As a father of military aged sons, I completely agree with this, and would be worried sick if my boys were to join. However, a “critical analysis” needs to be based on truth. Once again, saying Harper and Hillier, or even Paul Martin, are responsible for sending our troops may be soothing for those who hate the current government, but is completely inaccurate. For the real time line go here.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123179692508_118588892
Young people are not stupid. If you want to inform them, stick to the truth.

I am looking forward to the Canadian version of Cindy Sheehan to come along. I'm sure we will see it soon. Maybe one this very thread.
Anyone joining the Canadian ( Armed ) Forces now, will certainly know what they are getting into. I love the new advertisements. It will attract the right kind of people.

cabsavy: Interesting timeline. However, the fateful decision to send a battle group to the south was announced - against the advice of the DND brass - by MCallum - after Martin's tete a tete with Bush at the White House. In my view at least.

The mission changed at that time - Check out Brian Stewart's detailed coverage (with interviews of 2 retired Generals) of the Afghan story on CBC earlier this month or in late October.

Alchibiades:
Thanks for the tip. Took me a while to find it. If anyone else is interested:

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/stewart-mission061018.mov

To me, this type of info is a more powerful argument against recruiting than partisan half truths.

Quote:We are the Canadian

Is this guy a PSCHOPATH or what ???

My wife,after reading this said"yes that's why I bear children and teach them to be decent human beings,so PSYCHOPATHS like HILLIER can send them to the grave".

I hear they are giving DRUG ADDICTS a chance to join the CANADIAN FORCES,after they clean up of course!!!

cabsavy,

excellent timeline.

Harald.
There's an interesting article about our Afghan allies in today's Globe and Mail, by Paul Koring.

Just a few paragraphs should give you the general picture:

While the ANA gets qualified good reviews -- it is, for instance, the
least-corrupt of Afghanistan's security forces and its soldiers have
acquitted themselves ably in limited combat encounters -- the glimmers of
hope are vastly overshadowed by darker realities.

Any long-term prospect of winning the war against a resurgent Taliban in
southern Afghanistan depends ultimately on large numbers of "boots on the
grounds," meaning a viable and continuing presence of Afghan soldiers and
police throughout the region. Currently, the ANA has too few boots and most
of them are on the wrong places.

In more than a score of interviews with Canadian and Afghan officials, both
military and civilian, a disquieting picture emerges.

Despite five years of effort and money to build a loyal and professional
force, the Afghan army remains too small and too ill-equipped to fight
alone. Its effective strength is likely smaller, perhaps by as much as a
third, than its claimed 35,000 soldiers. While there are grand plans for the
army to reach 70,000 in the next four years, it may actually be shrinking as
waves of three-year contract soldiers complete their obligations and decline
to re-enlist because of miserable pay, grim conditions and long periods away
from families.

Sound familiar?

Pretty sad thing to wish for...

There was no problem getting recruits into the Korean , WW2 or WW1. They saw the reason they were going to fight. There was a recognizable enemy.

In this present mess in Afghanistan I don't think they do know what it's all about and the present government isn't about to tell them. So when Steve and Co. are booted out of office, what then? If the Liberals become government will they scale back. By the way way I see today the army wants another 20 high end artillery pieces to kill people from farther away. The six they have now obviously are not considered to be enough. Tanks, more artillery, and I thought they were there to rebuild the place. Maybe they are goijg to use the new stuff to blow post holes and build some fences?

That's definitely the case, DPL, I heard a retired General on CBC the other morning and he spent half his time talking about the wonderful group of professional and highly educated consultants from the CF who are holding the hands of Afghan Govt officials in Kabul.
Very proud he was of them.

Not much did he mention of the sad state of the Afghan army. You have to go to today's Globe and Mail, find an article there by Paul Koring, entitled:
Army woefully unready, Afghans say
for that information. But then, he's in the PR business now, I guess.
Things are getting worse by the month.

Yeah, no doubt! If I was a young fellow all over again, without so much as a gram of grey cell matter, I would want to join the Canadian Forces to serve the US Empire-, wherever this kiss US ass neocon government of Canada might wish to send me.

I'm that mindless a piece of work all right.

Uncle Sam Wants You!

Uncle Sam is just a dirty old man. His pc is full of kiddie porn, and evicerated civilian casualty body parts. He rapes 14 year old girls in Baghdad, and then kills her and her entire family, to which he just confessed today. This after acting out his homoerotic fantasies in Abu Ghraib prison.

Yeah, no doubt I want to be part of that.

And give candy out to kids on Kabul street corners.

Yeah, I want to be in the Canadian Forces and serve "Uncle Sam" alright.

In a bloody pigs eye!

JAMES CONNOLLY in the Glasgow Forward, August 15, 1914.

Just to repeat myself. :-)

J murphy! I've been logged in since last night?

So our job is to kill people. I hate that - especially if it takes a C130 to get us there. Actually if Hillier and that bunch need to kill I suppose the farther away the better.

When I was a kid I tried to talk co workers on the Arrow Dams cleanup into crossing into the US and signing up for Vietnam. How could it be any worse than picking up sticks in a mudflat beside a lake to be flooded? Apparently it was much worse.

So is this: Canadians should not be over there blasting away with 90 lb/kg
shells at hillsides in any country.

Do I know how to "get out honourably"?
No
Just get out

Nobody wants to die for low wages but 87% of Afghans do support the creation of the Afghan National Army.

Since that army is clearly not able to protect its own country at this time and security is the biggest worry among Afghans then obviously somebody else should.

If the Afghans wanted the Taliban back and the Canadians out then leaving would be a no-brainer. Since that's not true, I don't see how anyone would support pulling out our troops and leaving unarmed people at the mercy of those with a track record of brutality.

If there is a way for Canada to protect Afghans from the Taliban without it costing us anything I'm all ears.

We gotta go with the draft and a standing army of 1 million Frank. 250,000 troops in Afghanistan on a 12 month rotation for the next 25 years. Easy Peasey.
This phony recruiting is for the birds - make it compulsory.

Used to be an honourable thing to do, to serve. A thing to be proud of.

There have always been two kinds of forces in the world. The ones that could count on not having to 'manage' the consciences of the young people who come to them, and the ones that just expect them to follow whatever orders they're given by whatever random fool happens to have power.

Which is to say, 'Just kill and die and shut up about it. The reason is none of your business.'

General Hilliers seems to have taken our once honourable forces over to the dark side.

When a young person offers to serve he follows an honourable tradition. He has every right to expect that his honour will at least be protected in return for his amazing gesture. To expect that the world would approve what we are undertaking.

The UN increasingly understands we aren't working for them any more.

These increasingly Mafiatic missions are probably the best evidence of what exactly Mr. Harper really is, and what he thinks Canada should become.

I think we should have compulsory service Alci. Just 6 months basic infantryman training. Every Cdn, male and female, could be rotated through and be a ready reserve when Canada is eventually invaded, which looking at the state of the world, is a likely scenario at some point. Means we'd have very little offensive power but be like a porcupine as far as defending our own soil.

Since our current army is too small to defend Canada its only purpose is foreign service. Anyone who doesn't want to serve outside Canada should probably be made aware of that early on so they can decline to enter the CF altogether.

It works for the Swiss, the Swedes and a number of other European states doesn't it?

Frank

And everybody gets their own rifle like the Swiss. Good idea but it won't go over well in some circles.

As for foreign service, it should be 100% voluntary unless we are at war with the enemy of a long term ally. À la WWII

I'm with Frank. Be like porcupine. Mandatory conscription, like they have in Israel. Israel is decades ahead of us in terms of national defense. Yup. Decades. Israel is our friend. :-)

The general has a plan. Everyone can join and eventually pass the medical. Go to the Infantry and do a tour, then come back and take the trade they joined up to do. a real no brainer. Years ago when Uncle Sam decided to protect us by having a bunch of US troops at various RCAF bases,just in case we got nuclear weapons. Our brains of the time , ceased training on a complete course of tradesmen in two fields. They were guards as soon as they could handle a weapon. It was a bit if a mess. I always wondered just how many of those guys who wanted a real trade, stayed beyond the time needed to get out. I joined and took a trade I wanted. after ten years I upgraded to aircrew. If some jerk had told me along the way I was going to sea, or horrors of horrors to the army , or even worse, to be a grunt, I'd have been down the road the same day. Nothing wrong with being infantry but hey, the person should actually want to be in that field occupation. we all got a day learning to fire a gun during the FLQ event in Quebec. It was a waste of money and time, since we were hauling the toughest soldiers Canada had at the time The airBorne, down to Montreal. If any person tried to steal our aricraft either the airborn would stop them, or they could have it.

I here this draft thing come up, and it's usually from the same liberals who called for an end of the draft in the sixties. They now want a draft??????????????????????????????????????????????. It can only be considered an insult to anyone that wants to volunteer to fight. That's right, I said fight. What would a draft prove? That you can force a bunch of unwilling that are afraid to fight, and will do anything to avoid it, or actually subvert the given objective? Nice try .
I would rather see a coalition of the willing. And shame on you.

snert, the rifles wouldn't have to be placed in people's homes. Local armouries would be fine.
And yes, foreign service should be voluntary. Although a guy on foreign service should be better paid.

Ron Erwin, I was born in the 60's so I wasn't doing any protesting. Also, Canada did not have a draft to protest. Were you in Canada in the 60's or were you in a foreign country that did have a draft?

Frank,
Ignore Ron, he's been listening to Rush again and he's forgotten what happened in the election last week.

No Frank, I was right here at home, when Canadians embraced draft dodgers as heroes, and most of those have fit into our hood just fine. I don't have a problem with the point these sixties dodgers made. They, after all were coerced into a Viet Nam War that they didn't understand or agree with. They were forced into laying own their lives, and they were not willing. So they left. It was awkward for American/Canadian relations in a way, but eventually the dodgers were pardoned. Most stayed here in Canada.
After that, all liberals wanted an end to the draft. They got it.
Now many of those same people are actually calling for a draft. John Kerry moments aside, I really think that to call for a draft is an insult, to those that have willingly volunteerd to join the Forces.

Frank

This might be a little like putting all of ones eggs in one basket. Under the wrong circumstances it could really cause problems in the event immediate mobilisation is required.

You mean American liberals. Here's the thing, when I don't refer to a country by name, I mean Canada.

It depends on the purpose. A draft to serve in a foreign war is probably doomed to failure unless you're quick about it.

If you want an army to serve overseas, it needs to be volunteer or you're asking for trouble. Which is why I think the CF has to be sure people know what they're signing up for before letting them in.

But on the other hand, I can't think off the top of my head, of problems of morale caused by a drafting of the population to defend their homes.

I don't think anyone has the ability to do an invasion of Canada from a standing start. Deployment to the border or to a fleet will be necessary. We'd have plenty of time to issue the weapons. For remote communities that don't have an armoury we could use the local RCMP station.

That way the weapons are securely stored too.

Bailey said:

Nope, Darth Cretinous did that!

quote IAMC
"I am looking forward to the Canadian version of Cindy Sheehan to come along."

I'm looking forward to the millions who should be right beside this person protesting in the streets.

As well
"call for a draft is an insult, to those that have willingly volunteerd to join the Forces"

I say its an insult to those who have willing volunteered to not make war.

I hate to imagine the cost of all this, billions of dollars to register them all and billions more for storage. Maybe it's not such a good idea after all.

I'm with Frank, I think we should be porcupines. I can see no otherway to remain Canadian.

However, this rifle idea is crap. Look to the south, north, west and east, and the first foreign country you see has nuclear weapons.

We need some too.

Otherwise, it's an intellectual and moral insult to ask youngsters to defend us, much less demand it.

That seems disingenuous, given our proximity to the so-far most powerful military empire on the planet. That of course is a bit of a cliche, if a too-true one that has always seemed a bit ominous. But the reality is that US troops are already deployed along our border, and the US has the airlift capacity to dump tens of thousands of troops into a rebellious Edmonton, Prince George or Chibougamou if they really needed to.

I'm not talking about US Border Patrol. The US already has bases within "marching range" of the border, from the military fortress that is the complex of bases in Puget Sound, including not-much-talked about bases in Whatcom County (e.g. the Columbia Valley, the "back door" to Cultus Lake and what used to be CFB Chilliwack) across the Great Plains to Messina NY, which played a pivotal if secret role in the Mohawk Civil War and Oka Crisis of 1990. The myth of the undefended boundary is largely a Canadian myth, y'see; it doesn't really play into the American public consciousness, and never has with the US military.

In fact, many of the fortifications of Puget Sound, particularly the northern ones, and places like Messina and its equivalents in Minnesota and the North Dakota and Montana were specifically built in preparation for war with the British Empire, that is to say, us, prior to the cozier relationships now in place between Washington and London, and Washington and Ottawa.

