Another USA warning to NATO members.....

[Army Guy]

On 2/21/2017 at 11:48 PM, ?Impact said:

Except of course the increased spending was $10 billion, and it is supposed to be an investment over a few years to build infrastructure to increase our future capabilities. You are confusing a predicted, and inflated, deficit with spending - two very different things.

The best way to treat our soldiers is no more stupid missions like Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

 

And here we thought the liberals would never send out troops into combat, and yet here we are, another clear example of NOT being transparent...how many times do we have to be betrayed before we speak out....

http://m.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1445130-on-target-mosul’s-recapture-an-exercise-in-revenge

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And here we thought the liberals would never send out troops into combat

Certainly the role changed under the Liberals, no more bombing but many more troops on the ground. I don't know if they have specifically stated that ground troops are non-combatant like the previous government did, but they might not have been as clear as they could be. I remember the terminology did go from "training mission" to "train and assist". They are clearly in combatant roles.

[Army Guy]

11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Certainly the role changed under the Liberals, no more bombing but many more troops on the ground. I don't know if they have specifically stated that ground troops are non-combatant like the previous government did, but they might not have been as clear as they could be. I remember the terminology did go from "training mission" to "train and assist". They are clearly in combatant roles.

Like i said Who is going to control all of this, certainly not the government ...and the citizens well most do not even know they are there in Iraq, in Combat roles.....nor do they care really.....except when it comes to funding, then it is if they all speak in the same voice and tone, You don't need equipment....it is frustrating....to know actual conditions within the forces....and then listen to most citizens who are under the impression we are good shape......

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Like i said Who is going to control all of this, certainly not the government ...and the citizens well most do not even know they are there in Iraq, in Combat roles.....nor do they care really.....except when it comes to funding, then it is if they all speak in the same voice and tone, You don't need equipment....it is frustrating....to know actual conditions within the forces....and then listen to most citizens who are under the impression we are good shape......

It has always been the government controlling all of this, whatever "all of this" even means. There is nobody else. 

The funding part is very easy. It costs nothing if we get out of the places where we do not belong, where we never belonged.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

nor do they [citizens] care really.....except when it comes to funding

I don't think that is true. Certainly budget is a big concern, but I think most Canadians see our forces as a visible role that reflects on our nation in world affairs. Far more than those with an ambassador title, the Canadian Forces are our real ambassadors in global events. I don't think there is a national consensus on what the role should be, but certainly Canadians are upset when our government lies to us about it. The mission in Iraq will have a very hard time getting support because Canadians do not want to be seen a part of the mess the Americans created there in the past 14 years (has it really been that long, just checked - March 20, 2003), remember we and much of the world was against that to begin with. 

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

It has always been the government controlling all of this, whatever "all of this" even means. There is nobody else. 

The funding part is very easy. It costs nothing if we get out of the places where we do not belong, where we never belonged.

Your statement is just myth , or an excuse not to fund our military properly.....The government as you so kindly point out have a long history of deploying our military around the globe to the worlds shit holes on a whim and a pray. It has a long history of deploying them "the Military"" without the proper equipment"  The price our military pays, is the entire bill as it is taken out of DND budget which is under funded to start with, and then it pays with soldiers lives.....which can be bought for an amazing low price, one years wages and a military funeral....   

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your statement is just myth , or an excuse not to fund our military properly.....The government as you so kindly point out have a long history of deploying our military around the globe to the worlds shit holes on a whim and a pray. It has a long history of deploying them "the Military"" without the proper equipment"  The price our military pays, is the entire bill as it is taken out of DND budget which is under funded to start with, and then it pays with soldiers lives.....which can be bought for an amazing low price, one years wages and a military funeral....   

You say my statement is a myth and then you use my statement to make your point. Okay, I am confused.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The government as you so kindly point out have a long history of deploying our military around the globe to the worlds shit holes on a whim and a pray.

My point is that for many of those "deployments", there ought not to have been many. 

[Army Guy]

30 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I don't think that is true. Certainly budget is a big concern, but I think most Canadians see our forces as a visible role that reflects on our nation in world affairs. Far more than those with an ambassador title, the Canadian Forces are our real ambassadors in global events. I don't think there is a national consensus on what the role should be, but certainly Canadians are upset when our government lies to us about it. The mission in Iraq will have a very hard time getting support because Canadians do not want to be seen a part of the mess the Americans created there in the past 14 years (has it really been that long, just checked - March 20, 2003), remember we and much of the world was against that to begin with. 

