Jump to content

Justin Trudeau the Worst PM Since Pierre Trudeau?


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed...few would question the commitment of JTF2 and other Canadian Forces deployed to A-stan, but they were sent there with the barest of kit and logistics support, culminating in the political crisis of a high number of KIAs compared to other NATO units.   It seems that Iltis G-wagons were ill suited for the mission !

Justin Trudeau faces the same choices that other Canadian PMs have faced in this regard...having to sell less as really being more.

Indeed, and thankfully the Taliban were a relatively lightweight opponent, can you imagine what the casualties would have been like if they had ATGW's like what the Turks are facing in Syria or the Saudis in Yemen?  152 KIA, much as several of them were my close friends; we got off easy in the end, could have been much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, this is what I'm talking about in terms of de facto armed constabulary, and even then, they couldn't even handle the Taliban at the tactical level, twice they went at the White Schoolhouse, first the Patricia's and then the Royals, in mindless frontal attacks, against a handful of lightly armed insurgents, and they actually got their asses handed to them both times, before finally getting serious and bringing everything they had to bear, and even that attack was a brutal slog through minefields which they were not equipped to clear, welding metal onto civilian bulldozers and driving into mineblasts, next man, stand up, hook up, shuffle to the door. Again, valiant, but criminally negligent on the part of the Canadian government in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada has sent 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.  158 died.  Was that the third largest fighting force against the Taliban after the US and UK?  How important was Canada’s reconstruction work and police/military training?  Did Canadian forces sometimes have an easier time earning the trust of locals than some other allies?  Was Kandahar an especially dangerous region?

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Canada has sent 40,000 troops to Afghanistan.  158 died.  Was that the third largest fighting force against the Taliban after the US and UK?

Over twelve years, and the vast majority of those troops were service support in the rear with the gear, in terms of what they had on the ground at any given time, actual combat arms soldiers in the fight?  3 rifle company groups.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Over twelve years, and the vast majority of those troops were service support in the rear with the gear, in terms of what they had on the ground at any given time, actual combat arms soldiers in the fight?  3 rifle company groups.  

You keep downplaying Canada’s contributions.  We know of the challenges with IED’s for all forces and the dumb early problem with green uniforms.  I’m talking about Canada’s overall contributions to the cause, including security and rebuilding.  It was significant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, newsflash, guy, the entire Canadian Army fully mobilized is only about 35,000 troops, so we never had "40,000" troops in Afghanistan.

We only have the equipment and logistics to support one battalion in the field expeditionary, on paper we have "Brigades", but we can't actually deploy them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The upside is that each de facto sub nation within Canadian Confederation could and would be governed far far better to the benefit of all, rather than as now with this abomination of a federal government forcing us altogether even though in most cases our interests and desires are contradictory, in terms of remote communities under federal jurisdiction, Nunavut, NWT, and Yukon, I would offer them self determination, to include joining one of the other Dominions as with Labrador, grouping together to form their own Dominion, or go it alone.

In terms of the viability of these extremely remote communities, if they are not self sustaining then they are a fool's errand, but if they insist on remaining where they are, I would suggest they seek assistance from either the United Kingdom or the United States, I honestly have absolutely zero interest in governing the arctic, the Americans can have it for all I care, since for all intents and purposes, it is already their responsibility, it's not like we can actually defend it, and what you cannot defend is not actually yours, under international law.

Canada has a big challenge defending this massive territory, but we do it in the name of protecting resources for the peoples and the prosperity of those territories.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada has a big challenge defending this massive territory, but we do it in the name of protecting resources for the peoples and the prosperity of those territories.  

No we don't, there's no there there, defend means actually able to defend, international law does not accept rhetorical "defence" as a valid assertion of territorial sovereignty, if a foreign military shows up in the arctic and starts to operate up there, not only could we not stop them, but since we couldn't, they actually have a legal case under international law that they have the right to be there, which is what even  the Americans say when they roll through.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dougie93 said:

I mean, newsflash, guy, the entire Canadian Army fully mobilized is only about 35,000 troops, so we never had "40,000" troops in Afghanistan.

We only have the equipment and logistics to support one battalion in the field expeditionary, on paper we have "Brigades", but we can't actually deploy them.

You’re not including militia. What are the capabilities of one Canadian soldier, including all tech?  It’s a lot. Also, aren’t we in the age of remote drone wars?  Big infantries are not as essential.  Yes you need people to occupy, but that’s also where coalitions come in and training local forces.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

No we don't, there's no there there, defend means actually able to defend, international law does not accept rhetorical "defence" as a valid assertion of territorial sovereignty, if a foreign military shows up in the arctic and starts to operate up there, not only could we not stop them, but since we couldn't, they actually have a legal case under international law that they have the right to be there, which is what even  the Americans say when they roll through.