The mobilization of two divisions of US Marines around Sedro Woolley on the eve of the aborted general strike of 1983 were a wake-up call. So much so that no less than the Vancouver Sun thought it a good idea to put a front-page item about it right next to Premier Bennett's claim on the Webster! show that he would use troops to put down the escalating insurrection against his regime. And of course the big question, as Webster put it to him, was "what troops?" - since of course Canada doesn't really have any, certainly not enough to deal with the scale of a province-wide insurrection (non-violent or otherwise), even if you count in the RCMP (who are officially a "paramilitary organization").

It would have taken mere hours, probably in the dead of night. Greater Vancouver commuters would have woken up to find tanks and APCs on all major intersections, and thousands of people would have been rounded up before dawn by BC/Canadian-mandated "US security forces" or whatever the euphemism would be. Likewise in the Okanagan cities and especially in the leftie-heavy West Kootenay cities.

The ensuing paper/media war would have been obligingly "managed" by our media monopolies and associated pundits/apologists. There might have been international protests about the US invading Canada, but Ottawa and Victoria would claim it was a "police action" necessary to preserve global security yadayadayada. Or there'd be a media blackout of the kind currently being exerted over Oaxaca/APPO in the last weeks - a blackout which it seems the Tyee is cooperating in as well. By the way Mr. Beers, while I really do need to know what kind of coat is in fashion this fall, I'd also like to know why Canadian reporters don't seem to think that events in Mexico are important while they do obsess over all kinds of things on other continents, as well as what's fashionable and what's. Or is the Tyee simply mutating into another rag, like The Straight, more oriented towards fashion and entertainment than politics?

Kevin Newman last night extolled Canada's new "exit strategy" in Afghanistan - "our only exit strategy" as Gordon O'Connor rhapsodized it - in the equipping and training of the Afghan National Army. Great, so our way out of the mess we crawled into is to create yet another armed faction of Afghans, pitted ideologically and militarily against other Afghans, and then we get the hell out and let them sort it out amongst themselves. It's what the US did in creating the Taliban, and we're just cooperating in doing it again.

They did mention that they're nowhere near the 60,000 complement, as recruiting young Afghans to fight their own people - their own families, effectively - hasn't proven so successful. So in the meantime we send them our boys (and girls).

What's really disheartening is the way our troops have been brainwashed about the "value and importance of the mission". It's not surprising that they're being used for news coverage that is effectively recruitment propaganda, and that reporters who get into Afghanistan are expected to deliver the military's "line" on the mission's purpose, and pretend that we're actually accomplishing something:

Equipping an Afghan National Army that we'd then abandon in the field; that apparently will be our legacy in Afghanistan, and not much more....

I wonder if Kevin Noisome read the piece in yesterday's Globe and Mail about the quality of those Afghan troops by Paul Koring.

Here's a key paragraph:
Despite five years of effort and money to build a loyal and professional
force, the Afghan army remains too small and too ill-equipped to fight
alone. Its effective strength is likely smaller, perhaps by as much as a
third, than its claimed 35,000 soldiers. While there are grand plans for the
army to reach 70,000 in the next four years, it may actually be shrinking as
waves of three-year contract soldiers complete their obligations and decline
to re-enlist because of miserable pay, grim conditions and long periods away
from families.

I'll post the whole thing in the other place later today.

Much agree with your comments abt the undefended border btw.

And what's with having the BC Lions enter Winnipeg in APCs and tanks, anyway? Looked WAY too much like a recruitment commercial....

It was a recruitment commercial. The lions shouldn't have let themselves be used so flagrantly, imo.

Hey, I got an idea... How about we all leave Afghanistan. Before long, the Taliban will be back in power, al'Qaeda will be back on it's feet, and then I won't have to fly nearly 20 hrs to fight them, I could fight them right here in Canada. That would be great! Wake up, go outside, and there they are. Hell, they could even help us with our population problem. Blow up a few apartment buildings and shopping malls... Before long consumerism will be down, most of all you will be unemployed, ad we can all share in the excitement of dodging IEDs on the Trans-Canada highway.

This article is flawed to the bone. Everything from the AWOL stats (which fails to mention that in the military you can get charged with AWOL for being 15 mins late for work, which is the case in about 90% of the cases listed, and AWOL does not equal desertion, which is another seperate charge (AWOL tells me the soldier came back, and wants to stay)), oh ,and using the "conscientious objector" from the Canadian Forces. The man is a fraud, a liar. No 2LT, let alone an officer cadet, is ever going to find him/herself in Afghanistan. No reservist is ever going to go unless one of two conditions are met, the soldier wants to go, and passes a very stringent selection process, or an act of parliment compels all soldiers to deploy... His "...woe is me..." story is one hundred percent false, and just a plea for attention. A complete discredit to the peacemovement, and to himself. (Make no mistake, he comes near my hometown, I will challenge him in public).

Big talk, as always, History1. Notice you didn't refute any of the information about your allies in the article from the G&M.

Why would I refute something about our Allies, I probably could, but I am not one of them... I am addressing inaccuracies, and falsehoods directed at me.

For the record tho, the ANA is performing better then expected, they do however lack the necessary equipment, and not getting paid their worth.

Still more concerned about your own sensibilities then the lives of others I see Alcibiades.

As I said, all sizzle, no steak. You'd rather sit on the sidelines and call other people liars as you've just done above here.

Haha, no side lines for me, I will be in Afghanistan soon enough. Francisco Juarez is misrepresenting his situation, that is a fact, doubt me? Google Queen's Regulations and Orders, and research it.

Naw, you won't... You prefer to be intellectually lazy.

I have no doubt that you believe he is misrepresenting his situation. People don't do what you're exited about doing unless they believe in something.

I also suspect the man you're so excited about calling a liar also believes in something. Even if you neither want to listen or care.

The question is, is it a worthy object?

As always, you prefer to throw mud rather than actually contending with the reality others trouble over.

Good luck!

Sorry guys but I don't believe in a draft, period. Such forms of authoritarianism are what we are fighting to end. However, a VOLUNTEER guerrilla-trained militia I am all for and would join it,(but I am probably too old.) With several million guerrillas, plus old codgers like me to act as a "Dad's Army" the Gringos would not dare invade us to steal our water and oil.

Fight? Canadians love to fight! We pick fights all the time, like in Afganistan! Why, even amoungst ourselves. Who wants to take a shot at the title? Who's got the guts to get socked in the eye by yours truly? The war monger, thats who. Patriotic, courageous... we stand on guard for thee. :-)

Alcibiades, the man is a liar, pure and simple. He shirked his duties, then lied about what happened. If he wanted out, it's not hard. We are all 30 days from freedom... The only exception is when we are already in theatre. If he wanted out, he only had to write a memo titled Voluntary Release, and then he would have gotten out without the hefty fine he got for his very questionable conduct. Hell, he was a reservist... He would have been out, and in his home town (paid by the army) within days, and his honour intact if he had of done it properly. He was counselled to this fact, and instead he choose the "martyr's" path out. Once out, he could have still done all of this, but looked less the fool.

Sorry, remember, I am in... I know all the ins and outs of this beurocratic nightmare, and frankly, the easiest thing for us to do is clear out. Fortunatly, not all of us are spineless fools.

Certainly doesn't stop some of us from calling others names and behaving foolishly though doesn it?

Maybe not everyone has the same idea of honour that you do, History1. Maybe he was TRYING to make a point.

Anarcho:
only thing about a draft that makes me have even a moment's second thought about is the fact that - were it universal (with no academic or other deferrals) it would pick up all the politician's kids - like the Jr Trudeaus for example and Harper's kids too when they're old enough - and there would in consequence be less chance of lives being thrown away with the current profligacy.

Then why LIE? He lied... Pure and simple. He claims it was a big to do to get it. It wasn't. He LIED.

Big deal. From what I've seen you don't have such a committment to the truth that you have any right to complain. Are you a clergyman?

skookum1,

I agree that the US can dump tens of thousands of troops into Canada on short notice. But I think America would need to dump a lot more than that into a country of 30 million plus. Canada is bigger than Iraq, our population centres pretty spread out, we have a lot of road to control and have much worse terrain than the fertile crescent.

I think we'd see a build up. Even a short one would give Canada time to open the armouries and hand out the weapons.

Training would never have to go above platoon level. Just get people training in small teams tactics. We wouldn't have to attempt to meet the US armoured divisions at the border, our war would be that of an armed populace fighting a geurilla war and denying to the invader the use of our territory and resources, which I assume is the reason we would have been invaded in the first place.

If Ottawa was on the side of a foreign power invading us, and our armouries were thus closed to the citizenry, then yes, there's not much we could do.

jwstewart,

I agree that a nuclear deterrent is the best way to defend yourself. However, it means an aggressor also has to use nukes against you. I'm not against using nukes as a deterrent but it is more expensive and once your nukes are gone you're defenceless again.

snert,

We already store a lot of weapons on bases and in armouries as it is and rifles are not the most expensive type of military hardware to produce.

Excuse me G West, no one has shown a SINGLE shread of proof that I have been lied to, so excuse me if I say you are the fool.

You're excused History1.

You just can't handle the truth and that's the problem.
Canada had no interest in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We had no soldiers there fighting the Taliban, did we? We couldn’t have cared less for the people of the country then and it showed.

Were we attacked by the Taliban?

Have the Taliban ever threatened Canadian interests?

If you can prove that we had, I'll listen to what you say. Otherwise, this is all based on lies and false pretences, in my view.

It's a moral crusade to enforce our beliefs and standards on another people by force and it can't be avoided.

If you want to be a crusading hero there are plenty of places in Africa where you could do more good and never have to fire a single shot.

In a few months the west will be out of Afghanistan and nothing much will have changed. Period.

What ever G West... Stick your head even further in the sand. I prefer to walk around upright and eyes open thanks.

You are right, the Taliban didn;t attack us... There friends, al'Qaeda did. And that is a fact (which no doubt, some revisionsts around here will try to debate).

G West

Compulsory service could encompass that with no problem. Anything that requires a draft is probably not a popular cause and should either be not entered into or withdrawn from.

Al Qaeda attacked Canada?

When exactly did that take place? I thought you were into truth telling history1.

Names and dates please.

9/11 read the NATO charter, and learn something for a change. Like it or not, we were compelled to act after 9/11 FULL STOP. Until half wits like you pull us out of NATO, we will always be compelled to act BY LAW whenever an ally is attacked.

Frank, summing up the silly talk of fight with US regular troops...

In such an instance, not that I really believe such a thing would ever happen, we - in Canada would have to 'resist' the same way that the Palestinians have, the same way the Iraqi's have, the same way the French Resistance did against the Germans and the same way the Polish resistance and resurgent 'national army' did in 1944 in Warsaw.

Ultimately why would Uncle Sam need to send any of his globo-cops here? We are paying our *tribute* in timely and proper ways.

*wink wink*

Ask Mr Emerson how it is done...

LOL

snert:

Correct, and given the most likely Quebec response to any call for universal service, that would make the Nationalists very resurgent in pulling PQ out from the Canada, with that a general collapse of the Federal Government may follow.

I am all for such an event, so as the Commander in Chimp says,
"Bring it on!"

If only to get a better discussion going on in the House of Commons than whether Belinda is a bitch or not.

Baloney History1. We were not attacked. Al Qaeda is not a country and terrorism is nothing but a tactic.
Nato has nothing to do with it.

I think you're the fabricator, my friend.

murdock, I agree that we are already paying tribute and there's no reason to invade us. But things could change. The day may come when there's a Cdn gov't that says "no" or a US gov't that says "more".

As for Quebec, if universal service is enough to make them separate (and the past would suggest it might be) then I hope they won't let the door hit them in the butt on the way out.

You can't abandon your defences because one province isn't interested.

G West... International law stands against you on that count. I guess I will go with the high thinkers. Terrorism is a tactic yes. It is a tactic that is used more against civilians then it is used against soldiers. Sleep on that, and think how you would feel if one of your loved ones was killed on 9/11, or London, or Madrid. Al'Qaeda had international reach thanks in no small part to the complicity of the Taliban, and they did kill more then 2 dozen Canadians on 9/11.

Further, they attacked our ally in NATO, the US. No matter what you think, the adults know that there was no choice but to respond. The Taliban was given fair warning to hand over Bin Laden, and al'Qaeda, but no... And of course, we have now seen the release of more video, and Bin Laden's own confession of al'Qaeda's involvement in 9/11.

No ammount of revisionist thinking is going to change the facts... You don't like the facts, tough.

