Continued from here and renamed, now that the introductions and honeymoon have finished. Adieu BCG, hello Maysie!
Issues Pages:
Soldiers And Their Critics et al.
Thu, 2008-12-18 11:04
#1
Soldiers And Their Critics et al.
Thu, 2008-12-18 11:18
#2
Soldiers and their critics and their supporters would be more inclusive than er al, Slumberjack.
Just an idea.
Thu, 2008-12-18 11:42
#3
“The others" cover supporters and the indifferent alike.
On the topic of name changes, I've been considering changing mine for awhile now, because I get a sense from time to time that some may feel it is intended as a slight against the current NDP leader, when in fact it goes way back before I knew Jack Layton existed. But if I go with my real name, then there's undoubtedly the risk that I'll be seen as a con supporter, so I'm stuck with what I have until I can think of something creative, which is somewhat of a laborious task in itself.
Thu, 2008-12-18 11:47
#4
Sorry Slumberjack I don't see you post this (thanks for starting a new thread)
Could a mod kindly delete my old post?
For starters, I don't believe the group you posed your question
to are all 'guys.' With the way western corporate democracy works, it
seems that individual or collective opinions and protests among the
population are of little consequence. The majority of Canadians, the
people you represent, are against our military involvement in this war.
Sorry SJ I didn't mean to imply you were a guy (if you're a girl). When
I say guys I'm used to addressing it to a group, not specifically just
males. I'll try and be more PC about it here.
With regard to your reply, I agree. It seems that protests while
popular, don't seem to accomplish anything. Thats why I asked what all
of you whom I metioned are doing to get Canada out of Afghanistan. Have
you actually wrote your local MP?
Can you do me a favor and please explain how the poll you posted works?
It says Canadians dissaprove of military action (between strongly
and somewhat) for a total of 56%. But then it goes onto say this
By comparison, 41 per cent of respondents were in favour of military
action, with 14 per cent saying they "strongly approve" and 27 per cent
"somewhat approve."
Is that the previous approval rating from 2002? So now the Approval
of military action is 44% compared to 82% of the past? If that's
accurate (and I explained that right) it's a huge drop.
Tommy, great post. I'm in agreement with a lot of what you're saying/feeling. Especially the part about supporting an alliance.
One thing you mentioned,
If I can assume my "Dr. Strangelove" persona for a moment, there is the
fact that if we are to have a military that is capable of acting in
Canada's own best interests, it has to be experienced in combat from
time to time.
I don't think you realiz just how true that is. From a military
point of view, I personally think the mission to Afghanistan saved the
Canadian Military. Cutbacks, problems with equipment, prolems with
personal and leaders, problems with old tactics. Many many problems
were addressed.
Some examples. Physical fitness. Canada was probably the "fattest"
army in NATO. I kid you not. We had MAJOR issue with overweight
soldiers. Not nessairily combat arms but soldiers in general. "Who
cares" seemed to be one of the responses. With Afghanistan being a
combat zone that didn't have front lines, everyone had to sort
themselves out. General Hilliar also inacted a rule along the lines
that if you can't pass a physical fitness test y can't get promoted.
There were also other penalties, I think including eventually being
released from the forces. Tax payers pay money to ensure their army is
physically fit and prepared.
Equipment problems such as the lack of Tanks and transport helicopters which have been or are being addressed.
Training. We're not fighting the Russians anymore. Lots of old
dinosaurs refused to get out o the cold war mindset, that qas quickly
changed once they hit the ground in Afghanistan.
As far as your Dr Stranglove personal goes, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Thanks for your post Tommy. Like George's and others its given me some key things to consider and think about while I'm here.
Thu, 2008-12-18 12:19
#5
With regard to your reply, I agree. It seems that protests while popular, don't seem to accomplish anything. Thats why I asked what all of you whom I metioned are doing to get Canada out of Afghanistan.
From a military point of view, I personally think the mission to Afghanistan saved the Canadian Military. Cutbacks, problems with equipment, prolems with personal and leaders, problems with old tactics. Many many problems were addressed.