You’re wrong there.  Not having a military presence in an area of a country does not mean that such a sovereign territory can be invaded.  The peoples of these regions have lived there for thousands of years.  Don’t tread on them.  Canada built the air strips and roads and ports. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re not including militia. What are the capabilities of one Canadian soldier, including all tech?  It’s a lot. Also, aren’t we in the age of remote drone wars?  Big infantries are not as essential.  Yes you need people to occupy, but that’s also where coalitions come in and training local forces.  

I am including militia, it fluctuates, but the regular army hovers around 20,000 and the militia is around 15,000, although none of the militia are really bound to show up, that's basically a pool which volunteers can be deployed as augmentees with the reg force, but those reserve "units" are not real units, it's just on paper.

One Canadian soldier alone is dead man walking no matter how well equipped, an army fights as units, with logistics, no logistics, no actual unit, just a gaggle, never mind that we don't have the equipment for all the troops that we supposedly have on paper.

In terms of what the army can deploy, with equipment and logistics?  What you saw in A-Stan is what you get; a single battalion group.

In terms of drones, other the hand held  and a couple mini, we don't have any, it's not like we are flying MQ-9's, if you even know what those are.   

In terms of coalitions, you can't enforce territorial sovereignty on you own territory by coalition.   You think if China starts sailing through the Northwest Passage NATO is going to treat that as Article V?  I mean, get real.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, even if you do invoke Article V, the Washington Treaty doesn't stipulate that any of the NATO members has to go to all out war in your defence, the Americans wrote it so they would maintain total control under the CinC as to what they would do or not do, so the treaty actually gives members the option to decide what they are going to do about an Article V declaration, from all out thermonuclear war at the high end, to nothing more than a strongly worded letter of protest at the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Moreover, even if you do invoke Article V, the Washington Treaty doesn't stipulate that any of the NATO members has to go to all out war in your defence, the Americans wrote it so they would maintain total control under the CinC as to what they would do or not do, so the treaty actually gives members the option to decide what they are going to do about an Article V declaration, from all out thermonuclear war at the high end, to nothing more than a strongly worded letter of protest at the other. 

And yet 40,000 Canadians fought with the US under NATO article 5 after the US was attacked.  See, statements like the one you just made instill distrust.  Either you step in to defend your NATO ally against the source of the attack or you’re no NATO ally.  Don’t you see the People’s Republic trying to woo Canada against “40 phoney wars of American aggression”.  This is real and I think the idea has Canadians wondering how to proceed given the disappointments of 2018 Canada-US relations.  How Americans treat Canada is more important than you know, because it signifies how the US treats a close harmless ally.  

If there’s a bigger plan to take over Canada, the US would have to illustrate an overall net benefit to the country.  It might have to involve the UK.  It would have to support Quebec’s accommodations and the nuanced accommodations for the north and indigenous. How would they pull it off?  If it ever became undemocratic subjugation, good luck with that. It has to be a worked out deal that the majority of the country buys into. No easy task.  Canadians would have to be better off for it, but Canadians are relatively happy. I sometimes think under certain conditions it could work, but the US has a public safety problem related to violence. Is it worth the trade off?  I’m not sure Canadians would want that.   I’m also not sure Americans would want that.  It’s a big project.  Would America adjust at all for Canada?  I wish US society was more like Canadian society, because then we could enjoy those warm beaches in winter with more safety and security. 

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

And yet 40,000 Canadians fought with the US under NATO article 5 after the US was attacked.  See, statements like the one you just made instill distrust.  Either you step in to defend your NATO ally against the source of the attack or you’re no NATO ally.  