G West,

Your argumentor, 0=History, seems to have missed resolution 115,

and

oh yes and

Not unlike Clinton, defining what 'sexual relations' means, the EU nations have been busy making new 'definitions' of what 'armed aggression' and 'acts of terrorism' mean with respect to the NATO Charter.

To my knowlege the resolution has been passed and is in primary implementation in NATO...making it hard for NATO to coerce any member nation to respond to an 'act of terrorism' as opposed to an obvious 'armed aggression'.

France and Germany are not stupidly led, they have seen thru the veils of obfuscation that the US put in at the UN, then in NATO circles regarding the 9/11 attacks...they both were resistant to using a military response in Afghanistan, and have continued to stand aside while the US went deeper and deeper into the briar patch, until they are now stuck to the tar-baby.

Should should should... Read closer instead of just skimming there Murdock... You are a helluva propagandist.

Oh, and since you all forgot so easily.

http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/cdnwtc.html

Murdock, your knowledge of military matters is limited by your lack of understanding as to that which you are reading... Doesn't surprise me much really.

I didn't miss anything... Nor did the lawyers who took this to the UN from Brussels. Back to the books with you Murdock.

One thing is certain history1, I don't consid George Bush, Don Rumsfeld and the neocon choir exactly qualify as 'high thinkers'.

Canada was not attacked. Many Nato nations chose not to join America in its Afghanistan crusade against a nebulous 'terrorist' threat and we could very well have done the same.

In actual fact, as I've stated before, I had little problem with our initial involvement in Afghanistan. However, the minute the US reneged on its commitment to a long-term rebuilding and infrastructure development project in Afghanistan we should have bowed out.

It's going to happen soon anyway and our personnel loses would likely have been restricted to 4 killed from American mistakes...saving the 38 lives since lost, hundreds of Afghan casualties and one Canadian diplomat for other, more useful projects in the future. What a waste of humanity and potential.

Frank:

Whee!

So lets look at this situation like some sort of latter day Rhichar Rhomer novella?

PQ is driven to separation by the 'compulsory service' bill, PQ becomes a bit of an economic basket case. But they have major power sources and lots of 'control' over atlantic trade and the atlantic provinces.

Bun-fights start with Newfoundland over labrador, but most likely the rock goes independant. With limited access to the rest of the Canadian markets, the other maritime provinces start to look to the US as a better trading partner, telling Ottawa that their trade barriers are too large with the PQ control over the St Lawrence and the 'cartage' charges that the PQ government is charging to permit transits.

Out west, well in BC there really become a loud call for dropping off the continent at the great divide, since more trade is going into the Pacific anyway...(and the port costs are going thru the roof with all the lolly going to Ottawa chosen 'friends').

A push to recover the costs of atlantic trade adjustment comes in the form of a new 'energy policy' and Alberta and Saskatchewan are really ticked, seeing a much weakened Ottawa position, they side with an independant BC.

Manitario cannot - go it alone. With taxes up and work opportunities dropping there would be a pilgrimage to anywhere better.

Ottawa and 'the Canada' becomes a foot-note on the global stage.

For me, I like it.

For the position of keeping a 'standing' defense on a greater posture, the nutty way things are being presented here, it becomes impossible to find anyone whom can be 'drafted' as only those whom are not within the catchment of such a thing are what are left behind.

Not a conscious decision by the central authority in Ottawa, it would be fait accompli within a decade of trying to enforce such measures.

You are lost G West... Lost as in no idea, not a clue as to what you are talking about. ALL of the core NATO nations have gone to Afghanistan.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Since researching your own material is out of your depth, here's a start.

http://www2.hq.nato.int/ISAF/structure/structure_structure.htm

G West,

Your argumentor, having dismissed the only documentation available to us 'not in the room', has managed to completely miss the non-attendance in the mutual defence from NATO members.

Where are:
Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, and Slovenia?

Did they get a 'sick note' from their mommy?

Further calls for aid are falling on deaf ears in Berlin, Madrid and Rome...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2353444,00.html

Unless it becomes an "ABC" (Americans, British, and Canadians) operation - something that NATO brass have been figuring was the plan all along - then the Afghan mission is a total loss.

Has been ever since the US draw-down to re-deploy into Iraq, that was when all the mercenaries bugged out, since they knew the situation was going to get ugly and have zero chance of profit.

At least they left some cool kit behind for the canucks to play with...

History1 where are you?

Where are you?

murdock, (re:Richard Rohmer)

But we've been down this road (conscription) before and Canada didn't break up.

Now, assuming Quebec did leave over it there is still no certainty that all the Cdn provinces will either become separate little countries or join the US.

However, assuming that your scenario (Quebec being the key to Canada) is what would indeed happen, then there is really no reason to have a military since if we fight back we'll break up and join the USA.

Or perhaps the threat of Quebec forcing Canada to break up would be an argument for a nuclear deterrent since it wouldn't make the people of Quebec help fight for this country.

For me, I like it.

You don't like Canada. I already know that.

My own comments re Franks' replies following deleted for brevity/repetition (otherwise there'd be quotes within quotes); please ref above (wherever it is)

Oh, totally agreed; but don't forget 90% of us live in the 10 largest cities...all of which other than Edmonton and Halifax are within one or two hours drive of the border; and minutes by chopper. The back country and strategic corridors would be hard to control, and there'd no doubt be "insurgents", as the US likes to call such resistance lately; the First Nations in particular can be expected to seize territory and hold it wherever they can.

But that's IF the scenario is a US invasion of Canada, in terms of war and outright aggression. They don't have to do that, since there's already a fifth column here built into the political elements as well as in the business community; how it would go down, if it does down at all (and it may) is if there's trouble somewhere in Canada - say, Oka had gone aflame and touched off a civil war across the backwoods and in rural areas, with a hundred Okas springing up, or if certain potentialities in the summer of 1983 in BC had gone forward and we'd jettisoned the regime and probably started work on overhauling the way the province is run; any "threat to the national security interests of the United States" could even be trumped by a "threat to the security of Confederation" and, lacking troops of its own to do the job on the scale needed, organizes a "police action" using US forces to preserve the integrity of the federation and all that.

Don't tell me that can't be spin-doctored; it can; the veil of silence drawn over Oka and various Oka-related episodes in BC (Gustafsen, Seton Portage, Green Mountain), the laundering of the history of the Solidarity situation by the media as well as establishment politicians; and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And right now there's a near-total blackout on the existence of the effective provisional government of Oaxaca and the inefficacy of the Mexican Republic to deal with the situation without use of armed force; and its failure to use armed force effectively, their riot police driven back by "rebels" who still hold parts of the city, and the entire university, and much of the countryside, even though our media a week or two had one or two items, the upshot of which would give you the idea that it's all over and done with and it was no big deal; meantime there's Nicole Ritchie and Tom and Katie and a political uprising or two in Bangladesh or Taiwan, and talk of Rona Ambrose's unfortunate hairstyle (see, I did it too!).

On a national scale the same would apply; control of the media is the control of the public mind; yeah, there'd be fighting-back in the cities too, but one big reason the US has reason to want to intervene here is an escalation of the War on Drugs; if BC were to go it alone and outright legalize pot, depending on who was in power in Washington, there'd be hotheads calling for Ottawa to do something, or the US would do it themselves. But I don't think the pot will be the issue; it'll be social unrest or political upheaval, or something to do with water or oil or ??

We're not there yet; there's a few years of media manipulation to prepare a large swathe of us to welcome the American with open arms. There's times, too, I think it might make more sense for BC to have two senators in Washington rather than a bunch of lame-duck MPs in Ottawa.....

Ooops; those were other quotes I was going to comment on separately; sorry. Back in a bit with responses to those. I'll just use them as-is if no one else posts in the meantime (it's 1am).

...and I may not get back tonight; I may have already responded more or less, as I look at them again, in the material preceding.

Short version: It wouldn't be annexation; it would be "police action" on behalf of our "establishment", or to do with one political faction or another (of any stripe); that's how it would be done. Not outright invasion, but masked as a beneficial intervention. Also very likely in the event of emergency-crisis relief that US forces that came to help might stay for a while, e.g. a Strait of Georgia quake devastating the Lower Mainland, hurricanes devastating Halifax and Moncton and so on...and while I don't think it's likely any more, a possible intervention in an Anglo-French civil war in Central Canada if Quebec separation goes the wrong way. Or whatever; there's lots of potential reasons for at least a partial occupation, and also for a country-wise presence. Don't say it can't happen; they already had exclusive control of DEW Line stations, where the MP for the area couldn't go.

The rest of the fifth column would be most of our police, and a good chunk of the military, particularly the brass.

skookum1,

Oh I agree with all of that. There's definitely a segment of Canada that would welcome, not fight against, a US takeover.

And I too think the media would tell us over and over that fighting would mean the destruction of property and that we should simply protest peacefully or something :-)

Wouldn't be the first time a business sector sold their own country down the river to the Americans by inviting them in. Pretty much de rigeur in this hemisphere except we don't speak spanish.

Frank:

when?

it was discussed in the House, but never enacted that I am aware of.

From Frank:

...yet

Frank,

Sorry I forgot the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1943 - King's little gamble.

Only 2300 made it to the front to claim 'being there' when the end came. 79 of them died.

The entire fiasco nearly drove Quebec out from the nation then, like its counter-part did in 1917, where once-again the dissent over conscription was dragged out long enough to have The Military Service Act only be enacted by the end of fighting. To pull this one off, Prime Minister Robert Laird Borden had to use such tactics as only permitting votes to those deemed friendly, while disallowing votes to recent immigrants, dissenters, and many in Quebec.

The entire incident gave greater voice to Henri Bourassa, who felt no particular loyalty to either Britain or France. Indeed, Bourassa said Quebeckers had one country — Canada; while English-Canadians had two — Britain and Canada. Bourassa had led resistance to Canadian support of British "imperial" wars since the Second Boer War.

So yes, do that crazy conscription, by the time it comes about, in 2 years, whatever party is in government - they will be tossed out on their ears - no conscripts will end up making any difference in Afghanistan (or anywhere else) - and the whole idea will only serve to end 'the Canada', as you know it.

The lack of actual service of Canadian conscripts may be why I have little memory of them, only of the energy of the debates...

Not forgetting that was the first time women voted in Canada - strange that it was women who tipped the scale for conscription - shades of white feathers.

Murdock, what kit do you suggest the others left behind? I am curious as to which direction your ignorance is going now.

Interesting to note, how now you have given up on several of your arguements... For instance the legality of what we are doing. I find it especially interesting that it is only the Bourgeois socialists safe in their own homes who are argueing against the mission in Afghanistan... Perhaps it is because you are all miffed that communisim fell so completely on it's face? I mean, looking at the score card:

Afghans what us there

The Afghan government wants us there (like it or not, you can not debate that it is the recognised governemtn for Afghanistan... As a side note, youur Afghan government of choice, the Taliban only ever got 3 countries on the planet to recognise them.)

The IOs and NGOs all want us there... Even far left leaning Senelis Council. I guess actually being in country, putting your life on the line changes perspective.

The only ones tha don't want us there, are people that are fat and happy at home in the western world, and the Taliban. Both I find contemptable at best.

murdock,

Yes, the people of Quebec were ticked off over conscription. They felt that fighting Hitler was not their problem. And as you say yourself, they did say they were willing to defend Canada if invaded.
Of course, this means nothing since I'm not calling for a draft to send anybody to France to fight Germans.

I've accused you before of creating arguments you wish I had said rather than dealing with what I actually did say. You're doing it again. When have I ever called for a draft to send people anywhere???

As for "crazy", conscription of the citizenry to repel a foreign invader has a long history. I can't think of a nation ever deciding it was a mistake to arm the population and fight back. Perhaps you know of one.

And perhaps because you weren't born yet.

Frank:

yes, so whom is doing the 'invasion'?

Well, I do....but I also don't see anywhere in Latin America where American troops are "on the ground". The forced/fifth-columned annexations that did take place were California, Hawaii and, sort of, Texas (NM-AZ-CO was by outright conquest/cession).

nor would any of those 'eligiable' for service should anything so stupid as a conscription call-up be forced thru the house...

murdock,

No one, did you read the discussion?

I'll take your belittling of my view as a sign you'd be against it then.

skookum1,

Historically US troops have directly intervened in Latin American countries.

But I gather your point is that there will not be external threats to Canada and that the only threat Canada faces is from those within. And that in such a crisis a Cdn army would probably only be used against the Cdn people and not in defence of us.

