The_Squid Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 You can be assured the military has a plan for every contingency they they can imagine. You can never predict the future and in war you never have enough imagination. No one knows how things will go. Exactly. You are contradicting yourself. There are contingencies and plans. Canadians deserve to know how far Canada is willing to go in the latest Iraq war. Quote
Solastalgia Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 You can be assured the military has a plan for every contingency they they can imagine. You can never predict the future and in war you never have enough imagination. No one knows how things will go. Why have we not heard of these contingencies, either from American, European or Canadian leaders? Don't you think that would be an important thing to at least note? Quote Yippie! Aldo Leopold! A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.- A Sand County Almanac
Smallc Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 How far we willing to go depends on the situation. That said, the military plans for everything they can think of. Those plans, unless they are to be enacted (and not even always then), should not be made public, as they are subject to operational security. There are some things, for security reasons that we cannot and should not know. Beyond that, there is also the reality that the planning can only go so far. There are things that we can't even predict that could happen. Quote
Solastalgia Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 How far we willing to go depends on the situation. That said, the military plans for everything they can think of. Those plans, unless they are to be enacted (and not even always then), should not be made public, as they are subject to operational security. There are some things, for security reasons that we cannot and should not know. Beyond that, there is also the reality that the planning can only go so far. There are things that we can't even predict that could happen. Planning does only go so far, i.e. if you go on a camping trip, you don't usually plan for a satellite to fall from the sky, because that would be a very remote possibility, although possible. However, you would prepare for rain. Some plans are more obvious than others. And again, it does not give me much faith in the gov't position if they fail to plan for something that ought to be an obvious conclusion. Either the strikes work or don't work, and the gov't has failed so far to tell us what the fuck they'd do if they don't! Quote Yippie! Aldo Leopold! A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.- A Sand County Almanac
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 6, 2014 Author Report Posted October 6, 2014 Unless Canada is leading this military action, it will not develop such comprehensive plans or contingencies. I suspect that most planning resources will be consumed by the deployment and logistics of supporting one small squadron of strike fighters. The rest will be coordinated by a joint command with Canadian input and strike package decisions. During the Kosovo War, a team of lawyers had to review / approve each package as lawful. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
PIK Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Unless Canada is leading this military action, it will not develop such comprehensive plans or contingencies. I suspect that most planning resources will be consumed by the deployment and logistics of supporting one small squadron of strike fighters. The rest will be coordinated by a joint command with Canadian input and strike package decisions. During the Kosovo War, a team of lawyers had to review / approve each package as lawful.People for some reason can't figure that out. They expect all war plans to be made public. Show how stupid people can be. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
The_Squid Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 People for some reason can't figure that out. They expect all war plans to be made public. Show how stupid people can be. So you think Canadians shouldn't know if their government is willing to enter a ground war? Speaking of stupid.... Quote
Solastalgia Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Unless Canada is leading this military action, it will not develop such comprehensive plans or contingencies. I suspect that most planning resources will be consumed by the deployment and logistics of supporting one small squadron of strike fighters. The rest will be coordinated by a joint command with Canadian input and strike package decisions. During the Kosovo War, a team of lawyers had to review / approve each package as lawful. I don't understand how "okay, if x doesn't work, what do we do?" or "when do we stop doing x?" are comprehensive plans or military secrets, especially if there are just as reasonable alternatives to air strikes to begin with. I cannot put that much faith into the government to give them a carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to do without giving their plan to Canada. It is absolutely not controversial to give some semblance of a game plan. Quote Yippie! Aldo Leopold! A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.- A Sand County Almanac
The_Squid Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 This war "against ISIS" is an extension of the Iraq quagmire, which Canada shouldn't be involved in at all! The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US and its ally the UK helped to destabilize the country, leading to the rise of militant group Isis, admitted former UK foreign secretary David Miliband. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iraq-war-created-isis-concedes-david-miliband-1460557 Quote
cybercoma Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 When the US "begged" Canada for help (that's what Harper's claiming, right?), Harper should have just asked where the F-35s are and told them they would get their air support when we get our jets. Quote
The_Squid Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 When the US "begged" Canada for help (that's what Harper's claiming, right?), Harper should have just asked where the F-35s are and told them they would get their air support when we get our jets. Not a good deal... He should have told him to pound sand, like Chretien did to Bush... Quote
cybercoma Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Not a good deal... He should have told him to pound sand, like Chretien did to Bush... I was being facetious. With the way the Conservatives talked about Canada's fighter jets during the whole F-35 deal, you'd think our current jets would fall out of the sky over there. Yet, here they are promising air support. Quote
