" on the government side to put your comments to shame. To turn a blind eye towards. That said, while you talk about building wells and such, Afghan soldiers have turned their weapons on our troops when certain clans weren't allowed to perform the work. All of which I have linke on MLW within the last 2 years.

Afghanistan was the first mission in a long time we did not have 4 or 5 agendas ,... were we could practice our trade without hanging our heads in shame...take action to save someone...and to kill those that really responsable for a long list of crimes....Thanks NDP, but no thanks...

Not sure what the issue is here regarding the NDP. As you have cited nothing from them.

But the comments you make are what we as a country need to know about and support as well as find solutions.

I find that there has only been 2 choices of the past 30 years.

Shoestring solutions and cuts (My Era)

And Corporate Entitlement to Military Contractors.

The direction we are trending.

Edited June 12, 2012 by madmax

[bleeding heart]

del

Edited June 12, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

How is reviewing the cost of the F35s affordable or sustainable and imho, it guts our core military strength by taking long term valuable dollars away from the rest of the armed forces. How is questioning the process of the Defence Bureaucrats gutting our military. Either the purchase can be cost accounted for and presented with good fundamentals or it can be presented as it currently appears.

An open chequebook to a military contractor.

You agreed above it has a purpose and I will leave it at that. As for long term effects, the most current study in the US is showing a casuality rate from Suicide higher then the rate of combat deaths for those coming back from Iraq.

I believe in taking care of the soldiers after they return. I believe in providing all the necessary equipment to do the task agreed upon. Regardless, we are known McGuyvers...

That is why Realpolitik is required BEFORE engaging in any mission, be it Peacekeeping or Combat.

As many of my friends did retire during this period I am not surprised. And as for stories. I got plenty including US forces engaging in human trafficking, thus being no better then the rapists.

And you should know as well as anyone, Canadian forces have stood by in Afghanistan while rapes occurred. Afghan women go to jail if they have been raped.

As for ethnic cleansing and the lot. In Afghanistan there is enough "Bad Actors" on the government side to put your comments to shame. To turn a blind eye towards. That said, while you talk about building wells and such, Afghan soldiers have turned their weapons on our troops when certain clans weren't allowed to perform the work. All of which I have linke on MLW within the last 2 years.

Not sure what the issue is here regarding the NDP. As you have cited nothing from them.

But the comments you make are what we as a country need to know about and support as well as find solutions.

I find that there has only been 2 choices of the past 30 years.

Shoestring solutions and cuts (My Era)

And Corporate Entitlement to Military Contractors.

The direction we are trending.

Awesome post.

[westguy]

I meant that equalization payments means funds that the federal government gives provincial governments in the "have-not" provinces. The money goes in to the provincial coffers and then used to pay the bills.

like use the transfer payments to give their population things like low tuition, almost free daycare and then try to breakup the country???

[Signals.Cpl]

like use the transfer payments to give their population things like low tuition, almost free daycare and then try to breakup the country???

Yeah, once its in their coffers they use it to do whatever they want with it. People don't really think things through.

[Guest Derek L]

For politicians and many people yes it is. If a person believes that we need not worry about the military as we have NATO to protect us it seems like a good idea to spend money where it is more visible and where it will earn more votes.

Ahh, but that’s the point………What is NATO doing for Canadian taxpayers? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing against having a capable, well rounded military that serves Canada’s interest, nor a neutered foreign policy , quite the opposite in fact…

You claimed that those those nations shouldn't be in NATO because they have nothing to offer. Wether we should to shouldn't have been nation building is not too relevant when we look at the fact that throughout most of the mission there were people crying for more troops and then you are complaining that those troops should not have been there.

No, I claimed we (And the United States) shouldn’t be in NATO………If the Europeans (Including the East) want a collective defence pact, that’s none of our business.

Loan? As in they have to give it back/pay for it? Any source BTW?

Certainly…….As to giving them back, I doubt it based on the condition of much of our equipment that has (or is) returning from Afghanistan.

Yes, but it seems that you have a double standard, because the Polish are useless because they have to be led by US general officers and the British are useful even though they have to be led by American General officers. The CF was under foreign command for most of the Afghan mission therefore we would fall in the same category of useless if we used your criteria.