My Gosh this fellow History1 wants us to read Queens regulations, accuses all who don't agree with him of being liars or other things.If I was stuck in the same unit as that raving person I doubt he would be there very long. Sure people can get out in 30 days. It's been that way since around 1970.and it includede regular force folks as well. Before then 5 years between sign ups, at l4east in the air Force. But if somebody changes her or his mind and decides to leave so be it. It's not up to us to slag them. Years ago Judges offered jail time or the army. It was a mess as the jail time folks started stealing stuff and were a general pain in the ass to everyone else. We have a volunteer force. we had a force much larger that today. But nobody wants to pay a large standing army. So when our leaders decide to deploy people, they should check the lojistics first. Reservists have been around for ever. It was usually a couple of weeks summer camp and maybe a trip somewere. Things have changed, the regular force got smaller so the reservists were convinced they were saving the world by going active. But reservists don't have to go to a war zone as their benefits are lower and if hurt, its down the road.

Thank God in my trade there were no week end warriors. Pretty hard to be hardened military as a reservist. Promotion seems quicker in the reserves. Maybe that upsets the regular folks. Anyway, since History1 claims to be regular force, we have to take his word for being in the force and not some armchair warrior. Would I work with him? No. The last guy making noises like he does screwed up the Somalia operation by being such a tough guy he killed a kid trying to steal something to sell or eat. The coward then even bothced up killing himself, is brain injured so they can't hang him. Do we need those sorts in the military? I think not. It caused the shut down of the Airborne fo which a buncg=h of my neighbours belonged. One bad apple and the governemnt shut them down? I think they are called special forces now. Canada has no reason for a draft. Too long to get up and running and then what do you do with them all. Go find a war somewhere?

Dear murdock and Frank;

Your argument is really two arguments, I think. Conscription and seperation.

Conscription is very unlikely to become an issue in Canada until Quebec leaders have already been bought off with promises of huge prices on the American market for Labrador's power, which Quebec has controlled for decades under one of the most unlikely and unfair contracts since the Hudson's Bay Company charter.

The fragmentation scenario murdock sets out is a very likely outcome, if some American outfit, running an Enron type energy scam, bribes and corrupts Quebec's leadership the way the original Enron scam did in BC with BC Hydro.

Huge money would be involved. Hardly any current political parties anymore even recognize the concept of civic duty, let alone practice it. Conscription would be a good smokescreen to hide the power grab.

But I think your Canadian scenario would only begin the process. If Quebec successfully seperated the only question left would be how the prairie wheatlands would align, east or west. Or north, for that matter.

After that, remember there is a very strong seperatist movement in the States, a big militia movement just waiting for a chance.

Washington and Oregon at least would go with BC/Alberta/Manitoba; Alaska with the Territories, Cal/Texico would suck up the desert for the gambling and the big water pipe corridors. New England and the Maritimes are a perfect marriage to control the Northeast Atlantic shipping lanes and fishing rights.

The South? The Midwest? The Eastern Seaboard? Fifty years of little wars will decide those lines.

DPL, what exactly is your point? You are meandering down the path like a pot head.

My arguements against the liar in question are completely valid, and factual. Something that apparnetly is not welcome in this forum... Factual arguments that is.

As for your arguements against reservists... Your ignorance is showing. Which brings me to doubt your "expertise" in anything military. Stand down.

You've been dealt with History1, you stand down!

G West... You are a laughable ole sod. Now who dealt with me? I see nothing but unmitigated drivel directed at me. How about some facts, eh? Now there's a novel idea...

That's what you've been avoiding all along.

And that's what's really funny about you. I especially like your little pink tail.

G West... You are a laugh. A sad little man, but a laugh none the less. Let me know when your masters allow you to debate using facts. I am sure I will find it illuminating... For about 5 seconds.

That's all I've needed to put you in your place history1. The rout began weeks ago with your first forelock tugging post to another thread. Poor boy, can't get no respect.

Go and tend to your web equipment, that's about all you're worthy of. I'm surprised you haven't found a home behind a desk on the Rideau Canal.

G West... Do you have fact filled commentary to debate what I have said, or are you just full of insults? I said, your little poster child is a liar, then I provided fact to back it up... I question the dishonest useage of certain facts (ie the useage of the AWOL stats, int he void of the definition of what AWOL is). I question the honesty of your entire movement.

Again, G West... You are a sad sad little man.

Frank,

Yes I did, and as I pointed out there is little or no political will to enact such a thing for the multiple reasons put forward.

DPL:

Starting about 1989 the reserves started being 'mucked about'. Commencing with the removal of all 'reserve' Commanding Officers and Regimental Sergeants Major, after this time they all became reg-force appointees. Suddenly you could not expect to rise above Major in the reserves. Within a three-year timeframe of these events, I watched all the best officers in my former reserve unit either muster-in to the regular force or leave military service entirely. The dullards that were left behind became a mockery of leader//follower concept and the regiment vanished. Since then the armories have been sold to the local college campus. There is no reserve component in that city at all now...

The same story was unfolding across the country in the 1990's.

Recently I spoke with a reserve 'hopeful'. He signed on in the artillery unit nearby. For six months he waited for some sort of 'training'. None came. The pay sucked, there was not much to 'do', so like so many before him he went out to find 'real' work.

The shambles of what is left of Canada's primary reserve could not fight its way out of a wet paper bag, let alone a real opponent.

murdock,

I didn't say there was political will anywhere.

G raised the issue as a tongue-in-cheek and I said "Actually..."

Nothing sinister about it, just a suggestion thrown out there as a way to defend ourselves against a currently non-existent enemy. In other words... a what-if.

You're against it. I'm sure many are. That's fine with me.

DPL

Correct, today.

What about two days after we loose all contact with the 2500 'pointy enders' that are in the mountains of Afghanistan?

Will that become a reason?

Bailey,

yes, however they are related to the sort of questions that arise about 'national service' requirments vs. 'legal obligation'.

which 'nation' would be served?

The PQists would argue no need to 'serve' the Canada, in order to release more troops for 'imperialist' wars.

G West,

You must be bored again.

I cannot fathom why you have chosen to direct comments to 0=History otherwise.

LOL

Have fun!

Murdock, once again provews he does not know what he is talking about.

Couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag? Interesting... Tell that the the reservists in Afghanistan currently, who make up roughly 20% of the fighting force there (note, I said fighting force, not logs... They are right in amongst the Reg F RCRs, flushing out their ranks, as well as running the show for D&S, and convoy duties).

Christ, you're the "expert" here? Must have been a slow day.

Lively discussion here: makes me wish I had time to read all the posts. Since I was never really "military" I can leave the main fact finding to Murdock and History1 who seem to know the jargon.

Couple of points on which I would appreciate more info:

1) I have had some exposure to recent history in Afghanistan and this agrees with some comentors here: "This is a no win situation". I do not care which of the Federales sent (or keeps) Canadians there. We should be looking at "Exit Strategy" now.

2) What we are "delivering" in Afghanistan is: High explosives dropped on your neighbourhood and well fed, well armed young Canadians rushing about in armoured vehicles.

Tut Tut

doggone:

I think the awful realization that we went into this mess without such a strategy. Or rather that the one given at the start has been shut out and we are making it up as we go along now.

The deployment of main battle tanks is not a good sign. Nor are the rumors of CF-18 readiness for similar deployments.

Such items are not used in 'reconstruction'.

The whole idea of leaving right now is not on the 'radar'.

With the need for Heavy Airlift capability, within the CF, there will be no 'getting out' without help. Unless we, in Canada, buy some of our own (notwithstanding what History 1 will tell you about the 'chair force' = he will need transport out) and 'guard' them with some air-to-ground attack aircraft and equip the heavy airlift with some anti-missile defences, such as chaff or flares (but sadly Stinger-3's will burn right thru these simple defensive systems).

There are credible accounts of the CF having plans to obtain some heavy airlift, instead of leasing it from the Russians (the way we usually do) or the Americans, since there is likely to be very little available when we 'need' it.

So the main problem remains, getting out in one piece, without getting shot down by MANPADS or not having any airlift when needed - like when the UK and US are 'bugging out'!

Pretty much sums it up.

Take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III

scroll down and see the segment about Canada.

for the common aircraft used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225

and the system that is most of concern, especially since the CIA cannot account for all of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

Hope this helps in your understanding.

Just watched a documentary movie called The Road to Guantanimo...A British production.

If I had any doubt about the way I felt about this issue before I saw the movie, I have absolutely none now.

The United States and its allies have totally lost any moral high ground they ever had. We need to get our soldiers out now before we are further corrupted with this poison. This is an evil mission, as corrupt and ill-conceived as anything the Taliban have ever done.

No amount of lies from the brass in Ottawa will turn this into anything good.

The utterly degrading and dehumanizing way that all the prisoners at Guantanimo from Afghanistan have been treated (including 3 completely innocent British citizens) is all the evidence I need to explain why our mission is failing and will fail. Only 10 have ever been convicted of anything.

If you have any morality at all History1, please do yourself a favour and see the film before you go there.

Interesting additional note, though not all the links are functional, it may prove valuable reading.

http://www.snappingturtle.net/gigantichound/archives/005103.html

Things must be getting desperate when army master corporals are writing defence papers...

Hello G West;

LOL

"...moral high ground..."!

The US lost that on August 6, 1945.

yup, been saying that since the start.

But then the CIA and the neuveau-barbarians of the post-modern Preatorian Guard don't really care about these sort of things now do they?

I know you are tired of this, but if you could just read The Sovereign Individual, you will see that they predict all of this...

Nope. The lies will continue though, likely to get worse before it gets any better also.

This was why I pointed out to 0=History that, notwithstanding the treatment now, the Canadian Forces are as guilty as the US of war crimes. No different than the SS officers were that sent folks off for interrogations at the hands of the Gestapo in Holland in 1944.

No difference at all.

Blah blah blah... Yet more socialist drivel.

Interesting to see you calling others liar Murdock, considering you have choosen a liar for your mascot.

The CIA has been involved in all of this for some time, and done their part to obfuscate:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/cia.html

The US has been acting as 'sole authority' regarding many things world-wide, since the 1945 declarations:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/order9547.html

Even to the point of 'refusing' visas to ex-members of the Dutch police.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/OSS/dutchpolice070389.pdf

Too bad the rest of the free world cannot hold these new perpetrators to account.

I stand by my first quote from Tolstoy:

I continue to advocate with any whom will listen to not accept becoming an 'economic conscript' in the *new* Canadian Forces, you know the one with History1 licking the boots of General Hillier so that they can both:

"... be able to kill people" -- General Rick Hillier, July 13, 2005.

Yet another inaccuracy from Murdock. "Economic conscript" give me a break... The Canadian economy is at an all time high. The average Canadian soldier has college or better BEFORE joining the forces today. The idea of economic conscription works in the US... It does not work in Canada.

What else is next mr "expert". I highly suggest that you toss off the laziness there, you are looking more and more the moron I say you are every day... This could easily be avoided by using google, and doing a little research. I know... It would be painful to have holes blown in your weak theories. But hey, at least then you would be able to make intelligent statments.

Murdock, I do find it interesting, and somewhat hypocritical of you to have such a facination with a communist. I mean, the communists are responsible for more the 110 million murders in their time, and that number does not include WW2.

Communists are responsible for killing more of their OWN people then foreigners, so I suppose that is your attraction... Dream of running your own gulag there Murdock?

Fortunately, some of us can even spell "bureaucratic". If you're going to pontificate History1, you could at least learn to spell.

Dear murdock; My point was that conscription might be used after the power deal was made to screen the sale of Quebec's future to US interests, and to serve as a pretense to explain and justify the necessary seperation to the people of Quebec.

And as a tool to manufacture their consent and co-operation. I can think of no sharper tool to use. Conscription is intrusive and arrogant, disregards basic rights and would play perfectly into the preconceived attitudes Quebecers have about Anglos in general and Feds in particular.

Spelling flame in a forum that does not allow editing. Is that the best you can do?

Don't claim you knew how to spell that, or would have. If it had simply been a typo, a rearrangement of letters or an omission of one the edit excuse would work. But your grammar's as bad as your logic, and both are worse than your spelling. Don't hide behind the lack of a spellchecker here; if you're going to use big words, learn how to spell them.

"beurocratic" is obviously the product of somebody who has heard a word or uses it in speech, then tries to spell it.

Skookum1

like a 12 year old might.

murdock,

Clearly you foresee a fall-of-Saigon scenario where a helicopter plucks the last living Cdn soldier from a rooftop as the Taliban sweeps through Kabul and Afghans rejoice.

Back to "Operation Objection" for a moment.

Has anyone noticed there has been no mention in the Canadian media of the Depleted Rranium threat to our troops caused by America's bombing campaigns and saturation of the area with this deadly poison.

I recently wrote a letter to the Times Columnist on this matter and of course it wasn't printed.