Reality check, since Canada could not support those troops logistically, they were actually a drain on American resources more than anything, NATO is a burden to America not a boon, and the process of the American public's revolt against NATO has already begun,  you can fall over yourself to answer the call of an American NATO Article V, but you should know that the American public is not willing to do the same for you, because you are not a real ally, if you are totally incapable of doing anything without them basically having do it for you, no logistics, no units, only the American formations are real units in NATO, everything else relies on the Americans to prop it up, draining resources from them rather than adding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Not that I am saying that Canadian pers were not valiant in their execution of their duties in Afghanistan, in what was a no win situation in the end, but to say that Canada's contribution was significant to the overall operation above the tactical level, 

So far nothing that has been done in Afghanistan after pushing the Taliban out of power has had any real significance. And if the Americans ever leave the Taliban will be in full control of the country within six months to a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

The upside is that each de facto sub nation within Canadian Confederation could and would be governed far far better 

You're using the recent 10+  year stint of the Ontario Liberals as you're example, I take it? Or is it the four Atlantic provinces, which would all be bankrupt were it not for transfers from the other, richer provinces? Or Quebec? Which might survive independence,  but only by making huge cutbacks to its social services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before you go into Trump Derangement Syndrome, this ain't about Trump,  all Trump is doing is articulating the realpolitik of the situation,  his big NATO faux pas is that he's simply speaking the truth of the matter, which is, no, the Americans are not really going to war with Russia or anybody else to defend Europe anymore, if the Russians cross the Article V line, the Americans will move to contain them by air and sea to defend the CONUS, but they're not actually going to engage the Russians head to head unless and until there is a  direct threat to the CONUS itself.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I mean, newsflash, guy, the entire Canadian Army fully mobilized is only about 35,000 troops, so we never had "40,000" troops in Afghanistan.

We only have the equipment and logistics to support one battalion in the field expeditionary, on paper we have "Brigades", but we can't actually deploy them.

I think we have something like 6000-7000 actual infantry soldiers.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

No we don't, there's no there there, defend means actually able to defend, international law does not accept rhetorical "defence" as a valid assertion of territorial sovereignty, if a foreign military shows up in the arctic and starts to operate up there, not only could we not stop them, but since we couldn't, they actually have a legal case under international law that they have the right to be there,

"Might makes right" is not an honest interpretation of international law.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

You're using the recent 10+  year stint of the Ontario Liberals as you're example, I take it? Or is it the four Atlantic provinces, which would all be bankrupt were it not for transfers from the other, richer provinces? Or Quebec? Which might survive independence,  but only by making huge cutbacks to its social services.

You mean the Liberal Government run by Gerry Butts who is now the Government in Ottawa?  To avoid bankruptcy, live within your means, stop flushing billions down the tube on boondoggles, and if that means a less bloated and dysfunctional social welfare gulag? Sounds great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dougie93 said:

You mean the Liberal Government run by Gerry Butts who is now the Government in Ottawa?  To avoid bankruptcy, live within your means, stop flushing billions down the tube on boondoggles, and if that means a less bloated and dysfunctional social welfare gulag? Sounds great.

I don't disagree with this. I'm making the point your asserting that the provinces could necessarily run themselves better is not born out by evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Reality check, since Canada could not support those troops logistically, they were actually a drain on American resources more than anything, NATO is a burden to America not a boon, and the process of the American public's revolt against NATO has already begun,  you can fall over yourself to answer the call of an American NATO Article V, but you should know that the American public is not willing to do the same for you, because you are not a real ally, if you are totally incapable of doing anything without them basically having do it for you, no logistics, no units, only the American formations are real units in NATO, everything else relies on the Americans to prop it up, draining resources from them rather than adding.

Not true at all.  The Canadian military as it stands is a skeleton force, maintained so that if need be it can be scaled up.  We just haven’t had the need in recent years to scale it up.  I would say though that your words just make America sound like a belligerent power and affirm the negative criticisms of the Peoples Republic.  Don’t play into their hands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

I think we have something like 6000-7000 actual infantry soldiers.

Again, amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics, the reason being that professionals understand that what is not supported by logistics is only on paper.

On paper we have 9 battalions in 3 Brigade groups, in reality we only have the logistics and equipment to deploy one of those battalions and none of the brigades at any given time.

There's 37 million Canadians, by your definition you might as well say we have 37 million infantryman, the issue is, how many can you train, equip and deploy to actually fight a modern war? Answer; 1 battalion group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Not true at all.  The Canadian military as it stands is a skeleton force, maintained so that if need be it can be scaled up.  We just haven’t had the need in recent years to scale it up.  I would say though that your words just make America sound like a belligerent power and affirm the negative criticisms of the Peoples Republic.  Don’t play into their hands. 

Scaling up is an early to mid 20th century paradigm, Canada's mobilzation plans were written in World War Two,  in the 21st century, warfare moves so fast, the war would be over before Canada could scale up more than 1 Brigade of actually equipped and logistically deployable combat and support arms.

Never mind that you have to have instructors to scale anything up, and since the instructors and the combat troops are the same troops, Canada could not train and fight at the same time.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...