Perhaps……..I judge said utility of the forces on the criteria that they have the ability, if required, to operate independently from American forces. (IE CAS, Tac Hel, indirect & direct fire support etc) Granted, there are varying degrees, and one could put the British at one end and Eastern Europeans at the other, with us falling somewhere in the middle.

You made a claim that was relatively vague and then said it depended on the situation which in my mind means you had nothing specific in mind.

It's all a mater of degree.

So whats the problem again?

No problem at all.

If they are well trained soldiers, less effective equipment means more creative soldiers. To me the soldier is the most important part of the equation as less effective equipment does not mean less effective soldier, just like state of the art equipment does not mean great soldier.

Quality of training is certainly a factor, but to say equipment and the ability to employ said equipment effectively is certainly a factor…………What’s more valuable, a Canadian squadron of Centurions or Leopard II’s?

It doesn't matter what they make as long as they make less money then the UN is willing to give to their respective government for the use of the soldiers. If a nation deployed 10,000 soldiers and makes $1,000/month per soldier from the UN but pays that soldier say $100/month then that means that the nation gets a net gain of $900 X 10,000 = $90,000,000 in income for the country. For a third world Nation a deployment on a UNPK mission brings them hard currency while keeping the soldiers home costs them money. Whereas a country like Canada is at a net loss when deploying soldiers for UNPK missions and its cheaper to keep them in Canada.

Back to my original question then, is it cheaper to keep Eastern Europeans at home?

And what do you think? NATO does not let them join, so they will turn to others for mutual defence, wether it would be to unite with the rest of Eastern Europe, or look for Russia for guarantees of protection. Do you think that if NATO had kicked Easter Europeans to the curb Russia wouldn't have been there offering protection and establishing a buffer between NATO and itself once again?

You’re missing my point……..I don’t care what the Europeans do.

I don't get what your point is, we were and are there, and those 8600 soldier came in handy. If you want to engage in a what if scenario where we were never went or didn't stay past 2002 that different. Right now, looking at history we needed those extra soldiers there, claiming that we should have been there does not negate the fact that we were and still are and needed all of the support that they could give.

Why weren’t the Germans, French, Spanish or Italians answering the call then?

Yep, we just let one of our Generals record the rapes and genocide... But our political will to REALLY help people was non existent, and I mean REALLY help people as opposed to sending soldiers on feel good missions with restrictive ROE's that are more likely to get them killed then let them help the situation.

Doesn’t this demonstrate my point, in regards to Canadians? Many of those that shed tears here over Rwanda also cheered when the CAR was disbanded…….Kinda Ironic no?

I don't help every homeless drug addict because I don't have the means to do so, but seeing as I have basic first aid, if you are chocking on something I will help you, if you are hurt I will help you... it goes like that, if I have the means(skills) then I can help whereas if I don't have the means I can't help.

You can look at it anyway you want, to me if we as a nation have the means to, we have to do our best to make this world just a little better.

And Canada’s means? Look at the cries when the current Government purchases something for the military or talks of increasing the defence budget…….Give the taxpayers what they want.

I don't know where you are getting to with this, but we entered World War 2 to protect Poland, a European nation in a European conflict.

But why?

So you are complaining that those who have significant resources aren't helping the cause and not investing enough boots on the ground, and those who have less resources but have invested more boots on the ground compared to their abilities are helping too much?

To an extent, as I’ve said though, I don’t question the sprit of the Poles etc, nor am I really surprised by the lack of response from the larger Continental powers to the situation in Afghanistan. Clearly though, when their direct interests were involved (Libyan Oil & French, Italian and Spanish etc oil companies) they certainly didn’t seem to have a problem reacting for their best interests………What is wrong with suggesting Canada does likewise? If NATO’s purpose has morphed from European Defence, into a “drop in coalition” for intervention, why should Canada be apart?

Looking ahead 25-50 years, if we are going to align ourselves with potential future world powers, both militarily and economically, we should focus on the Pacific Rim instead of the Old World….Even then, a “new NATO” is not a requirement…….

[Army Guy]

I doubt that will ever change. I think its the nature of the beast.