Like the Gulf war most of the casualties from Afghanistan will be hidden as unrelated cancer statistics.

Like the American military our Gov't is also actively losing medical files and witholding support to our brave soldiers.

Ohhh sookums... No facts, so now you will flame on spelling and grammer. Pound salt princess, try attacking on target. And murdock the hypocrit joins the fray.

Mooney, would you care to cite cases as to your claim that the CF is loosing med files? It is a very serious claim, and the soldiers I have seen come back all had their files intact. If what you are saying is true, it is worth investigating.

As for the question of DU... It is tactically useless to use that style of munition in Afghanistan. DU is used primarily against HEAVY armour, which currently does not exsist in Afghanistan (less our tanks of course). Now I am not saying it is not being used, as I am not there when the Warthogs are being bombed up... I am saying that there is no tactical advantage to using it in Afghanistan.

I wonder Moonie, will you too fall victim to a spelling flame from sookums?

Yikes... I pray we never pick this garbage up for our inventories...

http://www.cursor.org/stories/uranium.htm

The Americans apparently have been using a fair bit of DU, and they admit it according to the link above. I guess, if I ever wind up near Tora Bora, I will be wearing all of my protective gear.

We did have it in our inventories at one time... No idea if it was actually expended.

DU has been removed from our inventories, and we currently use a more expensive tungsten in our AP rounds.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/information/med_vaccs/engraph/DU_Backgrounder_e.asp

See Murdock... Research is easy to do. Even an infanteer can figure it out. Perhaps someday you will.

You mean infant, don't you?

Tsk tsk... You accuse me of being childish, and then you resort to childishness. This is what it boils down to when beaten eh G West?

One more tiny bone for you to chaw on History1. Would this be 'factual' enought for you. It clearly has implications for Afghanistan as well.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 — Former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who regularly advises President Bush on Iraq, said today that a full military victory was no longer possible there. He thus joined a growing number of leading conservatives openly challenging the administration’s conduct of the war and positive forecasts for it.

“If you mean, by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.

In Washington, a leading Republican supporter of the war, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said American troops in Iraq were “fighting and dying for a failed policy.”

But Mr. McCain continued to argue vigorously for a short-term surge in American forces, and he gained a vocal ally in Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another influential Republican, who said, “We’re going to lose this war if we don’t adjust quickly.”

The comments came at a sensitive time, just as the Bush administration, deeply frustrated by the persistent chaos in Iraq — where more than 50 people died in violence today — and stung by Republicans’ electoral setbacks on Nov. 7, has undertaken an intense search for new approaches to the war.

Mr. Kissinger, in the BBC interview, said the United States must open talks with Iraq’s neighbors, pointedly including Iran, if progress is to be achieved in Iraq. Mr. Bush has said the United States is ready for such talks, but only if Iran moves to halt its nuclear enrichment work. American officials say low-level talks with Syria have produced little progress.

But Mr. Kissinger also said that a hasty withdrawal from Iraq would have “disastrous consequences,” leaving not only Iraq but neighboring countries with large Shiite populations destabilized for years.

He said the United States would probably have to plot a road between military victory and total withdrawal.

The comments reflected a markedly more pessimistic view than Mr. Kissinger has expressed publicly in the past. The book “State of Denial” by Bob Woodward quotes Mr. Kissinger as saying in September 2005 that the only exit strategy for Iraq was victory.

Beaten?

You ain't seen nuthin' yet my friend. By the way, have you seen that British film, Road to Guantanimo?

I think it might be a good idea to see it before you decamp for the middle east.

Nice to know exactly whose boots you'll be filling.

History1 sure likes to throw military slang around. Stand down and a bunch of others. I wonder if the guy is really a army cadet rather than a big tough military man. I noticed on TV today the army had a tank as something to do with the big Football game. The goof running the thing was waving the turret around to show us what? The thing runs. But then again some people seem to think its a sporty thing to see others getting killed. Maybe Mr History one could drag out his militaty background to show us simple folks his illustrious career, that he really does write crap for General Hillier. If he is as he hints a military person I doubt very much if he should be spending his off hours writing the stuff he is trying to spread.He should be polishing his non existant record of service.Or maybe his medal in PR. I'll compare my log books with him anytime

Careful there G Whiz... I would hate to see sookums hit you with a spelling flame. The Kissinger article is interesting, and yes, does potentially have implications for Afghanistan. Implications which are no doubt lost on you.

Do you have anything to add WRT Gitmo? An errant accusation perhaps? You are right aboout one thing tho... From you I have seen exactly nothing. Nothing substantive.

DPL, hanging out behind the wire, or never leaving Canada does not count for a damned thing when getting into a pissing match. Come back and play when you leave the wire with a round up the spout. I have serious doubts about your service, such contempt for the uniform you would have us beleive you wear.

My suggestion, take it off... Clear out. You clearly have forgotten your Oath. You have not the stomcahe for what we are doing, then you clearly have no place in the CF.

DPL, your commentary on the Airborne Regt, and the Somalia Affair speaks volumes on your understanding of military matters, or lack there of. There was more then just Matchee involved... A whole lot more.

"Pound salt princess"? History1, it's pretty clear now, no offense, that your English language skills are those of a second-language learner, so your spelling can be an accepted flaw; "pound salt princess" sounds like a Chinese idiom translated directly into English; whatever it's supposed to mean (it means nothing in English). Mangling my username isn't cute or witty either; if you were born and raised in BC you'd know what skookum means and how to spell it...

Now for Frank:

Yes, yes, yes - Mexico, Grenada (not really American but close enough), Cuba, Panama. But those weren't wars/military manoeuvres of occupation and annexation, like they were with Hawaii and California; the war with Mexico yielded the intervening part of territory between Texas and California, but that war wasn't fought there - US troops invaded Mexico proper, laying siege to Mexico City no less.

But Hawaii and California are different, and that's why I mentioned them. They had to do with American adventurists and business people acting as fifth columns; on the one hand to overthrow the Hawaiian kingdom, on the other to overthrow the Mexican Republic's rule of Alta California (half of California is still in Mexico, remember).

Muffin, did I hurt your feelings? I hope so. How about we leave the spelling flames be... Or is that the only substance you can bring to the table, in true lefty intellectual form.

myself:QUOTE]Grenada (not really American but close enough)

I meant Latin American....and we can add Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and a few others. Honduras and Nicaragua and other Central American countries were wars fought by irregulars and mercenaries and covert operations, not by US troops per se.

Did you know, by the way, that T.E. Roosevelt threatened to invade and annex British Columbia if Britain didn't give way on the Alaska Boundary Treaty? Which is why Skagway and Haines are in the US, instead of being part of BC (or the Yukon) as they should have been.

Damn right there were The only guy to serve time was the private who took the pictures. There was total lack of discipline around the incident. The CO and the WO in change were reported to be drinking up all the beer rations. One more comment about being inside the wire, outside the wire indicates to me you really are a short timer doing a PR job for yourself. Or getting a bit maudlin. What serving member has the time for all the chatter you are putting out. And on the Tyee on line. Go write your stuff to the military magazines and see if you get printed. As for Oath. I forgot nothing, but never lost much sleep over making it either. I went where sent which most certainly wasn't always in this country. Did what I was paid to do as most everyone else did. And yes we were prepared to chop somebody or get chopped but didn't and don't glorify the idea. The characters you mentioned in the airborne were certainly like no one I ever knew in that outfit. And they were all around us. They were tough, smart and very well trained. They knew discipline and didn't go around torturing people. And yes they went outside the wire, in the high arctic and in a few warm places as well. We went there as well.
Try Beuruit in the middle of a civil war. No wire there either. Try Siagon during the war in that over bombed country.

My God even Tim Horton's set up shop in Afghanistan to keep the army boys happy in their tents.

Sooo, Skookum1, it would appear that you are human after all. Or, saying as how you suggested I am an idiot for miss-spelling a word, do I now get to call you an idiot for fouling up the above post? Especially in light of the fact one only has to hit the "Quote" button once at the beginning of a quote, and once at the end.

DPL, are you suggesting that Afghanistan is an easy go becaus eof the Tim's there? I sure as hell hope not, especially after the funerals I went to this past summer.

Gut check time DPL. I thinks you are failing.

For the record, I do count former members of 2Cdo amongst my friends. They are good people, as they were then. The problems went much much higher then a Pl Comd and his 2IC. For starters, prior to Somalia, the CDOs became a dumping ground for other Regiments refuse.

It took a long time to turn the Regiment around, and a lot of hard work... But they did to their credit make the Airborne Canada's toughest, strongest unit... Just before the LIEberals decided that to save skins, the Regiment had to go.

What happened to the men, and that Regiment is a shame, and the entirety of the CF at the time, as well as the politicians of the time should all share in the blame that created that nightmare.

Mooney:

yes, and whom was it that 'captured' the airbase at Kandehar?

which military force was operating from the area previously?

were they using A-10 Warthogs with Depleted Uranium rounds?

I think any troops stationed there had better have their rad counters updated regularly and make damn sure that they get certified copies of the reports. So that they can prove the damage done.

I also recall the reports indicating that Canadian Combat Engineers, whom were some of the first ones into the 'fires of Kuwait' area, have not appeared to have their names on the strength rolls of the units tasked to do some of the first cleanup. Along with a few of the naval engineers whom were also stationed in the region, for some reason (only left to wonder) the crew records for the ships are accurate, to the watch standings, yet suddenly, from their departure into the region these same records are 'incomplete'. So now retired and encountering the obfuscation regarding 'Gulf War Syndrome' veterans of all major nations that played a part in the actions are having difficulty proving their case...

Once again the 'powers that be' will wait out the veterans until they are dead, thus not having to pay out any sick benefits.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1114762

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/canadians_doubtstudy.htm

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec25/ch306/ch306c.html

at least the UK are starting to move on this issue:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6687

the US are starting to make some glacial shifts into acceptance also (driven, no-doubt, by the VA):

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6609

take your own observations from the 'graph' here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_syndrome

I think it says it all...

Not unlike the tainted blood situation it will take another 10 years before the Canadian Government will come to terms with any of this.

History 1, there's a difference between my (medical) myopia getting in the way of my editing (When I added "myself" I accidentally deleted one of the square brackets, which I hadn't seen I'd done), and your mangling of a common word like "bureaucratic", which if you really were in the military you'd be expected to know how to spell; then there's that "salt princess" remark, which apparently you think is a clever idiom which is totally lost on anyone else; and like I said pretty much pins you as coming from a different culture/language than the rest of us. Why not just admit it?

The only idiom I can think of that has anything to do with salt and a woman is the story of Lot's wife. Is that somehow connected to this little bit of cuteness of yours?

sookums... Come come now. Surely you have heard the very common english phrase, "...pound salt...". Your rather immature spelling and grammer flames, coupled with your lack of knowledge in the english language itself is very troubling.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pound+Salt

It is fairly common usage for anyone who's family background is english. My grandmother used it all the time. Basically, a slightly more polite way to say "get lost".

Skookum1

save your efforts to reform History1, he(?) is but a common blog troll:

Scientific name: Blogus-trollus
Physical Characteristics: Since the common blog troll is a very elusive species and tends to emulate homo sapiens when confronted in Real Life (the habitat of homo sapiens) it has thus escaped proper description. It is said that its head is covered with green warts and its body largely resembles a cone.

Color: Yellow-green, orange, red, black, white, purple and variations there-of.

Habitat: The common blog troll can be found nosing around any weblog that allows the posting of comments.

Belongs to the common troll group.

The Common Blog Troll is a recently discovered species, most likely evolved from the Common Usenet Troll or perhaps its close cousin, the Common Forum Troll. Its primary source of nourishment is a response to its excrement, which is left in the form of a comment on any weblog which allows comments. Its best not to feed the troll, otherwise it might make itself at home and litter said blog with ever growing piles of excrement. Once the pest moves into a weblog the best way to eradicate it is by the use of "IP Ban" which comes free with many forms of weblog -- if yours does not possess such feature you can always enlist the help of a local system administrator.

It should be noted that even an IP ban is not entirely effective in removing the most persistent of trolls - as the more intelligent ones have the ability of using different IP addresses. In that case only vigillance, patience and time will get rid of the pest completely.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Blog+Troll
http://www.unix-girl.com/blog/archives/001610.html

Just ignore it, move on with the topic at hand.

Cheers

Ahhh, touching Murdock... Don;t worry, I will be around for more of your foolishness.

I am disappointed in your lack of witty retort for my trashing of your assessment of reservists. Amongst other things.

When losing, remember, you can always have the last word, by throwing out the ole TROLL line.

