SpankyMcFarland Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 52 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Thats a myth if you think we did not have troops in the gulf war...well over 300 served under US forces, gulf war II , not counting ships and aircraft that were tied to other operations in support of the conflict...That was the liberals telling more of those half truths... It was a lot fewer than it could have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 I’m not sure ‘answering the call’ in WWI did us any good and the Anglo-Boer War was simply an imperialist adventure. None of the six empires in WWI respected the rights of small nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 17 Report Share Posted February 17 16 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said: It was a lot fewer than it could have been. Sure, but one of the main reasons coalition forces did not ask for more troops was the fact that the Iraqi's were better equipped than we were, our tanks were leo I, M113, we did have much newer F-18 but no guided munitions, nor could we talk to other allieds via comms becasue they were outdated , our frigs did not have very much in air defense, in fact they put manpads on each of our ships...and bought some sea whizes...we would have been a major problem rather than a good contribution... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 21 Author Report Share Posted February 21 On 2/16/2024 at 9:47 PM, Army Guy said: Thats a myth if you think we did not have troops in the gulf war... I am no admirer of the federal Liberals. But Chretien was correct to keep our soldiers out of the Gulf War II - when Bush Jnr invaded Iraq in 2003. The Gulf War I - Bush Snr stopped at the border. Yet, this war provoked the event of Sept 2001. ===== AG, Since 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we Canadians should have no soldiers abroad. Around 1994, when the situation in Russia was not clear, I favoured an expansion of NATO. I was wrong. Nowadays, in the 2000s, there is absolutely no need for NATO. ==== We need a new structure of peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 21 Author Report Share Posted February 21 About 110 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan. Some 3000 American soldiers died in Iraq. In a volunteer army, you soldiers choose your career. And in a country with conscription, the State shows its power. I reckon that Afghanistan will no longer harbour a place to attack us. I am not certain that regime change in Iraq accomplished anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 21 Author Report Share Posted February 21 On 2/2/2024 at 2:56 PM, Army Guy said: .... The best structure for peace is to be prepared, carry a big stick, and be trained on how to use it...Thats how you get lasting peace...And have men and women willing to step up and defend this great nation or what is left of it...Today all we have is a hallowed out military, and a government thats like to talk, but is very short on action, and it has cost us our hard won inter national reputation to the point where nobody really notices our presence in the room. .... I disagree. The Finns will fight (like the British and we Canadians). Young Russian men fought and died and won - twice. Carry a big stick? AG, you think like an American. ==== For world peace, we need an "understanding" between the "elites" of different countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 9 hours ago, August1991 said: I am no admirer of the federal Liberals. But Chretien was correct to keep our soldiers out of the Gulf War II - when Bush Jnr invaded Iraq in 2003. The Gulf War I - Bush Snr stopped at the border. Yet, this war provoked the event of Sept 2001. ===== AG, Since 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we Canadians should have no soldiers abroad. Around 1994, when the situation in Russia was not clear, I favoured an expansion of NATO. I was wrong. Nowadays, in the 2000s, there is absolutely no need for NATO. ==== We need a new structure of peace. Like i have already said we did have soldiers in the Gulf war II, embedded with US forces... Having military bases and troops abroad mean a quicker response to any crises plus adds to the deterrence factor. Once again your wrong, the worlds current status means we need more NATO, which is now being used in the pacifics as well. Currently the only structure for peace is a well equipped military, and the means to deploy it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 9 hours ago, August1991 said: About 110 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan. Some 3000 American soldiers died in Iraq. In a volunteer army, you soldiers choose your career. And in a country with conscription, the State shows its power. I reckon that Afghanistan will no longer harbour a place to attack us. I am not certain that regime change in Iraq accomplished anything. 158 Canadian soldiers died well over 600 were wounded, we should atleast remember how many they were after all our country men and women how fought and died in the name of our country.. Thats the rub , that is happening right now young Canadians see how this nation treats it's military , it's members, and it's veterans and they don't want the job...why would they want a job when their own citizens don't care a fiddles F*ck about them...the problem is not the Job, it's you the people that is the problem... No one knows that for certain, Afghanistan is slowly returning to the state it once was... it got rid of saddam which was everything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 9 hours ago, August1991 said: Carry a big stick? AG, you think like an American. ==== For world peace, we need an "understanding" between the "elites" of different countries. No i think like a soldier who has seen more conflict than i should have , they all have one thing in common, they did not posses the means to defend themselves....and all the ones that do carry a big stick, are still a peace how do you explain that ? It's got nothing to do with being American, it is just common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 24 Author Report Share Posted February 24 On 2/21/2024 at 12:06 PM, Army Guy said: ... Currently the only structure for peace is a well equipped military, and the means to deploy it... Strongly disagree. After 1820 or so, ordinary people lived very well. We discovered so much. ====== With wise leaders, we could have a century of peace to 2114 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 24 Author Report Share Posted February 24 (edited) In 1815 or so, politicians created a century of peace. In 2025, with wise leadership, such a structure is possible. Ordinary people in 2125 will live well. Better. Edited February 24 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 (edited) 12 hours ago, August1991 said: Strongly disagree. After 1820 or so, ordinary people lived very well. We discovered so much. ====== With wise leaders, we could have a century of peace to 2114 This is what we put our efforts into discovering....WAR... Just look at Cancer for a second it takes thousands upon thousands of lives every year in Canada....Millions globally..... More than all the conflicts in the world currently combined ...and we spend less than .05% to cure cancer compared to what the world spends on WAR...which is in the trillions of dollars. How long would it take for us to cure Cancer if we