It has been changing, and not for the better, but for the worse, Peacekeeping today is nothing of what it used to be, The UN used to be respected, it's mandate respected, it's troops given alot of latitude to carry out their jobs...not anymore, very few countries have any time for anything UN today, shit we have a hard time policing our selfs within the UN without worring about 3 rd world countries. I think the results show the proof not much good comes from an impotent organization run by 3 rd world dictators....

How is reviewing the cost of the F35s affordable or sustainable and imho, it guts our core military strength by taking long term valuable dollars away from the rest of the armed forces. How is questioning the process of the Defence Bureaucrats gutting our military. Either the purchase can be cost accounted for and presented with good fundamentals or it can be presented as it currently appears.

An open chequebook to a military contractor.

Thats not the only program on the NDP hitlist, but i'll get back to that....and lets be honest with each other, we both know where this F-35 project is going, the odds of this program surviving long term are not very good. DND will ride the fairy tale wave until another party is ready to change the ride, DND will be told to choose another horse and we will simple as that..well when you have someone by the balls it's as simple as that... if anything it will be cancelled just out of shear spite, we've seen this happen to many times but it is how we chose some of our equipment....

So lets talk about the review, I think we have talked about the entire F-35 project from top to bottom including what the colors are going to be on the side of the seats...and we are still not any closer to making a deal for these A/C which locks us into nothing...

Our F-18's will continue to fly, and will fly until our government tells us to stop....Canada will never have a shortage of men and women that are willing to serve our great nation...Never....DND has made it clear,on many occasions this is the plane they want, it's not the fact that ...NO was the answer from the people , it was the fact it was swept aside...After all the opposite side really does not have any better excuses than DND has just different ones....But in the end DND will have a much different plane than is planed for today, it will be choosen by the people, which is as right as a forumla one driver not choosing his car....

The NDPs already said it will review every outstanding program on the books...and when you read between the lines to peacekeeping, and add the final drop to ensure it is affordable, thats political talk for gut....It is one thing to produce the NDP military ideas, but we have to put into context what they are doing with the rest of the bouncing ball, if deficit reduction is on the books then odds are no increase for the military really simple stuff....but you military idea fairy is just that they survive until 24 hours after election....then flushed , as with any party...

You agreed above it has a purpose and I will leave it at that. As for long term effects, the most current study in the US is showing a casuality rate from Suicide higher then the rate of combat deaths for those coming back from Iraq.

I believe in taking care of the soldiers after they return. I believe in providing all the necessary equipment to do the task agreed upon. Regardless, we are known McGuyvers...

No i agree it HAD purpose, and unless there was a massive facelift given to the UN or perhaps Canada decides to go at it alone or with another defencive pack,,,,i would say no.

Our enemies have chosen this path for us, and they don't plan on making it an easier for us...it's dirty warfare, when one man can go to war with an entire nation.

The NDP does have alot of nice programs for soldiers, infact i'd go out on a limb and say most of todays programs have been champinioned by the NDP. but in say that although we would like to have it all we simply can't afford it...and if you asked a soldier to choose this one would choose equipment....

As many of my friends did retire during this period I am not surprised. And as for stories. I got plenty including US forces engaging in human trafficking, thus being no better then the rapists.

And you should know as well as anyone, Canadian forces have stood by in Afghanistan while rapes occurred. Afghan women go to jail if they have been raped.

And I heard many "Friday Jokes"

I just wanted to vist my orginal state for a second to clarifiy a few things, when discussing agendas i meant over Oil,resources or other political agendas...and for the most part there are none in this war, Sure there was talk about a pipe line still to be built, then there was trillions in minerals still in the earth, there was no second guessing why we were there. unless you had tinfiol.

As for the part on Canadian solders not hanging their heads in shame i meant it, every last breath of it...And while it is easy to bring up examples that individual soldiers did to fuck things up,.... never to the piont they had to hang their heads in shame or fear retribution from the Canadian public...as yours implies ....