G West,

Interesting that even the 'hawk' Kissinger is starting to back away from the extension arguments in Iraq.

I am really seeing the departure of Colin Powell as the 'turning-point' of BushII's Presidency. Too bad that the General's good reputation had to be so mired in the muck that is the memory that so many will have of BushII and anyone connected.

I came across an interesting little app that displays the 5000 years of history of the 'middle east' in a map-based graphical form.

Find it here:
http://mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

among others.

Cheers

skookum1,

I agree. I've spent some time with American history both in the classroom and since and I agree that a takeover of Canada would be more along the lines of the Cdn right inviting the US troops in as a reaction to a political crisis or some other excuse. In such a situation my idea of a sort-of trained Cdn population being able to go geurilla and fight a war that the invading army would not be prepared for would be at more of a disadvantage than if the Cdn population had the support and equipment provided by a legitimate gov't.
What would you say to the view that the creation of national structures such as a national army drawing on the entire population is useful to combat the 5th column types early on in their political development by giving them a sense of nationalism?

No, I did not.

The English phrase is "pound of salt", "pound salt", except maybe in a verbal context ("to pound salt") which still doesn't make sense, and still isn't a common English idiom.

Here's an interesting link re the Hawaii thing:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/

Which is the website of the Regency of the Kingdom of Hawaii....

And re:

Well, so long as that national military isn't politically indoctrinated the way our troops in Afghanistan so clearly have been. A national military might be more resistant to that - so much harder to control the mind of a whole nation, although the US, China and other countries show that that's all too achievable. But militaries are trained to "take orders", and if the order was to collaborate with any American "police action" invited in by a Canadian government, it's highly debatable how many of them would heed the call to defend national integrity; especially since we don't have a very well-defined nationalism except the one foisted on us by CBC, Heritage Canada, CanWest Global and other propaganda machines.

English, as in British... Try to get out a lil more... The world is a wonderful place.

Skookum1 posted:

No it is not, is similar to pound sand, but if it is a corruption of that term, or something else entirely only your misspoken commentator would know.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pound+sand+up+your+ass

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pound+sand

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=go+pound+salt

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pound+Salt

hmm, 0=History cannot even get his insults right, not much more than the addition to the discussion, nor argument.

Cheers

Good god, you are a dolt now aren't ya.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22pound+salt%22&meta=

Go pound salt, you small little man you. I am really tired of half with "intellectuals" who have difficulty with simple slang.

Agreed, the "national" military would generate a sense of nationalism even among those not so inclined. On the other hand, you're right, a scenario where our gov't is inviting in the foreign power would mean that sense of nationalism, of loyalty, could be used against Canadians.

As it is, there's a large element of the Cdn population that has demonstrated that it is resilient to being "Canadianized" through the education system. I don't know but I assume you'd number yourself as one not indoctrinated by the education system with a sense of Canadianism? In a previous discussion you mentioned that you would like to see much more in the way of BC history taught in our schools to engender among the students a knowledge of the history of the land on which they live. Based on that I assume you believe that education can produce a sense of nationalism. Clearly however, a segment of the Cdn population has pro-US sympathies and pushes for political integration or at least economic integration and obviously this group would welcome a US invasion.

Regardless of where your own sympathies lie I should stress that I have a high regard for your knowledge of BC history and would consider time spent listening to you on the subject as time well spent.

As for your Hawaii link, I met a Hawaiian 2 years ago and spent many hours in conversation with her while camping. She was only part Hawaiian but she too mentioned there was a strong desire for indepenence among Hawaiians which she supported.

The opening sentence is incorrect - Gen. Hillier's words do not indicate any innovation on or change in the nature of the Canadian military, or of any other military since the time of Hamurabai. Hillier is simply enunciating the uncomfortable and unfamiliar (for middle class Canadians) truth that a military's job is to fight and win wars and (in a democracy) to uphold the civil power. Every effort at efficiency and modernization must be ordered towards this fundamental goal. Updating the recruitment pitch is all part of package.

No reasoning adult should be under any lotusland illusions about this simple reality.

p.s. the best effort at anti-recruitment I've seen recently was the movie Jarhead. Most who had never been "recruited" themselves totally missed this point (it was panned by The Tyee reviewer at the time, if I recall correctly, but for all the wrong reasons). It addressed adolesent and college aged (American) males and systematically demolished each of the 'hooks' which lure young men into uniform.

Simple slang would be easily-recognizable slang; "pound salt princess" is definitely NOT, neither is "pound salt". And if you have a problem dealing with "intellectuals", you maybe shouldn't be in The Tyee forums, since that's who hangs out here (from all sides of the political spectrum).

Each and every one of your posts goes another notch to proving you to be, irredeemably, a buffoon. This "pound salt princess" remark just underscores the degree to which you feel threatened by people better-educated than yourself. So eat it, or as would be said in the Chinook Jargon, "mahsh opoots" (loose translation - "up yours").

Sooo, the simple transgression of a spelling error, has brought the simplton out in you eh? Good on ya.

Shall I translate? Since usage of the Queen's english clearly baffles you, I willa ttempt to dumb it down for the high and mighty sookums.

Go pound salt, princess. Meaning get lost, princess, being derogatory commentary towards your sensibilities, and desire to be a grammer cop.

Oh, and since you clearly missed it... When I am commenting on you as an "intellectual" I make it a habit of using the quote marks... Throwing the word into question.

Guess you're that one guy, hey History1?

You should watch that film. Really my friend, you need to.
Then, since anyone can get out in 30 days, maybe you'll have a chance to do so before it's too late.

Oh, and by the way, your manner doesn't exactly brand you as a great humanitarian.

Just because you kids don;t get out much, does not mean that the phrase is not in use. The fact that there hits on google, in exactly they way I use the phrase, should allude to the fact that there is indeed more then one person using the phrase. But then, you simpltons have a bone now don't you.

Oh, and sense when did I claim to be a humanitarian? If I respected the lot of ya, I just may be more civil... But then, respect is a two way street. I am merely responding in kind.

You have constantly claimed the reason you're going to Afghanistan was to help kids get to school and protect women from the depredations of their misogynistic men folks, remember? I’m beginning to think you want to be there to get in on the killing and torture. Maybe YOU can find Osama bin Laden…

After what I saw in that film I mentioned earlier, it’s exactly what many Afghanis have come to expect from all westerners.

And I can’t say I blame them. Like most mess hall bullies, you couldn’t make it in the real world. Take away your gun and you’re a cripple.

The fact a phrase appears on Google reflects the fact a phrase on Google - nothing more, something your own reference clearly demonstrated. Funny that!

What's a matter muffin? I get up under your skin? I am yet to see a factual argument out of you on subject, so... Not knowing me you decide to attack my character. Once again, if you ever question the hostility I direct at you morons, please feel free to look at your responses.

What came first? The chicken or the egg? I do not care for you half wits, and simpletons too terribly much... But if you think I am going to go away, and leave you to comfortably slander me, and others like me you are so sadly mistaken. You can stick your round robin, pat on the back, socialist BS love in right where the sun does not shine.

When ever you choose to deal in facts, or real discussion, please feel free to initiate... But be aware, if I am to accept your arguements, you have to equally accept mine. But I know this is lost on you as the hallmark of the lefty "debate" is slander, dismiss, and obfuscate. You deny deny deny in the face of real arguement, and then play the wounded soul when someone sticks up to you.

Accusing me of being a bully is rich. Look at your own postings... Pot, I introduce you to the kettle.

All I've ever presented to you is facts, never once called you a name, certainly never unless provoked, and from the beginning asked you deal in kind.

You've failed utterly to do so and called down opprobrium on yourself, not least because of your own childish behavior.

If you are a member of the Canadian Forces, you've shamed the uniform and the great country it is supposed to represent and serve.

Perhaps when you grow up, you'll realize exactly how childish you sound. For the moment, hang onto that false identity - it'll protect you from the condemnation you so richly deserve.

As for the rest of us here, you’re actually pretty easy to ignore.

I see Alcibiades has taken care of you quite adequately, say goodnight, you're history...one.

But oh, so much fun to pick on...(and deservedly so).

Still trying to figure out why he thinks "sookums" is a cleverput-down. Or, indeed, what it means. It's even weirder than "pound salt princess" (which might have made more sense if he'd gotten the punctuation right for the meaning he'd apparently intended, or claims to have....). Funny how people who engage in childish name-calling like to complain about other people getting on their case for it.....

'Tis true, though; the quality of participants has gone down quite a bit in the Tyee lately; between "pure" and "History1" and a few others, it's gotten rather infantile around here.

Kind of ironic isn't it that Harper & Co. go to church on Sunday and proclaim themselves to be good Christians yet one of the commandments of that faith is "thou shalt not kill". It doesn't even say what they shall not kill. Even while we are celebrating Christmas we will send out young men to kill on our behalf, in our name. We never learn do we!

Opinion for fact... Yup. Wow. I guess substansive arguements are frowned upon. How about I afix a nice set of wings and proclaim airfairy BS to asuage your sensibilities.

Alcibiades, it is interesting that someone who (even in jest) advocates religious genocide as you did, would claim moral victory. Your arguements have been hollow he said/she said, and none of which you could be bothered to back up with fact. I said it once, I say it again, you are a hypocrite.

Pookums, if you wish to bandy words... You are going to need a bigger dictionary sunshine. The best you could come up with is a spelling flame. Speaking of "childishness" look in the mirror half wit. When casting about such asperations, it is best to understand that one quickly gets covered in the stuff you are slinging.

G West, the blithering idiot cheer leader. Keeping score like a blind boxing commentator. That's a swing and a miss.

I ask for fact, I get opinion. You couldn't even back up said opinion. Instead I then get all sorts of remarks, and off the cuff silliness. And you question my maturity. Rich, that is really rich. In a battle of the wits, you clowns are unarmed.

Oh and pookums, in case you missed it... You have been manouved into commenting on my purposeful mis-spelling of your name. Look through the thread, and see how many times others have done it to myself, and the lack of commentary on it.

You are far to easy to manipulate.

Where, even in jest, did I advocate religious genocide?

Now you stopped posting nonsense and moved on to outright lies.

Why am I not surprised? And now Skookum1 is a lefty too.

He'll be surprised to know that as well.

Reduced to total childishness I see. All that's left is taking pride at poking fun at people's labels. Very impressive - makes me so proud of my Canadian Forces.
History1
I see there's a dialogue from some of your American counterparts starting today on the NEW YORK Times website.

You can't read it unless you subscribe to Times Select. If something interesting shows up there I'll try to post it for you.

Maybe you know the guys: Major Arnold Strong, PO Anthony McCloskey and Waheed Srwary. It will be nice to actually learn something up to date about conditions on the ground in country. It’s too bad you haven’t been able to provide anything useful in all the time you’ve spent posting here and elsewhere at Tyee.

As expected, there will likely be a 'ramp up' in troop numbers in Iraq before any withdrawl.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119201,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

This will likely fill all available aircraft of the US, making it imperative that Canada start making their own arrangements for airlift out from Afghanistan.

Let's see now. Sookums, princess, pookums...all sort of original, I have to admit, but still not very intelligent; sookums and pookums have a different vowel than skookum, though, otherwise they'd be even cleverer. At least they're intentional misspellings, unlike b-e-u-r-o-cratic, which interestingly enough, if you pronounce it out that way, is a classic hick way of saying "bureaucratic". Really odd that somebody who claims to have been in the military didn't know how to spell it; since militaries are infamous for their bureaucracies. Claiming it was a typo is cute, but sorry, Histrionic1, no cigar.

Re: Misplaced records of Cdn military personel and DUI.

There was an article in last weeks Times Columnist regarding this and a lawsuit lodged gainst the gov't by soldiers who were sick and being left without assistance.

This article also mentioned a case where a soldier was instructed to destroy another's medical records, but he didn't and later handed the records over to the soldier whom they belonged to.
Sorry I can't be more specific about this article but I just cleaned up the office.

As for the use of depleted uranium in Afghanistan the information is widely available on the net.

Lies? I suggest that the below is in jest once again... Now looking even further in the thread in question, one discovers that you claim to be serious.

Sorry, but in my expereince, people who make such jokes, are only half joking.

Alcibiades, the Crusader wrote:

When you witness first hand the effects of genocide, and wade through a mass grave sometime, perhaps you will understand just how serious a thing it is, and choose to grow up and not joke about such things. To you, genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, are all just words in a book. Easy to joke and potificate when you have not witnessed these things first hand.

I know you will not understand the depths of your offense, and even if you did, true to form, you will choose to not take ownership of this most egregious of offenses. Now, you and people like you accept no responsibility for anything. "Not my fault..." "I didn't do it..." All one ad the same.