Protests often take awhile to obtain the desired effect. Depending on the cause, the more people that take to the streets, the more of an impact it will have on the opinions of others that may not normally go out for such a thing. The spectacle of motivated citizens regularly gathering together to protest the actions of government has a cumulative effect on overall public opinion, and the more people that do protest, the cause takes on more legitimacy in the minds of the general public, simply because the reason must have merit if so many people are willing to personally involve themselves to confront the authorities.
I don’t support the concept that saving the Canadian military is worth the lives of innocent foreigners or soldiers. Acquiring greater access to public coffers for purchasing the latest war fighting equipment is an immoral reason to justify human suffering. I once worked with an 8CH officer, back when it was a Reg force regiment, who stated that his greatest career goal was to lead soldiers into combat. It didn’t dawn on him that some of his soldiers would have to die in order for him to realize his aspirations. He eventually achieved his goal. The Canadian officer corps sees this conflict as a tremendous career opportunity, and without a doubt, many of them will advance far within their respective fields for having been involved in circumstances which have caused the deaths of their soldiers and innocent civilians.
Thu, 2008-12-18 12:26
#6
remind
I don’t support the concept that saving the Canadian military is worth the lives of innocent foreigners or soldiers. Acquiring greater access to public coffers for purchasing the latest war fighting equipment is an immoral reason to justify human suffering...The Canadian officer corps sees this conflict as a tremendous career opportunity, and without a doubt, many of them will advance far within their respective fields for having been involved in circumstances which have caused the deaths of their soldiers and innocent civilians.
Well said!
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Thu, 2008-12-18 13:11
#7
I think a lot of people overlook some issues of morality in addressing our presence in Afghanistan. Initially, before the invasion, I was against the whole ordeal, I didn't think we had the right invade their country, but we did. And the longer we stayed the more entrenched our presence became. We've been there for almost eight, nine years now? We're pretty deep in the situation. How I see it, if we pull out of Afghanistan, there is going to be serious state collapse.
Now I'm not the most pragmatic individual, I prefer to keep an positivist perspective on things, but I think our endevour in the Afghani country can be successful and that we should remain there until we are. I also think it is our responsibility to stay there and not leave this country in a disastrous state. I am aware that in order to succeed we need to change our approach...militaristically and infrastructually, and that we also need solid support from the rest of the involved NATO countries. If we can harness these then there is definitely a light at the end of the tunnel. (Of course if we don't change/recieve more support from "supporting" nations, well at this point I really don't know what to tell you.)
I also understand the brutality that this mission has on our soldiers, I know the percentages of those who come back with serious traumatic disorders and physical injuries. But it comes back to what I was arguing earlier, we as a nation sent our military out there, and each and everyone of us has to take some responsibility for those actions.
Anyway...at the end of the day it would be nice to see that these eight years of war there that something came out of it.
Thu, 2008-12-18 13:42
#8
"I don’t support the concept that saving the Canadian military is worth the lives of innocent foreigners or soldiers."
And niether do I. I'm just saying it is a practicle consideration.
It's a rock that has to be lifted and looked under.
It's easy to approach this subject, or military ones from a perfect world point of view. But if we on the left are to seriously contemplate taking office, we have to realize that electing an NDP government in Canada isn't going to change Canada overnight, let alone the rest of the world.
Until we achieve the perfect world where Webgear and Realigned and others have to look for a job on civy street, we have to play in the existing one.
Our security not only depends on a functional military, it also depends on alliances. Which means doing shit, sometimes, that you really wouldn't do in a perfect world.
Thu, 2008-12-18 13:47
#9
If I can assume my "Dr. Strangelove" persona for a moment, there is the fact that if we are to have a military that is capable of acting in Canada's own best interests, it has to be experienced in combat from time to time.
I don't think you realiz just how true that is. From a military point of view, I personally think the mission to Afghanistan saved the Canadian Military.
I'm sure the people of Afghanistan are more than happy to help out in alleviating the Canadian Forces' existentialist angst. Huzzah.