spent trillions on it each year.... and yet ALL we are doing is discovering better ways to kill each other....This is the path humans have chosen...total Peace is a foreign concept to us... We have yet had leaders that were wise enough to create the circumstances required of peace...currently there are well of 4 dozens conflicts raging around the world, no leaders are really interested in stopping this it is a tool we need to solve conflicts when deploymacy breaks down... Edited February 24 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 26 Author Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) On 2/24/2024 at 12:56 PM, Army Guy said: .... We have yet had leaders that were wise enough to create the circumstances required of peace... ..... In 1814 or so - in Vienna, we did. In 1945 or so - in Yalta/Potsdam, we did. == Since 1991, the world has changed. America won the Cold War. ========= My great fear is that now, in 2024, we are in a world like 1912. A clueless elite about to lead ordinary people into disaster. Edited February 26 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 9 minutes ago, August1991 said: In 1814 or so - in Vienna, we did. In 1945 or so - in Yalta/Potsdam, we did. == Since 1991, the world has changed. America won the Cold War. ========= My great fear is that now, in 2024, we are in a world like 1912. A clueless elite about to lead ordinary people into disaster. you can name what every years you want fact remains the world has and will always have conflict...right after WWII after the loss of over 60 million people a short time later we enter the Korean conflict...we learned nothing, world peace is a dream, a fantasy...Man knows very little of peace...thats why we have nations that have a huge stick and know how to use it... Ordinary Canadians are not smart enough to stop the elites in doing anything....instead we continue to groom them for positions of power and vote them in under our own accord...Don't blame the elites...blame the citizens that keep doing it over and over again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 26 Author Report Share Posted February 26 5 minutes ago, Army Guy said: you can name what every years you want fact remains the world has and will always have conflict...right after WWII after the loss of over 60 million people a short time later we enter the Korean conflict... From 1945 to the present, we have had world peace. AG, look on YouTube, ask anyone born before 1940 what is war. ===== Since 1945 or so, we faced a Soviet/Communist threat. Leaders like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon faced it. In 1989, we defeated this nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 15 hours ago, August1991 said: From 1945 to the present, we have had world peace. AG, look on YouTube, ask anyone born before 1940 what is war. ===== Since 1945 or so, we faced a Soviet/Communist threat. Leaders like Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon faced it. In 1989, we defeated this nonsense. Not sure what world your living in, but after 1945, there was Korea, then Vietnam, then Iraq, Afghanistan, and the list goes on and on.... I hope your not lecturing me on what is war, because i did not live through WWII, your starting to sound like all the old WWII vets at the legion..."You don't know what war is kid"...even our government has concluded that to qualify for any veterans benefits once must have fought in WWII or Korea...any other conflict does not qualify you for "any" veterans benefits... You don't need tp storm the normandy beaches to see the horrors of war...... me and plenty of others however stormed mud compounds day after day,in plus 55 celsius degree weather with full battle gear... i seen my share of kids torn up by the tools of war, i've lost people that where close to me, and I've taken lives...So please don't tell me i don't know what war is all about... All that happened in 1989 was the wall came down and the Soviet empire shrank...it is today more of a threat than at any time in history....NATO, NORAD, 5 EYES, EU, the US, UK, and Canadian Military have all lectured world leaders, that today we face the largest threats to our security....The cold war never really ended, it just took a pause...and with China now emerging as the number one threat the dooms day clock is closer to zero than at any time before...I want you to take some time and do some research...it is all laid out on goggle....becasue what you purpose is just wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 On 2/26/2024 at 3:21 PM, Army Guy said: Not sure what world your living in, but after 1945, there was Korea, then Vietnam... Korea, Vietnam were before 1991. AG, have you been to Berlin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 28 Author Report Share Posted February 28 On 2/26/2024 at 3:21 PM, Army Guy said: .... then Iraq, Afghanistan, and the list goes on and on.... ..... All that happened in 1989 was the wall came down and the Soviet empire shrank...it is today more of a threat than at any time in history.... Here, I strongly disagree. The defeat of the Soviet Union was a major victory for the West. When China opened to trade in 1982, also a major victory. ===== Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo? We need a new multi-polar arrangement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 Why are Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Practical pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 18 minutes ago, August1991 said: Why are Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Practical pressure. not Sweden Sweden wants to plug its defence industry into NATO the demand is through the roof in the face of Crazy Ivan in the Kremlin NATO countries don't even have enough production capacity to meet the demand Sweden is going to make out like bandits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 1 Author Report Share Posted March 1 9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: not Sweden Sweden wants to plug its defence industry into NATO Agreed. Swedes and Finns are practical people. The Americans (Dems) have offered much to join NATO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted March 1 Report Share Posted March 1 5 minutes ago, August1991 said: Agreed. Swedes and Finns are practical people. The Americans (Dems) have offered much to join NATO. Sweden has Finland as a buffer zone there's no way the Russians are getting through the fearsome Finns to drive their tanks in Stockholm so Sweden is not that spooked by Putin rather Putin is the goose that laid the golden egg, for Saab, Bofors & Kockums Cold War Two is party time for the Tre Kroner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 On 3/1/2024 at 6:36 PM, Dougie93 said: Sweden has Finland as a buffer zone there's no way the Russians are getting through the fearsome Finns to drive their tanks in Stockholm Agreed. So, why did the Swedish government agree to join NATO? Practical Swedes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 4 Author Report Share Posted March 4 Historical Note: The Finns allied with Hitler because Stalin invaded them. The Swedes remained neutral during both World Wars. "Not my problem!" The Norwegians collaberated - Google: Quisling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted March 5 Report Share Posted March 5 Hungary approves Sweden NATO membership. Well done Vlad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.