I see it all the time, Canadians and our government have a huge distrust over anything regarding our military. Examples are the F-35, SAR aircraft, recent Truck contract .Dismissing any advice as useless, or not worthy of listening to....

Our military is one of the smallest in the west, and yet some how instead of having the best equipment known to save lives, we have as a nation deprived our military, of funding of purchases, of benefits, the list is endless....these are not the actions of a nation that really cares about it's military, now i have not even brought up our veterns, and that whole goat rodeo....

Canadians don't have the memory to hold anybody accountable for anything....If we did most governments would have fallen within the first 2 years....with the scandals numbering more than the fingers on our hands....

The mission in Iraq is over 2 year old now, and it has been marked by dozens of reports of solders being killed, or wounded in action, or other reports such as wearing Kurdish flags etc....and still our government still tells us we are not in a combat role.....When a soldier on the ground is wearing 2 full combat loads of ammo, More than 10 full mags of ammo in your Tac vest and another 20 mags in your go bag....It is a Combat environment, regardless of what our government says.....

Here is the problem once Canadians shut down on a mission, it becomes harder for them to do their job.....because it does not stop unless the government says to....the only way that will happen is to force the government through direct action such as protests, writting our MP's etc....Remember Afghanistan went on for 10 long years, 6 of those with out the support of the people, and it cost soldiers lives.

[?Impact]

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The mission in Iraq is over 2 year old now, and it has been marked by dozens of reports of solders being killed, or wounded in action

Other than the incident a couple of years ago where Sgt. Dorion was killed, are you aware of any other reports? I know there were questions about the soldiers treated at hospital in recent months, but DND made a clear statement they were not combat related (e.g. gastrointestinal problems, heatstroke, minor accidents like burns, etc.). 

[Army Guy]

22 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You say my statement is a myth and then you use my statement to make your point. Okay, I am confused.

You may have jumped in the middle of a conversation without reading all the posts attached to it. Below is a remark from Impact that we have been discussing.....And my responses have been that the Canadian Government has a long history of deploying troops and equipment all over the world , with full knowledge of the consequences or not taking the advice from the military, knowing full well our Military is not suited for said missions. I have also pointed out that Canadian citizens really don't care if and when our government deploys it's troops, they talk a good game , but really this nation has on many occasions shown our government clearly without question it's dislikes and our government has listened for it's own survival....And yet nothing like that in regards to the Afghan mission, or the lack of equipment , or anything military really....unless you count Funding the military or purchases.

So i asked him whom was going to ensure that our military does not get sent to shit holes in the future. It's not the government ...and it's not Canadians...then who....  

 

Quote

The best way to treat our soldiers is no more stupid missions like Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

 

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And my responses have been that the Canadian Government has a long history of deploying troops and equipment all over the world

I know, and I know that your heart is in the right place but that doesn't detract from the fact that these missions are not missions. They are continuations of US/UK illegal invasions, all of which are/were based on flimsy, transparent lies. Iraq was a prosperous, wealthy, relatively speaking, country before the US/UK lied about Iraq having WMDs, about Iraq supporting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, about Iraq being an imminent threat against the US - pure, utter drivel. 

Afghanistan, the same. A country that the US "recently" discovered had immense mineral wealth, a country where the US had long wanted the right to build a huge pipeline across that country to Pakistan. A country, whose Taliban leaders were invited over for a tour of the US, including a trip to Mt Rushmore. The main issue was about the pipeline. 

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Other than the incident a couple of years ago where Sgt. Dorion was killed, are you aware of any other reports? I know there were questions about the soldiers treated at hospital in recent months, but DND made a clear statement they were not combat related (e.g. gastrointestinal problems, heatstroke, minor accidents like burns, etc.). 

No, I'm aware of any other reports, but then again this is CSOR, and it is under a veil of secrecy from the start. I'm not trying to deflect here, but DND does not fart without the government knowing what, when and how and everything in between of every minute of every day that DND is in business. So the question is ....what are we not being told and whom should those questions be directed at.