But if Tommy's postulation were true, and you seem to believe it is, than logically it would follow that to have the best combat trained military, that military must take on militaries that are as strong or stronger. Otherwise, it's just mass murder for magnet ribbons. Pro athletes need to train and compete against athletes of comparable skill. You don't train for the Olympics by attending the local elementary school track meet.
So, if you really believe that Canada needs a combat experienced military, then they should be taking on the US military for practice.
What the Afghan mission has done is atrophe any combat skill by relying on American air support, body armour, tanks, artillery, and night vision or thermal imaging equipment, Tim Hortons and Don fucking Cherry. If you want combat, get out of your Grizzlys, stip off your gear, grab an AK and fight the resistance like they fight you. I'm guessing all the big talk about the righteousness of the "mission" would evaporate faster than urine-soaked CADPATs.
Personally, the Canadian Army didn't need to be "saved", it needed to be disbanded.
Thu, 2008-12-18 14:02
#10
You've convinced me, Jingles.
Now, just go out and convince 6869163150 or so other people, and we're all happy.
Thu, 2008-12-18 14:31
#11
The white man's burden is back on babble. How soothing.
Thu, 2008-12-18 14:34
#12
Convinced you of what?
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:21
#13
Refuge
Personally, the Canadian Army didn't need to be "saved", it needed to be disbanded.
So do you believe that Canada shouldn't have any military?
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:28
#14
Convinced you of what?
That we should disband Canada's military. I agree.
We just have to convince everyone else in the world to disband their militarys, and it's a done deal for me.
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:35
#15
We just have to convince everyone else in the world to disband their militarys, and it's a done deal for me.
Great argument, Tommy. And we'd better get ourselves some nuclear weapons, too, unless we can convince those peaceloving nations (U.S., Russia, China, Pakistan, India, ...) to trash theirs. Right?
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:41
#16
I don't think he was going there unionist.
I'm all in favour of abolishing the military, and for getting rid of at least 1/2 of the police force which is currently sucking up large chunks of public money.
Thu, 2008-12-18 18:47
#17
Okay, we disband our military,and Spain decides to push it's "historical right" to say, take all our remaining few fish from the Grand Banks.
Whatcha gonna do? Ask them not to? That approach might work for Canadians, but I don't think it will work for the Spanish. Or a number of other countries who might decide they have an "historical right" to, well, everything else.
Thu, 2008-12-18 19:22
#18
I'm not in favour of disbanding the military. Every country has a right to legitimate self-defence against aggression, and history has shown us that unfortunately, there are some types of hostility that make war inescapably necessary. We can point to examples in which nations that were technologically unprepared to confront violent ideologies became overrun, and the ensuring occupation bought great suffering upon the occupied populations. Military capabilities and expertise do not grow on trees in times of dire circumstances, therefore they must be properly maintained and equipped at an adequate level, for defence only, when no other diplomatic option is available.
As a result of our system of political and military alliances, we became engaged in two optional offensive wars during the past twenty years. NATO and NORAD are of no use to us anymore, and it’s debatable if they ever were. We should become a non-aligned nation and remove ourselves from having to succumb to the peer pressure that exists within formal alliances to ante up to the war trough.
Thu, 2008-12-18 19:40
#19
In 50+ years of more than a passing interest in geomilitary affairs, I've yet to discern any realistic or recognizable threat to this Country that couldn't have been dealt with expeditiously by the Saskatoon Fire Dep't., with two possible exceptions:
1. The Borg, who are presently engaged in MRC 1138-262, the Spiderweb Galaxy, which is 10.6 billion light years away. Even if they move at Warp 9, we have over one billion years to prepare a meaningful response, and
2. Mud-Men from Borneo, who will generally leave you alone provided you don't go there and do something that pisses them off, like murdering them and their families in their homes. Calling this type of thing "reconstruction" does not impress them in any way; they don't deal much with bullshit, they will simply kill you in response.
Thu, 2008-12-18 19:51
#20
In 50+ years of more than a passing interest in geomilitary affairs, I've yet to discern any realistic or recognizable threat to this Country that couldn't have been dealt with expeditiously by the Saskatoon Fire Dep't., with two possible exceptions:
If you moved the scale back a little, say to 60+ years, then you might recognize an example that is worth bearing in mind when deciding if the retention of some residual defensive capability is useful. That is the problem though, one never knows when or where the next lunatic will surface.
Thu, 2008-12-18 20:05
#21
With this disbanding of the military I have a few questions?
1. Will soldiers be given severance packages?
2. Will there be relocation packages?
3. Will there be new occupation training?
4. Can this happen before the end of February? Because I know of a really interesting job that is becoming available in Africa.
Thu, 2008-12-18 20:28
#22
Keep the navy.
They're never hard on native populations anymore, now that their gunboats can't navigate the rivers. No chance of gunboat diplomacy.
Thu, 2008-12-18 20:33
#23
60+ years presumably means Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan, neither of whom had the slightest capability of invading/occupying Canada. Hitler did not have the means to cross the English Channel, Japan was only able to lob a few rounds from a submarine deck gun into a backwoods area of BC.
I concur with some residual defensive capability being useful, but not one that requires the expenditure of $40,000,000.00 daily to deal with one or two rust-bucket Spanish fishing trawlers or their ilk. In this particular instance I would have sent out the Halifax Fire Dep't in a couple of Zodiacs, armed with billy clubs.
Thu, 2008-12-18 20:53
#24
With this disbanding of the military I have a few questions?1. Will soldiers be given severance packages?
2. Will there be relocation packages?
3. Will there be new occupation training?
4. Can this happen before the end of February? Because I know of a really interesting job that is becoming available in Africa.
Well, I believe there are provisions within the existing fringe benefits to cover the top 3. As for the 4th, my own adventure earlier this year convinced me that location is everything. Choose wisely.
Thu, 2008-12-18 20:54
#25
Just kidding about the navy (I thought).
And much as I admire the work of the municipal fire departments of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, I'd like to keep the bad guys farther offshore, thanks, (Only billy clubs for the boarding parties? Not even cutlasses?
Thu, 2008-12-18 21:10
#26
Cutlasses? Good Heavens no, man. Someone could be seriously injured. Farther offshore? Nuke 'em 'til they glow.
Thu, 2008-12-18 21:21
#27
I don’t support the concept that saving the Canadian military is worth the lives of innocent foreigners or soldiers.
Neither do I, not in the least. I don't think anyone here thinks
thats a good idea. What I (Tommy as well it appears) am saying is that
a produce of the war has been that the Canadian military identified
glaring shortcomings and moved towards fixing them with a view to
creating a moreprofessional proficient and functional army.
Much
of the lessons learned can carry over into, say, disaster relief such
as different nations using different types of radios and how we can get
ours to talk to theirs. One time we called in a 9liner medivac and we
couldnt even talk to the helicopter 500 feet above our head, not cool.
Things like that.
You find the same concept anywhere in the
work place really. Some saftey things start out small, its never big
to start with but they get over looked. They get worse andworse but no
one addresses them. Finally someone gets seriously injured or dies and
eveyone sys whoa it was only a matter of time before those poorly wired
wall units electrcuted someone!
No one is going to say it's a good thing that a coworker died because now the work place is safer, it's a sad byproduct of it.
I'm sure the people of
Afghanistan are more than happy to help out in alleviating the Canadian
Forces' existentialist angst. Huzzah.
See above.
But if Tommy's postulation were true, and you seem to believe it
is, than logically it would follow that to have the best combat trained
military, that military must take on militaries that are as strong or
stronger. Otherwise, it's just mass murder for magnet ribbons. Pro
athletes need to train and compete against athletes of comparable
skill. You don't train for the Olympics by attending the local
elementary school track meet.
Interesting way of putting
it. I think there is some merit in it. In order for the combat
experience gained to be of a significant level the both combatents must
be of the same level.
So, if you really believe that Canada needs a combat experienced
military, then they should be taking on the US military for practice.
I thought we agreed that going out looking for a fight JUST to get combat experience was wrong.
What the Afghan mission has done is atrophe any combat skill by
relying on American air support, body armour, tanks, artillery, and
night vision or thermal imaging equipment, Tim Hortons and Don fucking
Cherry.
If you want combat, get out of your Grizzlys, stip off your
gear, grab an AK and fight the resistance like they fight you. I'm
guessing all the big talk about the righteousness of the "mission"
would evaporate faster than urine-soaked CADPATs.[/quote]
This
isn't dungerons and dragons where you get experience points for having
your knight go into an enemy camp and challange the orc chief to a duel
of honour. Is that what some of you think? There should be honour fights with people wacking t each other with swords? This along the usual mantra that snipers or pilots or artillery are "cowards". People critisize soldiers here and there about the whole 'you think you're a hero' thing, fair enough. But then they goon to talk about cowardice and suggest how they SHOULD fight??
Were you being sarcastic? If so sorry, it went over my head. Using body amor, soldiers
being proficient with night vision and calling in air support is a good
thing. It's part of being a modern army not to mention working with
other allied countries. It saves allied lives too.When you hear the murder rate is at it's lowest since the 60's or whatever it;s not becase of less murders, attempted mrders are up. It's modern medical technology that's keep the murder statistic so low.
Man the grizzlies were so 10 years ago I think
you're dating yourself 
You've convinced me, Jingles.
Now, just go out and convince 6869163150 or so other people, and we're all happy.
LOL yes I was thinking the exact same thing.
Tommy can I ask you a question?
Why when someone is critisizing Canadians in Afghanistan do they always always bring up Tim Hortons? Personally if you can believe it I have never drank a coffee in my life. Hate the smell of it. I don't do their Tea or even donuts. Khandahar base is the size of a small city. There is probably 20 thousand to 30 thousand soldiers stationed there, many who don't leave the wire. Talk about captive audience. There are buisnesses here like Green Bean ( the US's version of starbucks i think) pizza hut, subway, there is a dutch restraunt, an italian and thai one opening. A store kinda like walmart where you can get clothes or cards or sap or food.
How come you never hear people harping on Pizza hut or subway? Why is it that mentioning Tim Hortons is suposed to be some kind of sleight?? I just don't make the connection.
Thu, 2008-12-18 21:42
#28
Yikes. I wondr what disbanning the military and all the thousands of civilians working for them will do to the economy when 200000 people plus become unemployed. Maybe my idea of getting the homeless to work for the Olympics isn't that hair brained after all.
Good point about people stealing our fish. Okay before you say their not ours I mean other countries pushing into our territorial waters and fishing there.
Isn't there some actual national law that states if a country regardless of size doesn't have a military they can be legeally annexed by another country or something? I thought I heard that in a lecture once.
Hey Webgear what's going on in Africa after February?
Stargazer, get rid of half the police? Do you also think we should make cuts to frefighters, paramedics and such? Or just police?
Thu, 2008-12-18 21:51
#29
There is plenty going on in Africa, plenty of jobs, more if the Liberals and NDP have there way in the new year.
Thu, 2008-12-18 22:25
#30
Why when someone is critisizing Canadians in Afghanistan do they always always bring up Tim Hortons?.....Khandahar base is the size of a small city.....There are buisnesses here like Green Bean ( the US's version of starbucks i think) pizza hut, subway, there is a dutch restraunt, an italian and thai one opening. A store kinda like walmart where you can get clothes or cards or sap or food. How come you never hear people harping on Pizza hut or subway? Why is it that mentioning Tim Hortons is suposed to be some kind of sleight?? I just don't make the connection.
Here's a set of dots to connect with your pizza hut story... Food Crisis Competes for Afghan "Hearts and Minds"
Thu, 2008-12-18 22:30
#31
Refuge
Maybe my idea of getting the homeless to work for the Olympics isn't that hair brained after all.
lol, okay I will concede on that one - those homeless would probably do well with those jobs!
Isn't there some actual national law that states if a country regardless of size doesn't have a military they can be legeally annexed by another country or something? I thought I heard that in a lecture once.
Nope there are actually 21 countries that are demilitirized. Some have agreements but some have no military.
That sounds like an excuse the Chinese used to invade Tibet. The Dali Lama has a policy of pacifism but he may not be having to exercise that if Tibet would have had an agreement for defense to provide a deterrent.
Thu, 2008-12-18 22:38
#32
It's part of being a modern army not to mention working with
other allied countries. It saves allied lives too.
How nice for you all. BTW, I don't give a flying fuck about "allied" lives. The US Marines aren't my allies. They're the shock troops of white supremecy. But getting back to your first point, your "allies" are the ones who pose the greatest danger to our peace and security.
Every country has a right to legitimate self-defence against aggression, and history has shown us that unfortunately, there are some types of hostility that make war inescapably necessary.
You're right, Slumberjack. Unfortunately, I think the time will come when we will need a military. However, our military is so closely integrated with the only country that can and will threaten us that their loyalty to this country is suspect (For example, Generals who command US military units in genocidal wars of aggression against defenseless populations and are then well rewarded for their service).
When the US disintegrates into a mess of millennialist theocracies and racial ethnic cleansing in the not-to-distant future, you can bet that our military will be there to respond....under the command of USNORTHCOM.
I'll say it again: With the growing integration with, and the absolute dependency on the US military for its continuation in the Afghan mission, the Canadian Military's loyalty and dedication to the interests of the people of Canada is questionable. They may wear a flag on the sleeve and watch Hockey, but when the shit comes down, who's orders will they obey?
Thu, 2008-12-18 23:30
#33
Okay, we disband our military,and Spain decides to push it's "historical right" to say, take all our remaining few fish from the Grand Banks.
Funny example. In 1995, when Spain was flouting international fishing conventions, Canada had to board a Spanish trawler and arrest the crew.
Our defensive action was carried out by Coast Guard (a non-military branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and the RCMP.
Not Realigned, Webgear, et al.
Of course Canada needs the capability to defend itself. That capability does not include the Canadian Forces as currently structured.
Thu, 2008-12-18 23:35
#34
They may wear a flag on the sleeve and watch Hockey, but when the shit comes down, who's orders will they obey?
Their oaths compel them to dutifully obey corporate minions and white hegemony. As for integration, the only thing left to change is the national flags that are worn on the uniforms.
Thu, 2008-12-18 23:43
#35
Funny example. In 1995, when Spain was flouting international fishing conventions, Canada had to board a Spanish trawler and arrest the crew. Our defensive action was carried out by Coast Guard (a non-military branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and the RCMP.
DFO is the lead department for fishery patrol action, it is the mandate of that organization. Canadian Naval activity in support of DFO operations is only provided when requested by DFO, and it is always subordinate to the on-scene Coast Guard commander.
Thu, 2008-12-18 23:47
#36
That's right, Slumberjack - and my point to Tommy was that defending Canada's interests and sovereignty may or may not require a traditional military force, but he picked a poor example.
I wonder if Tommy can think up a real historical example of where the Canadian Forces defended Canada... And I'm not referring to the October Crisis. 
Anyone?
Thu, 2008-12-18 23:51
#37
Soviet bomber incursions into Canadian airspace during the cold war just off the top, which were met and escorted by CAF air assets.
Fri, 2008-12-19 00:00
#38
Soviet bomber incursions into Canadian airspace during the cold war just off the top, which were met and escorted by CAF air assets.
First I ever heard of that. Tell me more.
Perhaps [u][url=http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/tnt1/001-100/TNT100_CF-188_Bamford... is what you were thinking of:
During the Cold War....the Soviet bombers would sometimes probe Canadian airspace at night.....so CF-188's were fitted with very bright spotlights to permit identification of the bomber at night. Because this was "peace time" probing.......the CDN pilots could fly up....ride along side and flip on the light.....in a time of actual war this tactic might not have been used.
Don't need a military force to do that, any more than we needed military help in boarding the Spanish trawler and arresting its crew. These are patrol and police operations.
Fri, 2008-12-19 00:10
#39
I say disband now however it needs to be done February, and I want my full pension, relocation and new occupational training.
Was it offensive or defensives actions taken by the coast guard?
The military was involved in the fishing dispute.
Fri, 2008-12-19 00:15
#40
I wonder if Tommy can think up a real historical example of where the Canadian Forces defended Canada
The Battle of the Windmill of 1838, the Fenian raids of the late 1860s?
Fri, 2008-12-19 00:17
#41
Unionist
I think you have your military actions, mission verbs and terminology mixed up.
Fri, 2008-12-19 00:20
#42
Was it offensive or defensives actions taken by the coast guard?
What difference does it make? Spain was violating Canadian rights and international fishing conventions. We actually boarded 'em in international waters, if memory serves. They wouldn't listen to diplomacy, so we treated them to a little good ol' fashioned Canuck law enforcement. It worked.
The military was involved in the fishing dispute.
Not directly, surely. Maybe some navy vessel was hanging around in case things got ugly. But the military was "involved", if at all, only because it exists.
We don't need a military to police and patrol, nor for civil emergencies, nor for peacekeeping. The other functions served by our military in the past 60 years have been aggressive. I'm not 100% convinced we don't need a military. I just haven't heard a single scenario yet, historical or plausibly hypothetical, where that need is demonstrated.
Fri, 2008-12-19 00:42
#43
The differences mean a lot when writing policies, terms like defensive and offensives have a lot assigned and applied tasks/missions.
Boarding a vessel is a very offensive action, and you are applying the statement to defensive application in your scenario.
You are very incorrect about the military support in the Spanish/Canadian fishing dispute.
Fri, 2008-12-19 01:05
#44
You are very incorrect about the military support in the Spanish/Canadian fishing dispute.
You may be right - but instead of just repeating it, how about some proof??
Reports of the time are silent on "military support".
[u][b][url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0...'s, March 20, 1995:[/url][/b][/u]
Last Thursday, a department of fisheries and oceans patrol vessel carrying a team of RCMP and fisheries officers cut through the icy water towards the Spanish vessel Estai. When the first boarding attempt failed, the Spanish crew cut their nets and fled. For four hours, the two vessels played hide-and-seek in the banks of thick North Atlantic fog. The chase ended when the Canadian ship fired a burst of machine-gun fire across the Estai's bow. Then, the seized boat was turned towards St. John's, where the skipper faces charges under Canadian fisheries conservation laws and the crew will likely be flown home.
What military? Coast Guard are civilian.
Or maybe [u][b][url=http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-11786.html]this speculation[/url][/b][/u] is what you had in mind:
According to Tested Mettle, JTF2 commandos were also used on an aborted raid on
the Spanish trawler Estai during the March 1995 turbot fish war. The commandos
tried and failed three times to board the Estai because of high seas and poor
weather. The Spanish trawler was eventually stopped when a member of the
Canadian Coast Guard fired a stream of machine-gun bullets across the ship's
bow. The Spanish trawler stopped and surrendered to Canadian authorities and the
incident sparked a diplomatic row between Spain and Canada.
The JTF2 were foiled by the weather, but the civilians saved the day?
LOL!
Fri, 2008-12-19 02:59
#45
How nice for you all. BTW, I don't give a flying fuck about "allied" lives.
At first this upset me but ultimately I think I feel sorry for you Jingles. I'm sorry you have such a hate filled view of things military.I can't say much to you beyond that, cheers.
Webgear, wanna buy some desert equipment for Africa? I'll give you a good deal =p
Pretty funny that the JTF guys got tumped by the coast guard.
Fri, 2008-12-19 03:22
#46
Why are Realigned and Webgear constantly passing judgment on each of our arguments from some lofty paternalist position, distributing hear hears and heave-hos? I can't help seeing this as military hearts&minds intervention - and care little for their haughty denials.
Fri, 2008-12-19 06:11
#47
What's a heave-hos and hear hears?
Okay okay you got me. This is a part of operation rebel round up (The general is a starwars fan, go figure). He tasked us with canvasing message boards like this to try and gain popular support for the war. Talk about epic-fail.
I'm gonna go ahead and take your name of the list of possible recruits.
Also canceled, next weeks bake sale.
Fri, 2008-12-19 07:24
#48
"Stargazer, get rid of half the police? Do you also think we should make cuts to frefighters, paramedics and such? Or just police?"
Sorry, I don't know how to quote only a portion of your post. Yes to half of the police force and no to fire-fighters, EMT and so forth. Fire-fighters deal with fires, and saving people's lives.
Police are used as weapons of the state against the people. We have no need of 100's of masked and heavily armed goons at every peaceful demonstration, reminding us of how we really don't have a right to peaceful protests. The police serve the interests of those with money. I say cut them in half asap. There is No reason police should be ticketing homeless people, or harassing people at protests. Or harassing people through police brutality, crimes against victims, etc. The police literally get away with murder.
I probably wouldn't have a huge problem with the police size as it is now if they were a product of something other than a grade 12 education and 6 months in training how to become assholes to the people you are supposed to protect.
Webgear - yes to a good severance package and yes to retraining or relocation.
Fri, 2008-12-19 07:50
#49
Sorry, I don't know how to quote only a portion of your post.
Quote the whole thing, then select and delete the parts you don't want. If you want to insert a comment, put in a [ /quote ] (without the spaces), write your comment, then go back to quoting the text with a [ quote ], etc.
Fri, 2008-12-19 09:38
#50
Reports of the time are silent on "military support".
The military was heavily involved in all aspects of this operation. All environments provided assets to assist the lead department. Spain deployed three minor warships in support of their fishing fleet. As it turned out, the warships became a liability for DND and not so much of a threat, due to the excessive ice-buildup on their decks which made them top heavy and prone to capsizing in the heavy seas. They were monitored for the safety of their crews more than any other consideration. Reports of DND involvement in the affair were purposefully kept to a minimum, in order to give the appearance that it was more of a legal disagreement between two NATO allies than a military engagement.
The OK Corral
Fri, 2008-12-19 10:01
#51
"Why when someone is critisizing Canadians in Afghanistan do they always always bring up Tim Hortons? "
I think because it's Canada's most iconic corporate "brand", so it's up for grabs as an icon of both supporters and detractors. BTW, "Starbucks" is the American version of "Starbucks". 
I think all these pizza joints and coffee places are there because the corporations think it's good for the brand, because the public-- no matter what it thinks about the mission-- care that CF personel don't feel anymore alone than what they have to be. Not saying it works or doesn't work, I have no idea, obviously, just my observation.
I do remember a kid isolated in a slit trench outside the town of Ortona, some years ago, as a result of a German counter offensive. About this time of year, it was too. He and his buddy had nothing but a can of beans and tears to get them through what they thought was their last night. I'm not sure how many people realize just how isolated and abandoned by their country some CF personel felt, in conflicts previous.
I think about that kid alot, these days.
Webgear beat me to he Feinian raids, Unionist. But more importantly, in order for Canada to negotiate internationally, there has to be a stick.
I don't often venture into international affairs threads, even though I follow international affairs. The world's a pretty fucked up place, with a lot of nasty fucked up people. And, yes, we and our colonial/ Imperial allies have done much to create this very mess.
And, if I had my way, believe me it would be different. And maybe there'd be no need for anyone to have a military as such.
(part of my campaign speech for President Dictator of Earth for Life)
I don't think anyone takes the time, prefering to get pissed off instead, that there's a nasty reality to deal with before we move to my utopia.
The reality of current situations makes it hard not to say horrible, horrible things. For example, when things get so fucked up as they are in Darfur, or the Congo, it's pretty much too late for any practicle intervention. In fact, the chances are pretty good that one can end up causing more deaths than one prevents. It's a crap shoot, at best.
We need a strong military so we can tell our allies, like France and Belgium, for example, to hit the road when they imagine they can interfere with Tutsi's and Hutu's because Miterand's son owns a plantation there.
And, if the U.S. insists on dragging us along with them to places like Afghanistan, we have to be able to tell them not to keep causing Afghanistans.
Unfortunately, one doesn't get that kind of infuence through reason. One has to have a military good enough make the other guy pay a high price for messing with you. And a military other nations see value in having as part of an alliance.
This way, we can accomplish what is large, while it is still small.