Smallc Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 By the time the F-35 is available, they will be in that condition or nearing it. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 By the time the F-35 is available, they will be in that condition or nearing it. By the time the F-35 is available, we'll be colonizing Mars. Quote
Smallc Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Not quite. Countries are purchasing them, and they are being delivered. We've simply put things off to the point where we'll have to wait in line, and we'll have to wait too long without further upgrades to the CF-188. Quote
dre Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 We need to whatever needs to be done and their going to be a lot of embarrassed lefties when this is over. Hey! Arent those the lefties that warned you invading Iraq and overthrowing the baath party would turn into a protracted quagmire, and that the ensuing power vacuum would be filled with extremists? And when you say "when this is over"... is that going to be another 10 or 15 years? Because NOBODY could be stupid enough to believe that some airstrikes are going to end the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni in Iraq and syria. You better dust of your "mission accomplished" banner... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 To take out the threat to the human population where we can. It's not only about countries but our responsibility as humans. Its our responsibility as humans to force Assad, and the Iranian proxy that is the central Iraqi government on people that dont want them. You realize thats the end result here right? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 Its our responsibility as humans to force Assad, and the Iranian proxy that is the central Iraqi government on people that dont want them. You realize thats the end result here right? The reality is that we shouldn't support Assad either. It isn't like ISIS is the only one opposing him. Allowing ISIS to do as they will would be to repeat the very history that a lack of intervention has created time and again. Quote
dre Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) The reality is that we shouldn't support Assad either. It isn't like ISIS is the only one opposing him. Allowing ISIS to do as they will would be to repeat the very history that a lack of intervention has created time and again. Its intervention by morons that didnt know what they were getting into that created ISIL in the first place. Not the lack of it. And the only thing our current course of action will do is guarantee more of the same. Iraq and Syria need to be partitioned, and they will be... whether or not our 4 planes bomb a few trucks. Edited October 6, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 And they should be partitioned. It doesn't change the fact that ISIS is attacking people in the other areas that would be partitioned from it, and that's what needs to be stopped. Quote
The_Squid Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 The reality is that we shouldn't support Assad either. It isn't like ISIS is the only one opposing him. Allowing ISIS to do as they will would be to repeat the very history that a lack of intervention has created time and again. Intervention in Iraq has caused this mess. And they should be partitioned. It doesn't change the fact that ISIS is attacking people in the other areas that would be partitioned from it, and that's what needs to be stopped. A few airstrikes won't solve the issue. This will take a ground war. And Harper seems happy to oblige.... or does he? He certainly was willing in the early 2000's. To paraphrase PIK... "thank God Harper wasn't in charge back then"! Quote
dre Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 This will take a ground war. And Harper seems happy to oblige.... or does he? Even a ground war wont be successful. ISIL is the same insurgency that the US fought for 10 years in Iraq. They put a quarter of a million troops on the ground and spent trillions of dollars and in the end the solution was to write them all paychecks to stop fighting. We would have to chase them into the Sunni cities they occupy where they have considerable support... and fighting an urban insurgency in places where the citizens like THEM more than US is just not a winning proposition. It really boggles the mind that we would even consider this... I guess stupid is pretty hard to fix, but youd think we would learn from our mistakes. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
waldo Posted October 6, 2014 Report Posted October 6, 2014 When the US "begged" Canada for help (that's what Harper's claiming, right?), Harper should have just asked where the F-35s are and told them they would get their air support when we get our jets. ah yes, that lil' Harper porkie where he postured that Obama had asked Canada for additional help... while, of course, it was the other way around as Harper was simply chomping at the bit to get his 'war on'! F-35s? Well, given the just days old announced Harper Conservative shift to alternatively spend ~350 million to extend the life of the CF-18s to 2025, the magical/mystical appearance of the Canadian F-35 might remain, for now, just a wishful, misty-eyed gaze amongst the cadre of Canadian F-35 cheerleaders! Imagine, one of those prominent MLW cheerleaders actually said this shifting decision has no bearing on the (past and continued failures) of the F-35 itself or, apparently, Harper Conservatives own confidence levels toward the F-35! Quote
Bonam Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 It really boggles the mind that we would even consider this... I guess stupid is pretty hard to fix, but youd think we would learn from our mistakes. You have to pay for a mistake with near-extinction before you learn from it. A few trillion dollars is nowhere near heavy enough of a price to actually learn from a mistake. Quote
Solastalgia Posted October 7, 2014 Report Posted October 7, 2014 What do you guys think of, instead of airstrikes, humanitarian aid and perhaps support for the Kurds in terms of special forces, logistics, supplies, etc? I am largely non-interventionist but since the west actually caused this blowback in the first place, maybe we should try to help the Kurds at least. I'm not sure really, but I know that airstrikes are probably the worst thing that we can do, bar full on ground offensive. Quote Yippie! Aldo Leopold! A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.- A Sand County Almanac
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.