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I know, and I know that your heart is in the right place but that doesn't detract from the fact that these missions are not missions. They are continuations of US/UK illegal invasions, all of which are/were based on flimsy, transparent lies. Iraq was a prosperous, wealthy, relatively speaking, country before the US/UK lied about Iraq having WMDs, about Iraq supporting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, about Iraq being an imminent threat against the US - pure, utter drivel. 

Afghanistan, the same. A country that the US "recently" discovered had immense mineral wealth, a country where the US had long wanted the right to build a huge pipeline across that country to Pakistan. A country, whose Taliban leaders were invited over for a tour of the US, including a trip to Mt Rushmore. The main issue was about the pipeline. 

Conspiracies theories.....And if you want to debate the topic start one and i'll be happy to discuss these things with you....right now we are discussing US warnings to NATO members..... 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Conspiracies theories.....And if you want to debate the topic start one and i'll be happy to discuss these things with you....right now we are discussing US warnings to NATO members..... 

Please, you are too bright a fella to be using such a say nothing at all term as "conspiracy theory". I will start a new thread for you. It'll be called, hmmmmmmm "US invites Taliban for a holiday in America"

[Army Guy]

13 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Please, you are too bright a fella to be using such a say nothing at all term as "conspiracy theory". I will start a new thread for you. It'll be called, hmmmmmmm "US invites Taliban for a holiday in America"

Like i said you build it and they will come.....

[Argus]

54 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I know, and I know that your heart is in the right place but that doesn't detract from the fact that these missions are not missions. They are continuations of US/UK illegal invasions, all of which are/were based on flimsy, transparent lies. Iraq was a prosperous, wealthy, relatively speaking, country before the US/UK lied about Iraq having WMDs, about Iraq supporting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, about Iraq being an imminent threat against the US - pure, utter drivel. 

Iraq did have WMDs, chemical weapons. And it was working at getting nukes. It was also a brutal dictatorship whose dictator was given every opportunity to comply with UN orders and failed to do so.

 

54 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Afghanistan, the same. A country that the US "recently" discovered had immense mineral wealth, a country where the US had long wanted the right to build a huge pipeline across that country to Pakistan. A country, whose Taliban leaders were invited over for a tour of the US, including a trip to Mt Rushmore. The main issue was about the pipeline. 

A country which harbored OBL and then refused to turn him over when the US demanded him, thus committing an act of war against the United States.

As for that pipeline the conspiracy lovers keep talking about, gee, still haven't seen any sign of it.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Iraq

Did you hear Army Guy ask that this be discussed in a new thread? Why don't you start one? He said, " Like i said you build it and they will come..... "

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

Did you hear Army Guy ask that this be discussed in a new thread? Why don't you start one? He said, " Like i said you build it and they will come..... "

Topic is made, some how i knew you would not have the energy to make it.

 

[dre]

On 2/21/2017 at 4:50 PM, Army Guy said:

Nice rant, but do you really think this is all Mike Pences fault, or is it the fact that the Trump government is calling out ALL nations that fell below the 2 % mark, the fact is really we have not been at the 2 % mark since the late 50's....and while alot of nations have called us out on it, we have blushed , said we will work harder next year, and so on and so on, to we get to where we are today, some 50 years later, still riding the cheap wave to the beach...in fact we resigned this NATO defense alliance not so long ago, knowing we where short on our 2 % of GDP goal....but hey we got away with it for 50 years why not a couple more.....well Canada is not the only nation riding this wave or peace dividend, the numbers are swelling fast.....Leaving the US to pony up for these shortfalls, something it is growing tired of, who could blame them.....And this is your message to the US government Go F8ck yourself.....Well you 've already heard the US response....NO you go fuc* yourself, pay up or get out......Kind of hard to sit at the grown up table when you don't pay any of the bills.....

While the US military has had some problems, most are fixed today, But lets remember we live in a glass house as well, and for every problem they have.... we have dozens of problems...that have gone unaddressed for years...there are more than 2 dozen programs available to US service personal coming home from conflict, along with dozens of other that are sponsored by civilian companies.....here in Canada there are 1 or two programs available while you serve, and maybe 3 or 4 programs offered by civilain companies, thats right Canadian civilian companies are paying the bulk of the costs for rehab programs for soldiers.....Not only is this sanctioned by our government but also by it's citizens....How many soldiers in Canada has committed suicide after they have come back....the answer changes every day, a year ago it surpassed the numbers killed in combat....Thanks for having our backs....if this was an issue for the people of Canada something would have been done by now.......But because our military is nothing but a dirty word to most Canadians......this will go on until the numbers exceed beyond all our expectations....

Canada will spend what it has agreed to spend 2 %, or it will end up on the side lines pouting because they got their fingers caught in the cookie jar, and freeloading for over 50 years, and what did they do with all that funding they were suppose to spend .....pissed it away......here is a kleenex go wipe your tears..... 

Why would we be pouting? Who cares if we are on the sidelines instead of wasting lives and treasure in poorly thought out and counter productive attempts to police the world.

Quote

Leaving the US to pony up for these shortfalls, something it is growing tired of, who could blame them.

You assume that the US would spend less if Canada spent more. Ridiculous. The US has a huge military budget because it is a major industry in many US states, and theres a massive amount of pork barreling and profiteering going on. If you honest think what Canada spends has anything whatsoever to do with what the US spends you are completely kidding yourself. The US wants other countries to spend more because they are the worlds biggest supplier of those things.

And NATO is the gift that keeps on taking. We have spent billions and wasted a lot of lives, and have never, and will never get anything in return. If Canadian sovereignty is challenged do you really believe that Albania, or Belgium, or Bulgaria, or Crotia, or Latvia, or Lithuania or Portugal are gonna rescue us? No... it will be the US simply because they would view a military trespass on this continent as being counter to their self interests, and maybe the UK.

Quote

How many soldiers in Canada has committed suicide after they have come back....the answer changes every day, a year ago it surpassed the numbers killed in combat....Thanks for having our backs

Military spending wont do jack shit to help that. Those people need social services. And I have your backs... if I was in charge no Canadian troops wouldn't commit suicide because they wouldn't be sent on fools errands that are planned by idiots. Non-interventionalist foreign policy is the very best thing for soldiers, thats why Ron Paul won the military vote when he ran for president. Our troops would have been at home with their families for the last 50 years, and acting a corps of engineers, building low income housing, and Canadian infrastructure when they aren't training to make sure they are ready if our sovereignty is challenged. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by dre

[capricorn]

Looks like President Trump got his point across that the U.S.'s allies must pay their fair share of mutual defence expenditures.

“Our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world,” Trump told a joint session of Congress. “It is American leadership based on vital security interests that we share with our allies across the globe.”

He specifically assured NATO allies of his new administration’s continued commitment to the decades-old alliance. However, he made no mention of one of the main sources of European concern: his friendly overtures during the campaign toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism and a Cold War that defeated communism,” Trump said.

“But our partners must meet their financial obligations,” he said. “And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.”

Then, deviating from his prepared remarks, Trump added: “In fact, I can tell you the money is pouring in. Very nice." But he offered no specifics.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-alliances-idUSKBN16834J

[Wilber]

So what does the US not spend money on? How about foreign aid? While they make a lot of noise about spending the most of any individual country, the EU spends two and a half times as much. As a percentage of their federal budget and GDP they aren't even near the top ten. Canada spends twice as much of its budget and 50% more of its GDP than the US. Sweden and the UAE of all countries spend over 6 times as much of their GDP than the US.

[PIK]

On 2/24/2017 at 5:16 PM, DogOnPorch said:

Kind of why he faded away into history rather than attempt at being President. His time was over...no more big fleets hunting carriers. New weapons that his type shouldn't possess...etc. LeMay and McNamara's time was coming.

Canada was there, of course. Kapyong and such...100-1 kill ratios.

 

A movie should be made about kapyong. Canada kicked ass in korea.

[capricorn]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

How about foreign aid?

Wilber, you came out of left field with this. Who here was talking about foreign aid? Certainly not me.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Wilber said:

So what does the US not spend money on? How about foreign aid? While they make a lot of noise about spending the most of any individual country, the EU spends two and a half times as much. As a percentage of their federal budget and GDP they aren't even near the top ten. Canada spends twice as much of its budget and 50% more of its GDP than the US. Sweden and the UAE of all countries spend over 6 times as much of their GDP than the US.

There should be a better balance. The US spends a ton on the military and little on foreign aid. Canada and the EU spend more on foreign aid but are essentially miliarily helpless against any large aggressor.