Smallc Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 So what? Are you suggesting Trudeau is now Obama's lapdog? I'm suggesting we wouldn't have said no. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 So you don't support such a mission? No, its a waste of money..........the multinational brigade is too small to deter Putin if he were actually intent on making a move on any Eastern European country. Quote
Smallc Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 There is zero indication Harper would have supported such a mission. Well let's see. He sent trainers to Poland at NATOs request. He sent jets to the Baltic at NATOs request. He sent aircraft and people to Iraq at the request of the US He helped patrol the Black Sea at NATOs request. Should I go on? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 I'm suggesting we wouldn't have said no. And you have zero evidence to support your alternative universe world opinion. Quote
Smallc Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) No, its a waste of money..........the multinational brigade is too small to deter Putin if he were actually intent on making a move on any Eastern European country. Of course it is - that's not really the point of it, and it's part of a system of systems. Trudeau isn't the one who dreamed this up. Edited July 1, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 And you have zero evidence to support your alternative universe world opinion. How convenient for you that I can't access alternate universes. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 Well let's see. He sent trainers to Poland at NATOs request. He sent jets to the Baltic at NATOs request. He sent aircraft and people to Iraq at the request of the US He helped patrol the Black Sea at NATOs request. Should I go on? And all those deployments won't equal the cost nor size of a single battlegroup deployed to Eastern Europe for god knows how long........again, you have zero evidence to support your distraction. Quote
Smallc Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 And all those deployments won't equal the cost nor size of a single battlegroup deployed to Eastern Europe for god knows how long........again, you have zero evidence to support your distraction. If I'm being honest with myself I have to say that Harper would have said yes. That makes 1 of us. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 Of course it is - that's not really the point of it, and it's part of a system of systems. Trudeau isn't the one who dreamed this up. Systems of Systems? No, its a waste of money, which would be laughable since Trudeau whipping out a battlegroup would make Putin laugh..............I have no doubt Trudeau didn't dream it up, but he signed up for it which is just as bad, if not worse. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 If I'm being honest with myself I have to say that Harper would have said yes. That makes 1 of us. Based on zero evidence, nor indication, that he would have. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 How convenient for you that I can't access alternate universes. How convenient that you elect fantasy land over defending "your guys" bad decisions. Quote
The_Squid Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 If this was the Conservatives, you'd be all for it. #partisanhack Quote
The_Squid Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) In the post below you seem to suggest that not opposing Russia in Latvia would be the end of NATO. Now you don't think anything should be done. Because Trudeau. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24835-the-coming-war-with-russia/?p=1082494 Do you think Nato could dislodge the red army if it moved into Latvia, Lithiana and Estonia? Physically yes, politically is the part that is open to debate.........in not doing so, that would be the end of NATO. Edited July 1, 2016 by The_Squid Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 If this was the Conservatives, you'd be all for it. #partisanhack Not at all, as its costly and ineffective.........and in the off chance the Russians did invade, it would be a repeat of the Canadians at Hong Kong. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 In the post below you seem to suggest that not opposing Russia in Latvia would be the end of NATO. Now you don't think anything should be done. Because Trudeau. And my point, in both posts, stands...........did you have a point? Quote
The_Squid Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 And my point, in both posts, stands...........did you have a point? So you're willing to let NATO die? Quote
Argus Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 That's blatantly untrue. Money was moved because projects are already delayed. That's the same reason Harper did the same in 2012 and 2014. The money is spent. Period. There is no money and there will be no money. They are already reducing the size of the reserves, and when this defense paper is done they will be reducing the size of the regular forces, as well. Money is spent by this government only with an eye to what kind of vote return that will bring. Since only conservatives care about the military and since no conservative would vote for this government there is no profit in supporting the military. 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 July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 Are you saying that Harper would have, for the first time, turned down a NATO deployment? Harper and Obama were not on speaking terms. Obama would not have asked. If Harper had agreed to a deployment he would have ensured they were provided with the proper equipment. As it is, just to field one thousand men the military will have to raid every other unit of gear, leaving them unable to do much of anything but run around going "bang bang" as they used to have to do during a previous 'dark age'. 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
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 So you're willing to let NATO die? I never said that...........what I said: fighting the Russians isn't the problem, having the will to fight the Russians is. A multinational brigade, spread across Eastern Europe, is not a demonstration of will against a Russia that is reconstituting entire Cold War era Army Groups to be based in Eastern Europe.......ergo, this move by NATO, with tepid support by Trudeau, is both a waste of time and money for the exact same result in the advent of a war with the Russians. Quote
Smallc Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 Some people have trouble seeing their own partisan biases. If the military is ill equipped for this, I have a hard time blaming the guy who has been in power for 8 months. Harper would have done the same thing as Trudeau is doing. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. Quote
Argus Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) I can't help but wonder what the complaint would have been if Trudeau had said no. The complaint is the Canadian forces are not equipped for any sort of combat mission, and the government ought to do something about that before sending them anywhere. Edited July 1, 2016 by Argus 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 July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 So what? Are you suggesting Trudeau is now Obama's lapdog? Oh Absolutely. 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 July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 How convenient for you that I can't access alternate universes. And yet you feel confident Harper would have done whatever Obama wanted. 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 July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 Systems of Systems? No, its a waste of money, which would be laughable since Trudeau whipping out a battlegroup would make Putin laugh..............I have no doubt Trudeau didn't dream it up, but he signed up for it which is just as bad, if not worse. He signed on for it because Obama was pressuring him about living up to the 2% spending commitment on the military and Trudeau is actually downsizing from just under 1%. 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
Derek 2.0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Posted July 1, 2016 Some people have trouble seeing their own partisan biases. If the military is ill equipped for this, I have a hard time blaming the guy who has been in power for 8 months. The Canadian army hasn't been equipped to fight a war against the Russians, in Europe, since before Trudeau (the elder) decimated the Canadian Forces in the later 1960s and early 1970s....... Sending poorly equipped Canadians to scare off the Russians is a pathetic joke, and I do blame the Prime Minister, as he has agreed to it. Harper would have done the same thing as Trudeau is doing. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. Yet you've been unable to support your opinion with any form of evidence. 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.