People like you keep people like me employed.

Mooney, I thank you for the civil discourse. If you come across any such evidence pertaining the CF members, I would highly recommend forwarding the information to the Ombudsman's office, as I stated before, it is a very serious offence to tamper with medical documents within the Canadian Forces. Perhaps they have heard it before from the same source, perhaps not... Better safe then sorry.

As to the wealth of info on the useage of DU in Afghanistan, I only hit on the highlights in my above posts. You are correct, there is alot of information on what has been used in theatre, and where.

DU is certainly a cause to protest against. The only real motivation for the US to use this material, is that it is cheaper.

G West, you were one of the first to take up labelling me as 0=history... And now you are calling me on reversing the table.

Look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary. You will find a pic of yourself right there, staring blankly back at you.

history1, you really are clueless. I must let Ron Erwin know that you've taken over his title.

If you actually understood anything about humour and satire you'd laugh at that reference. The day that the citizens of this country - 80% of whom never go to church - adopted that, along with the rest of my tongue in cheek proposals to my friend Frank - who happens to agree with you about keeping Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan - there will be three blue moons in the sky.

How did you ever manage to pass the entrance test?

You might want to try reading some of the stuff I post. You'd look a lot less foolish.

Right now we have a full-blown United Nations recognized genocide going on in Africa and you and your military buddies would rather play soldiers and insurgents in Afghanistan.

Pathetic. Grow up!

Skookum1, and yet you do not call the others for doing the same to me.

So, I guess it smarts to be manouvered so... A lil Pavlovian perhaps? Of all the characters here, you are the most predictable.

So, what grammatical or spelling errors have I made now? It is about the only argumement you seem capable of making.

sorry history1, I think you are mistaken. That was murdock's label for you, my friend.

If you were not such a vacuous half wit Alcibiades, you would have studyed a little more of the Afghan history, and come to understand that ethnic cleansing is EXACTLY what the Taliban was doing when we went in.

But no.

I put to you, if we had of gone to Sudan instead, we would be having EXACTLY the same argument.

Look up the difficulties in Sudan, learn something. We recognise there is a genocide going on in Sudan. We have been trying to do something about it for years. Perhaps, mr half wit can explain why there is not a capable force in Sudan currently?

As for your "joking" your humour, is completly lost on me... And I am sure, several million victims of religious violence which you seem to think is so funny. Interestlingly enough, I was able to predict exactly your response, just as easily as I can predict your next.

Ahhh, you are right G West, you merely implied that I am an infant.

How's the ice? It looks a lil thin from where I am.

Facts, figures and data please. "we" have not!

In short, while Talisman energy was still heavily invested in Sudan oil, 'we' couldn't even muster the energy to suggest they were compromised there.

I'm not implying you're an infant, I'm sure of it.

G West, how about you go on over to the UN site, and figure it out for yourself. It's all right there... In fact, you would learn that it is not an oil company that has been mucking that place up, but rather your friendly neighbourhood socialists... The Chinese.

Speaking of infantile, do try to get past the usual lefty rhetoric this time.

Who do you think Talisman had as their partners?

You are about ten years too late and a hundred pounds light my friend.

I have a son who used to work for Talisman. I know what I'm talking about. The UN was in Rwanda too, remember.

Then please, explain why a real capable force has been vetoed? And perhaps you could tell me by who. Feel free to leave out the conspiracy theories.

Oh, and for the record, I am not alone, or unique in thinking we should have went in what ever size we could muster. Someone bloody well should.

It is about natural resources, and one contry covets those resources more then most, and could care less about the Sudanese, Chad, or other neighboring countries. It is criminal that it is being allowed to go on, and someone should step up, and go in with the necessary force to stop it (this will likely illict another complaint concerning meddling from the Chinese).

The Chinese aren't socialists. Lack of human rights, not allowing unions, pandering to foreign business at the expense of their own workers. No environmental regulations.

Actually, capitalists love China.

Communism... Socialism without religion. I am willing to bet, that like Soviets, if you asked a party member, they would all say they are socialists. This capitolist hates China... The whole political prisoners, and human organ farming thing has me a little put off.

You think I'm your enemy.

I'm not.

This is not a conspiracy - it's just business as usual for the guys who cut your orders. You like working for that stuffed shirt ‘pee wee rambo’ Harper? Did you see his fat belly stretching the blue kimono yesterday in the picture 'gracing' all our papers? You want to sacrifice your life for that man's ambition?
Because that's what you'll be risking.

Die for that group of masters of the universe?

God forbid.

Moreover, I don't mean that in just its metaphoric sense.

Wake up before it's too late. Loyalty to self, the truth and family has to take precedence at some point and now's the time.

I'm sure many would. Just as if you asked a Taliban what he is he wouldn't tell you he's a bloodthirsty thug. But I prefer to label groups based on their actions, not on the rhetoric. And on that score, the Chinese "socialists" have nothing in common with Swedish socialists, French socialists or Cdn socialists.

As do I

But regardless, the Chinese economy is not being driven by socialists, its capitalists that are investing heavily in China.

And loyalty for my fellow man? Should I sacrifice that for myself?

I have witnessed the worst evils man could visit on man. And I know the character of my breathern in the CF. I know what has occured in the past in Afghanistan, and I know what is going on on the ground there today, and where we are trying to go.

People seem to think there is some big grand conspiracy theory going on... I can assure you it is not happening at the ground level. We do honestly hope to make a positive (for Afghans) impact on Afghanistan.

When you witness first hand, ethnic cleansing, you either shut down, your your resolve get's tempered. There are not many senior NCMs or officers in the CF combat arms who were not touched by BiH or Rawanda... And those of us who were, I can assure you do have a care for not only the job, and our breathern, but the ones that we go to protect.

If there is a conspiracy theory, it is at a level higher then myself. I can only assure you that it will not get passed on by me. There are those that would claim I have been lied to repeatedly, and yet, did not give up proof... There are those that say I have been brainwashed, ok... Fine... I have been. I will put someone else. Someone I do not know. Someone I can not even talk to but through an interpreter before myself.

For more then 3 decades the Afghan people have been brutalised by wars, warlords, Taliban, Soviets, and the weather (yes I said the weather... Constant cycle of drought there, the recent rainfall throughout the country is a welcome respite). Wether you believe we went there for a good reason or not (you know my belief), we are in a position to do some good, and help them... Not chairty work, Afghans are too proud for that, but teach them, give them a hand up, then we leave. The job is not done yet, and as long as the winter "truce" holds out, we can get a lot of good work done during the winter.

Frank, I do agree with you whole heartedly. I do tough, find some hope, in the fact that the Chinese are opening their markets to capitalists... Perhaps if ethical businessmen could be found to guide the Chinese to basic human rights (I recommend stopping organ harvesting first).

To forget though, that communism sprung up from socialism is foolish, and damn us to repeating the same mistakes. As much as I have negativly commented against socialists here, perhaps it is from looking at my own inner demons, and seeing that which could become if not kept in check.

People, things, political entities are not what they always seem.

First of all, let’s be clear - the Chinese ARE capitalists, The Soviets were state capitalists, just like the United States.

If your history studies were real and not just an excuse for your name, you'd know that there are all kinds of decent socialist countries in the world that have never subscribed to either the left or right version of your imaginary dichotomy.

Now, as to what you're trying to do, don't think I disrespect it. I don't. You just have no chance of success as long as the political thugs at that APEC meeting are more concerned with spending as little political capital as they can and accumlating all the monetary capital then can shove under those kimonos.

That's the problem - your good work would be better placed somewhere that doesn't require your killing folks to effect it.

It won't work and that's too bad. Get out. Get our soldiers out, stay in Kabul and mentor the fledgling government and do what you can for the people there if you like. But don’t be deluding into thinking that - absent a commitment for 20 years and at least 70,000 boots on the ground (and probably more) it's not going to happen.

You know nothing about socialists, in the end, they'll be the only ones who have a moral conscience. The rest would sell you out in a moment. Ask Romeo Daillaire…and remember, he’s a French Canadian, where the real socialists in this country have had power for a good deal of the last 30 years. Look what watching people he cared about be butchered did to him.

Oh and those Russian allies of yours. The ones you were talking about a little while back: Latest news from London is that Putin ordered the poisoning of a former KGB agent(defected London 2000) who was investigating the murder of a Russian journlist.

He's fighting for his life as a victim of Thalium poisoning in a London hospital right now.

Great friends.

G West,

He can't, he's got to score another bottle of gin, rum, tequilla, drambuie, ...

The moral high ground is not found hiding. We went on the offensive because of attacks on our reconstruction efforts, and those of the NGO's and IOs in the area. We have discovered, that rebuilding roads, teaching irrigation techniques, and running medical clinics are all much easier to do when you are not being shot at, kidnapped, or blown to smitherines by IEDs.

The Taliban, insurgents and warlords, do not have a vested interest in an rebuilt Afghanistan, as such a thing would empower the people against them... And so, at every chance, they have attacked reconstruction efforts. Lessons learned from the Balkens and Rawanda (and we learned them well), some people are willing to talk (and some have, and they are trying to work with the government), others are not. Those that are not will make trouble, kill maim and destroy. Taking a passive stance against them empowers them.

The focus, can not and will not remain on fighting though. Our true and honest focus is reconstruction. To that end, we have never ceased (though I understand from my friends, grading a road is easier without RPGs flying over head). We will not salvage anything by packing up and moving to Kabul. We will in effect give the entire country, but for a small, and difficult to defend bubble, back to the Taliban and insurgents. What do you think will happen then?

Should that happen, Taliban, and terrorist recruiting will increase hundred fold... It will not decrease. We are at a critical juncture in world affairs I beleive... Not just regional. We can not fail in this.

Murdock, beat it. The adults are talking.

You went on the offensive because your officers told you to and because Paul Martin agreed after a brutal arm twist from George Bush - against the advice of senior brass at DND.

Stephen Harper just didn't require any arm-twisting.

Defend yourselves and your fellow soldiers, in the field that's all that ever matters.

Trust me.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Rest+of+the+World&month=November2006&file=World_News2006112125145.xml

Interesting... Now I do have doubts that Putin has anything to do with this. That is not to say, that there wouldn't be people on his staff, or in the Russian government that would not be enormously ticked at Litvinenko. If there is any foul play involved, the British government will make a lot of hay from it (if for no other rreason then to redirect attention away from their failings in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Have you any idea how many Russian journalists have been offed since Putin came to power?

Even though you won't find all of them in the msm, it is in the hundreds now. And they weren't all done by the Russian mob.

It's not the British who're making hay from this - they think the Russians are their buddies too and they don't want to sour the realtionship with all the football money either.

It helps to read the Moscow press too.

Editor Jailed for His Coverage of Chechnya
By Maria Levitov
Staff Writer

Yury Mashkov / Itar-Tass
Boris Stomakhin listening as the verdict is read in a Moscow court Monday.

A Moscow journalist was sentenced to five years in prison Monday on charges of inciting ethnic hatred in reports about the conflict in Chechnya.

Human rights activists and lawyers said the sentence for Boris Stomakhin, editor of Radikalnaya Politika, a Moscow-based monthly newspaper, was unprecedented in its severity.

"Putting people in prison for words is unfathomable. Some get less prison time for murder," said Boris Timoshenko, head of the monitoring center at the Glasnost Protection Foundation.

The U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists condemned Monday's ruling and expressed hope that it would be overturned.

"Five years is a very serious and troubling sentence," said Nina Ognianova, the organization's Europe and Central Asia program coordinator.

"We are seeing fewer and fewer journalists who can provide reliable and truthful reporting on Chechnya," she said.

Last month, Reporters Without Borders ranked Russia 148th out of 168 countries in its World Press Freedom index.

Stomakhin, who also contributed opinion articles to the rebel Kavkaz Center web site, frequently called the presence of federal troops in Chechnya an "occupation," and compared President Vladimir Putin to Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.

Stomakhin's lawyer, Alexei Golubev, said he planned to appeal the ruling within 10 days, saying it hinged on a dubious linguistic analysis of the journalist's articles.

Moscow's Butyrsky District Court ruled that "Stomakhin approved of the terrorists' actions, which were aimed at destroying the Russian people as a race," Interfax reported.

Stomakhin maintained his innocence Monday, saying he was "tried for his views and not for any real crime."

"In the articles, I expressed my opinion, with which people were free to agree or disagree," Stomakhin said after the sentence was read, RIA-Novosti reported.

An opinion is not a "call to action," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Prosecutor General's Office declined to comment on the sentence Monday, saying she had no information about it.

Golubev said that in comparison to other cases against journalists, Stomakhin's sentence was exceedingly harsh.