So lets put your example into context shall we, yes this incident did happen, and yes it was reported to have happened in other locations as well....And as disgusting as it is, This is one of many events that our soldiers have struggled with in this conflict. This is not the first time this event has been reported, in fact if you research it it has been reported many times, by Canadian soldiers.... In fact Canadain soldiers have come to blows or traded aimed shots at these events....So to say the Canadian Focres has stood by making it sound like we had all lined up to see the show is just plain wrong.

And this event although practiced by many in Afghanistan and considered as part of there culture to some piont, can we really piont our fingers at our soldiers and say SHAME on you,for letting this happen.... can we piont our fingers at our soldiers who just turned their heads, who did not know or have the training to handle this situation ....when they still had a mission to accomplish and required these very people to accomplish it...a mission that would have brought aid or help to so many more....Ya war sucks and if everyone told you it was any different lied....

Afghanistan was the first mission in a long time we did not have 4 or 5 agendas ,... were we could practice our trade without hanging our heads in shame...take action to save someone...and to kill those that really responsable for a long list of crimes....Thanks NDP, but no thanks...

The Afghan mission was orginally a liberal one, but it was still a good one... unlike most military missions we take on are filled or counter filled with agendas to the piont we are not sure why we are over there in the first place. Aghanistan was different we went there to punish someone, after which we were to rebuild the nation....No Oil, no Pipe lines, or trillions in Minerals....unless you had on a tinfiol hat....or following some retarded UN ROE which stated you had to die first before shooting back....we finally had a chance to use our training to save lives when needed plus take them if need be...we had the options, not some New York pimpled face desk officer who had the night shift.....Canadians were making decisions in regards to Canadian lives....

I find that there has only been 2 choices of the past 30 years.

Shoestring solutions and cuts (My Era)

And Corporate Entitlement to Military Contractors.

The direction we are trending.

No there is a 3 rd chioce fiscal and responsable expenditures to the military much like we do averaging for our home oil or electrical grid.....it needs to be constant, and steady not full of ups and downs...Today if it takes 15 to 20 years just to purchases something thats a problem....every time we look for cuts it's the military that is pushed forward, ....and if we ever think we are going to get out of debt in the next hundrd years your crazy stop using it as some holy grail ....if we need to cut we cut everything....

[bleeding heart]

I think the results show the proof not much good comes from an impotent organization run by 3 rd world dictators....

Sure, we can blame the 3rd world dictators (many of whom are our cherished allies, by the way)...

...or, we could take the elementary moral and intellectual step of holding ourselves accountable.

The most powerful and influential UN members are major democracies. They unquestionably share the blame for the problems.

The Afghan mission was orginally a liberal one, but it was still a good one... unlike most military missions we take on are filled or counter filled with agendas to the piont we are not sure why we are over there in the first place. Aghanistan was different we went there to punish someone, after which we were to rebuild the nation....No Oil, no Pipe lines, or trillions in Minerals....unless you had on a tinfiol hat

A tinfoil hat???

American giant Unocal, along with a Saudi company, signed an agreement with Turkmenistan--and with the Taliban--to build a major pipeline in the region.

This was halted after the Taliban declared support for bin Laden...but was resurrected in 2002, under a slightly different consortium. That's not conspiracy theory--that's public record.

The new deal was considered awesome, because it allowed the transport of energy through the Asian Republics without any Russian interference; like much of our foreign policy, geostrategic intiatives are intrinsically tied to major financial interests. They are not separable, and thoroughly institutionalized.

The project stalled because of the ongoing nature of the conflict, but will be resurrected again if and when the place stabilizes, though the exact companies involved remains (perhaps) unknown.

And I'm not claiming that a Russian-free pipeline is the prime motivator of the war, either. Things are rarely that simple.

But to say it has no relevance, that the project doesn't exist and never did, and that it's "tinfoil hat" material, is misleading.

At any rate, there is a much more popular, and wild-eyed, conspiracy theory afoot: that Western leaders, planners, policymakers, innately benevolent souls, actively flit our armed forces around the Earth solely to do good, to commit to humanitarian motives, but are forever thwarted by Sinister third-worlders and weak-kneed allies.

Now that's some batshit crazy talk--self-aggrandizing nonsense plagiarized from children't tales about Good Kingdoms in an Evil world, etc. etc.

Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart