Jump to content

Another USA warning to NATO members.....


Army Guy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, that's our fault for surrendering too much responsibility to politicians. You however don't want to leave it up to politicians or voters so that just leaves you and your ilk to decide. So how would you feel about letting fishermen decide when they can or can't fish? How do you think Canadians would feel about that?

I've addressed this concern about lukewarm support several times before by suggesting that a super-majority be required to ensure there is little to no ambiguity - 75% of the electorate in a mandatory vote should suffice.  Note this super-majority would only be required for invasive military action we engage in, not to defend ourselves from an invasion.

Apparently there is an awful lot that our government does that Canadians know very little about. Perhaps you should argue instead for greater transparency - a more enlightened informed electorate might see things a lot more the way you do although you seem to recognize that when it does become interested it backfires on you.

It's because you're so caught between a rock and a hard place that I have to ask why you insist on volunteering to stay there?  You really think Canadians are ones that are being stupid about this?

 

That's not what i am saying at all, but thanks for the attempt....I said i would rather a politician making those choices as they have all the info that regular citizens do not have access to, for instance intel reports, etc etc...Now i have made many statements that our politicians for the most part refuse to list or take advise on military matters from the military or subject matter experts.....In many cases with the current liberals, this advice is coming from 15-20 different generals from the same field, that has got to say something.....it has to send up a red flag as to why? 

Are you saying that some how that having a subject matter expert in the field such as fishermen......should not have a say in the fisheries ? Thats not what i am saying........That some how some politician knows better than the guy who does it for a living that is not what i am saying, .....I get it that sometimes not all military personal or fishermen for that matter have the best interest of the field in mind, some of them are just out to make a buck.  But when enough are saying the same thing there must be something behind it....some based on experience of doing the job for years, then yes they should be heard....and their opinion should be valued over some guy with a BA in ARTS that is a politician who has not fished in his life....

What you forget to mention is there are a lot of issues that are not covered under invasion or defensive issues, there are our foreign interests, such as Lebanon, where 50,000 so called Canadians needed to be rescued.....it was a good thing we have close allieds , to assist our military to get those people off the coast to some place safer...because we did not have the equipment needed for that job.....what would have happened if these people were under threat of military action, it could have been very bad.....because we as a nation do not think we need to spend all that money.... there are lots of examples, of our military not being able to protect our citizens or having the capability to do anything....

Canadians think that our defense stops at our borders, until they are threaten or taken hostage then they want our government to do something, perhaps use the military to get them back...with out the tools, and equipment there is no way.....Like i said before Canada had a majority of it's citizens approval to send us to Afghanistan....but very little support to bring us back....where was the super majority then....watching hockey...

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make this case to the people, give them them facts they need to make such a decision. If there is intel that is too sensitive to release to the public then be prepared to at least present it to a large panel of highly respected impartial experts who can then report their advice to the public to weigh.  I'd also be prepared to make that intel available post conflict and it better be true.  Basing war on a lie should constitute a crime against humanity. 

 

Quote

Are you saying that some how that having a subject matter expert in the field such as fishermen......should not have a say in the fisheries ?

No, I said they should not be who decides such an obviously conflicted question.

Going offshore to kill other people in our name is an issue that is far too important to leave up to politicians or soldiers alone.  It is such an important commitment to make that it should bear the stamp of unequivocal support from as many Canadians as can possibly be mustered. 

 

Quote

Like i said before Canada had a majority of it's citizens approval to send us to Afghanistan....but very little support to bring us back....where was the super majority then....watching hockey...

That's why I said to make the vote mandatory.

You, the politicians and the public only thought there was a majority.  You should have insisted in knowing there was no ambiguity and had a VERY clear mandate from a super-majority.  Instead you were sent off half cocked on a cockeyed mission that only got more cocked up as time went on.

Now the world is a fricken' mess and why is just as fricken' obvious.

 

 

 

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2017 at 7:15 PM, eyeball said:

Make this case to the people, give them them facts they need to make such a decision. If there is intel that is too sensitive to release to the public then be prepared to at least present it to a large panel of highly respected impartial experts who can then report their advice to the public to weigh.  I'd also be prepared to make that intel available post conflict and it better be true.  Basing war on a lie should constitute a crime against humanity. 

 

No, I said they should not be who decides such an obviously conflicted question.

Going offshore to kill other people in our name is an issue that is far too important to leave up to politicians or soldiers alone.  It is such an important commitment to make that it should bear the stamp of unequivocal support from as many Canadians as can possibly be mustered. 

 

That's why I said to make the vote mandatory.

You, the politicians and the public only thought there was a majority.  You should have insisted in knowing there was no ambiguity and had a VERY clear mandate from a super-majority.  Instead you were sent off half cocked on a cockeyed mission that only got more cocked up as time went on.

Now the world is a fricken' mess and why is just as fricken' obvious.

 

 

 

Most of the Intel collected by our country can not nor will not be released to the general public for multi reasons....all of them due to national security, it does not gte declassified after the mission, in fact there is intel from WWII still classified......

Well that is good policy...."never take the advice of the subject matter expert in any case"....which brings up this question who is advising the PM....the cleaning staff.....

For the last time Afghanistan had the majority of Canadians coming on line and approving support for the mission, and yet where were they when the mission became unsupported, they were no where to be found......So much for your theory.....one more point, the only military person that has an opinion on any mission is the CDS, and only when it is asked for ....and it is that a expert in the field that is giving an educated assessment on a military topic....So when you say soldiers....there is only one....

Making the vote mandatory.....aaahhh got it, the last election saw record turn outs....that was what 45 % , i guessing as i don't know.....but how well do you think a mandatory vote will go.....who will enforce it and what will that enforcement look like...? it will never work .....

And you still do not get the point......I would rather a lying sack of shit politician make an informed or sort of informed decision...than a tax payer that can not take the time to become educated on the topic.... and it is not just the military topic that citizens know nothing about, most don't even know how our political process even works....

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Canada is a peaceful country. It really doesn't have any major enemies. Why would we spend money to pay for American imperialist ambitions. Are we willing to sacrifice our social security and healthcare and spend our tax dollars on useless wars? 

 

 

Isn't Canada off to play Hotel Rwanda in Africa once more? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to actually STOP the genocide, this time?

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Isn't Canada off to play Hotel Rwanda in Africa once more? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to actually STOP the genocide, this time?

 

 

 

UN peace keeping missions don't require significant GDP investments. In most cases, it requires less than a few hundred soldiers. 

NATO, on the other hand, is a more politically driven organization e.g.  dealing with Russia & China, increasing sphere of influence in Europe and Asia etc. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Canada is a peaceful country. It really doesn't have any major enemies. Why would we spend money to pay for American imperialist ambitions. Are we willing to sacrifice our social security and healthcare and spend our tax dollars on useless wars? 

 

 

Because it turns out that Canada really isn't so peaceful, it just wants Canadians to think so.

Canadian mining, oil services, and other economic interests around the world are not bothered by "imperialism".

Canada is the 7th biggest arms exporter in the world.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Charlie said:

UN peace keeping missions don't require significant GDP investments. In most cases, it requires less than a few hundred soldiers. 

NATO, on the other hand, is a more politically driven organization e.g.  dealing with Russia & China, increasing sphere of influence in Europe and Asia etc. 

 

Sure worked well last time.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

And you still do not get the point......I would rather a lying sack of shit politician make an informed or sort of informed decision...than a tax payer that can not take the time to become educated on the topic.... and it is not just the military topic that citizens know nothing about, most don't even know how our political process even works....

Then you and everyone who insists you know better and just how important it is to know better should roll up your sleeves and make a far better case to Canadians.

I do have a pretty good idea about how our political process works and I wouldn't trust a lying sack of shit politician to commit Canada to invading another country no matter what sort of intel he was getting.  Not without near total disclosure - I give not one shit about our's and especially our allies national security when it comes to drumming up reasons for invading other people's countries - not in light of the humanitarian disasters, economic fiascos and geo-political catastrophes these bastards have caused the last 60 years or so.

That's the point you never get.  Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, thrice and well...you should get the point but I guess you just don't give a shit. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Then you and everyone who insists you know better and just how important it is to know better should roll up your sleeves and make a far better case to Canadians.

I do have a pretty good idea about how our political process works and I wouldn't trust a lying sack of shit politician to commit Canada to invading another country no matter what sort of intel he was getting.  Not without near total disclosure - I give not one shit about our's and especially our allies national security when it comes to drumming up reasons for invading other people's countries - not in light of the humanitarian disasters, economic fiascos and geo-political catastrophes these bastards have caused the last 60 years or so.

That's the point you never get.  Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, thrice and well...you should get the point but I guess you just don't give a shit. 

Your joking right.....Canadians do not want to here that, shit there are people on this very forum that does not want to here that, have you not read some of the comment s here on this post.....their not interested in our opinions, and when they shut down, you will end up with relying on the politicians who have decided they are the subject matter experts, on all topics.....

That's the problem with intel you can't have total disclosure, or the bad guys will know how you got the intel, and close that hole.....

As for you not giving a shit about National security , you've already made that loud and clear.....however the world is not all sunshine and rainbows on the outside, and sometimes you need to carry a big stick and be prepared to use it once in awhile.....or someone will see you as a target and beat you with with his stick....be it by trying to seize Canadian territory, over fish in our waters, take our resources, all of this has already happened but because Canadians don't care to educate themselves about it , it never happens.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Charlie said:

UN peace keeping missions don't require significant GDP investments. In most cases, it requires less than a few hundred soldiers. 

NATO, on the other hand, is a more politically driven organization e.g.  dealing with Russia & China, increasing sphere of influence in Europe and Asia etc. 

Have you done a cost comparison, you are aware that UN peacekeeping has not our focus for the last 10 plus years so those numbers are going to be down, However our new PM says he is going to change that, another one of his promises so don't hold your breath....Canada's normal contributions have been in the Battle group size, such as Afghanistan Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf war one, Somalia, Cyprus, in fact most of them have involved a Battle group plus size commitment, from 1500 up to 3500 troops.....they still need military equipment that provides protection and firepower, they still need ammo, food, water, and fuel to power all the equipment....that's regardless if they stay in camp, or peace keep....

And the UN is not a politically driven organization....come on....how much shit are you going to feed us....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Charlie said:

Canada is a peaceful country. It really doesn't have any major enemies. 

Those statements don't necessarily go together. Sweden is a peaceful country. It just re instituted conscription, is building up its military, ordering new weapons systems, and reopening cold-war era nuclear shelters and bunkers. It is worried about Putin's ambitions. Putin, btw, according to the papers, is in the arctic, where the Russians have been building up military bases, to reinforce Russia's claim to a vast area which is believed to contain a quarter of the world's oil wealth. That includes territory Canada has claimed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Those statements don't necessarily go together. Sweden is a peaceful country. It just re instituted conscription, is building up its military, ordering new weapons systems, and reopening cold-war era nuclear shelters and bunkers. It is worried about Putin's ambitions. Putin, btw, according to the papers, is in the arctic, where the Russians have been building up military bases, to reinforce Russia's claim to a vast area which is believed to contain a quarter of the world's oil wealth. That includes territory Canada has claimed.

There is nothing to worry about if Russia simply takes the Canadian land up there.   Canada will get Foreign Minister Freeland to draft a strongly worded memo to Russia asking nicely if they would stop.  If they refuse, she will cry.  Then they'll have to go home.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More media coverage of new budget and Liberal priorities...whoops i forgot there is nothing new in the budget and there are no liberal priorities .....another broken promise , replacing our F-18's   clear and sunny ways....indeed....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canada-defence-spending-1.4048409

 

Even the CDS is on board with the new budget, which if i'm correct says no spending out to 2030.....CDS says he is pinning his hopes and dreams on the defence review.......wait a minute, the liberals said NO new spending until 2030......they did not say "wait until we are finished with the defense review".....perhaps the CDS can explain why the purchasing process is so screwed up to the rest of us flat faced civies, so we will know where to point our fingers.....Maybe someone can step up and fix it.....you know before 2030....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vance-sajjan-defence-spending-1.4048958

Edited by Army Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Even the CDS is on board with the new budget, which if i'm correct says no spending out to 2030.....CDS says he is pinning his hopes and dreams on the defence review.......wait a minute, the liberals said NO new spending until 2030......they did not say "wait until we are finished with the defense review".....perhaps the CDS can explain why the purchasing process is so screwed up to the rest of us flat faced civies, so we will know where to point our fingers.....Maybe someone can step up and fix it.....you know before 2030....

The truth is most of our generals are more bureaucrat than soldier, and the CDS will say and do whatever he's told to say and do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals stiffen their resistance to NATO demands to spend 2 %......They have no plan in the works....They believe that the US is talking to all the other nations and not Canada.....quoting once again Canada makes other contributions .....yes they do but are they worth 25 bil worth of contributions...NO...not even close...Canada will have to be called out by Name....

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2017/03/31/pm-defends-military-spending-in-face-of-new-u-s-calls-for-allies-to-pony-up.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, herples said:

The US should be pushing for a reformation of NATO rather than demanding allies to pay up to keep American presence in Europe. 

 

The US should cut back NATO support to the lowest member levels...like deadbeat Canada.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What support? How does invading poor third world nations, murdering millions of the innocent citizens, stealing their wealth, support Canada?

 

Canada is the seventh largest arms exporter in the world, with lots going to the U.S. war machine.  

Such U.S. military sales volume is hidden from the sheeple in Canada for political reasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Canada and all the others combined don't match the biggest band of war criminals the world has ever seen, the US of A.

 

Canada can't match the USA on lots of things, that's why more Canadians emigrate to the U.S. each year than Americans going to Canada.

...and the U.S. has ten times Canada's population.

20% of all immigrants in the world reside in the United States (dwarfing other nations for immigration).

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...