Last month, Vladimir Rakhmankov, editor of the web magazine Kursiv, was found guilty of insulting a public official and fined 20,000 rubles ($750) for referring to President Vladimir Putin as "a phallic symbol."

In February, Stanislav Dmitriyevsky was given a suspended two-year sentence for publishing comments from Chechen rebel leaders who were calling for peace talks in 2004. Dmitriyevsky was editor of Pravo-Zashchita, a publication of the Nizhny Novgorod-based Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, which was closed by the authorities last month.

No, we moved into Kandhar because Martin told us too, against the advice of our Generals, because they knew what it would entail. Shortly after that we had to go on the offensive. Kandhar is the lion's den. The entire area is the genisis of the Taliban, and the very centre of all of their operations.

The current PM understands he inheritted a sink or swim situation, and frankly (going to sound real cocky now) we are about the only ones in the area that can pull it off.

The Brits are all tainted by Iraq... Their soldiers have PTSD BEFORE they get off the plane in Afhanistan... They work their tails off and are damned fine soldiers. Hell they wrote the book on the type of operations we are into now. But they are burnt out.

The Americans. Too gung-ho. Taught almost from birth, no one is stronger, they get their noses bust alot, and then over react. Iraq, enough said.

The Dutch, excellent soldiers, lacking the equipment in some areas we have, and far excedeing in others. Some of them are starting to fatigue as well from their commitment to Iraq (which has now ceased). The Dutch have a comparable force to ours in every regard... As well, the ethical and moral backgrounds are similar (some differences still though).

Everyone else, just wants to get safe conduct medals, and not do anything meaningful while saying "We're here to help...". This is not to say their soldiers are not up to the task, as they are. The political will though is styimied.

When faced with an enemy like the insurgents we currently face... If we sit back, and let them come to us, they will... They will do so in public areas, causing as much damage to civilians centres as we did. The difference is, they will kill more of us, and the civilians. The Russians tried that tactic, and history tells us how well that turned out for them (oh, and tried to stamp out religion in the region turned out to be a really bad idea too).

G West, I do not deny that Russian press are getting offed in record numbers. The facts are indeed against any such claim. They are being murdered. I am just saying that things are not always what they seem.

It would take someone well above my pay grade to even guess who exactly it is that is killing off Russian reporters.

On that count, I am checking out what RSF has to say on the subject...

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20

I wish you luck history1, but it's not gonna work. The country isn't behind you. The US and Britain want out and they're gonna get out. You can't fix it because it can't BE fixed at the end of a gun. Ask any seasoned member of the IDF and they'll tell you the same things.

There has to be a better way and you're mad to sacrifice yourself and your friends for Stephen Harper's ego.

A man who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to have a full an open debate before committing you till 2009 when he talked nothing but openness and accountability before he was elected is not worth one life, not one. You aren't doing anyone any favours. The real name for pyrrhic victory is defeat.

I hope you'll sign the petition for Anna while you're there.

Then, if we are leaving this as parting words on the subject as gentlemen, I can accept that. You have your view, I have mine.

We will win. We can not afford to lose.

On the other subject we are talking about (I kinda wish we could make a new thread), since 2002, 11 journalists have been murdered in Russia. Common theme appears to be "human rights/political" type journos. Since the fall of communism in Russia, they have been fighting a losing war internally against organised crime, who control far more of the country then people like to think.

I signed with clear conscious... Regardless of what others think of me, I encourage you to sign as well.

It's more like 200 my friend. It is so common that many of the incidents are never reported in the western press.

I signed ages ago. I wish we had such independent courageous journalists in this country.

G West, I could get used to you calling me your friend... I only wrote the figure tracked by RSF, and that does not include assistants, or indie media.

There are some out there, here in Canada. I have run into a few of them in my travels... They are just usually mistaken for American journalists (because they do have to eat, and it is usually the big American papers that can afford to send journalists all over the planet).

Ok, not meaning to poke fun... But, I suppose there are worse ways to make a peacestatment. In point of fact, I will just try this on the day of action(s).

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2006/11/19/2429646-ap.html

Just remember, your pay grade never limits your ability to think independently and for yourself. No hard feelings.

Ahhh, but independant thought is considered a force multiplier with us. We actually encourage it. With regards to legal and ethical issues, we demand it.

Did you know, if I follow an illegal order (any order contrary to the QR&O's, NDA, or Canada's Criminal Code), I am subject to disciplinary action? We do take ethical questions very seriously... More so since the lessons learned from the Somalia Affair. We have to.

I'm not so much concerned with the 'legality' of your thought. I think you'll likely figure it out. Just be patient and remember you're not a hammer - every problem is not a nail.

"Argumement" is a good example; or did you put that in there to "manipulate" me. Buddy, if you had the wits to manipulate ANYBODY you'd be a forced to be reckoned with; but you're just an insulting jerk.

Nibble nibble...

Yeah, all the composure of someone who spent some time in the military all right. Is baiting people taught in boot camp, or when you're bootlicking in the officer's mess? A dork is a dork is a dork, stripes on their shoulder or not, History1. Do you get off on being a goof, or is it because you can't get off?

Come on... Do you have to swallow the hook?

Skookum1, you can consider your OODA Loop fragmented... If you find yourself fussing with the things on your desk alot right now... That's ok. It is to be expected.

Now, are we ready to get along? I am willing to try if you are.

Gee, dork-brain. Who's baiting who? Figure it out. You're small-fry relative to the monsters who roam UseNet.

Why would I want to get along with you? You've been an insulting prick, and take pride in it. There's nothing worthwhile there got get along WITH.

How the mighty have fallen. At least others brought substance other then spelling flames to the table.

By the way... Do you find yourself spending alot of time "organising" things? Again and again even? You are behaving kinda obsessive.

Hmmm. You've just revealed youself a Brit by that particular spelling, which you took care to put quotation marks around to draw attention to it.

I'm obsessive about SOME things; not here, this is pure recreation - shooting fish in a barrel, to put it mildly. You flatter yourself to think you have been baiting me; I, on the other hand, have simply been toying with you. As for suggesting that I spend time organizing things, anyone who's been in my inner sanctum and seen my desk (or bedroom or bathroom or kitchen) would laugh their heads off. Organized? ORGANIZED?? That's one thing I'm definitely NOT, not externally anyway.

What do you have to say about anything relevant, History1? I know I'm not the only one you've taken time (and repetition) to insult and degrade around here, without actually having anything relevant to say. Whine, bitch, insult, complain - it's your stock-in-trade, as is this pretense that you can "manipulate" someone else. Doesn't occur to you that my jabs at your spelling were simply the baiting of the hook, huh? Or are you too vain to see that?

What "substance other than spelling flames have your brought to the table", History1??? Oh - THAT. You mean you thought THAT was substance?

You're an energy vampire, a piece of lint in a rat's navel, somebody whose job, self-appointed or otherwise, is to consume the writing energies of others whose views you find challenging to the world order you need to believe in; or that you're paid to defend or defray from discussing. Why do guys like you and Maestro and the other schemihls who hang out here to attack people who have useful things to say think that we don't see through your bullshit? Go head, name-call, "manipulate" and do whatever childish, sophomoric crap pleases your fancy; we all know what you are. If you're doing it on your own initiative, instead of on some p.r. consultancy's payroll, that's all the more pathetic.

Go head=go ahead; sticky "a" key, sometimes a sticky "h". too. Yeah, so what, I can't afford a new keyboard; if I was organized I COULD. And I wouldn't have spilled crumbs into this one either.

Ok, when I asked if you had to swallow the hook, it was not an encouragement to swallow the whole damned thing lol.

Have a good night Skookum1, you certainly have become entertaining.

Oh, and if you leave the spelling flames be, I think you will find I am a little bit easier to get along with.

Hey History, you must be quite a fellow. When not spending your time insulting most everyone on this site. You keep talking about the CF as if you ran the bloody thing. And your so called military jargon is mostly BS. Now you are an expert on Afghanistan and of course went out side the wire with a real bullet in your weapon.Hope you don't blow your foot off when you get excited! Wow are we impressed. The subject was about recruiting. any one even thinking of joining up after reading some of the crap you spread would walk the other way. It's time to grow up from the fantasy world you have gotten your self into. Any minute now you will be talking about your time in past wars.But I guess I'm probably wasting my time suggesting you might get off the position that you know everything and everyone else knows nothing. The Reconstruction stuff in Afghanistan seemed to be about building some road to nowhere. But now our folks quit building it because they were getting shot. steve and Co. don't like to see body bags coming into Trenton, as it might reduce his chances of keeping government. Maybe they will start another one somewhere else. I can only believe you will shortly be telling this site that you were there. Oh sorry about that.You mentioned earlier that at your pay level you wouldn't know about somebody killing journalists. So what do they call army cadets now a days. Flaming everyone In sight really went out of practise a long time ago. Folks tend to eventually tune out folks like you.Go back to reading Queen's Regulations assuming you have a grasp of the language.

Why in hell's name would I want to do THAT? Don't you get it?

DPL, it is clear you know not what you talk about... But please, do not let that stop you.

I merely respond in kind. If that is offensive, the solutions seems simple. Do not flame, and insult. If you think I will just sit back and take it, you are a complete idiot.

Interesting, the conversation was going so well, and now you two village idiots seem to have a vested itnerest in turning it. Tell me DPL, do you feel threatened by me in some way? Is the fact that you know very little about things that could be easily researched causing you distress. I am sure people could help you out with that a bit.

Oh, and once again, I put to you IF, you are in uniform, it is well past it's best before date. Time to move on sunshine. Reading the drivel you post, it is clear you haven't truely worn the uniform in decades.

Skookum1, because if you do not, I will continue to manipulate you. An "intelligent" person like you is too easy to manipulate. It's like taking candy from a baby really...

DPL, the thing that really pisses me off about you, is your marginalization of the deaths of my friends. I have buried two friends so far... And you fucking disgusting marginalization of the mission in Afghanistan by linking it to Tim Horton's every time you open your useless gob infuriates me. You can surely be glad we are not face to face.

Your best before date is past due. It is time for the career Cpl DPL to turn in his kit.

History1

You had best rethink that remark because it alone marginalizes the death of your friends far more than any reference to Tim Hortons.

Ooooooh. Now I'm scared. History1 "will continue to manipulate me" and even thinks putting quotes around "intelligent" is some kind of sophisticated sarcasm. What are they teaching grunts in bootcamp these days anyway?

More fodder for those interested in 'signing on the dotted line':

Pennington testified at a hearing Monday that when Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents interviewed him after the April 26 death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad, they threatened him with the death penalty and told him it would be a mistake to ask for an attorney.

An agent "said that would be the worst mistake I could make," Pennington said.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119304,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

For those who will then say that this was the US and we in Canada (in a very haughty voice) do not engage in such back-handed things...

Canada is merely the junior-GI version of the US and whatever we see happening in the US has either already been done here or will be very soon.

Worse still, for a soldier charged with such nasty things, would be to have a new subaltern assigned as the defending officer, you know someone still learning the QR&O's and still in love with the chain of command...

Listen up History 1. You can go on about losing two friends and sure death is not exactly the place we want to go right away. I lost my room mate, and the guy next door.plus three others. It was in a training accident as we were shifting on to Herc's. All had tons of years and tons of experience. It was everyone second flying tour minimum.a few even more than tow tours. Some were getting close to the age they could retire on some measly pension.The rest of us were less than thirty years old. I had been flying in the same aircraft two hours earlier. They were killed, we didn't. The records showed us a dead, until somebody came over to clear out our rooms. Luck of the draw. We grieved, did a few funerals and kept going to do the job we liked. No medals for the event, no army guy showed up to talk. It was what we did. No time off to lick our egos. We never got around to telling everyone that we were hero's which it appears you are trying to tell us you are. Swearing at me gets you no where. Try growing up just a bit.
I'm supposed to be afraid and somewhat lucky because we ain't beating each other over the heads to get consensus. Is that your view on how discussions you are losing should end?

We end up in assorted wars placed there by assorted politicians. People tend to die and not just your friends. But what purpose results from you trying to browbeat the rest of us. Many of whom served for up to 35 years. If in fact you actually did some time in the army, one hopes nobody ever lets you loose in the recruiting business.Which what the article started out talking about. Hillier would get even less folks interested in joining. Unemployment is down, kids can read what is happening so many won't get involved. Wars don't prove a whole lot, as enemies sudely become best friends, if we are selling them stuff or they are selling to us. The so called mission in Afghanistan was poorly thought out.It isn't just me who thinks that, its the majority of Canadians. I feel bad for the young soldiers wounded today. One guy stepped on a land mine of some kind and they became more people to shove in a hospital , but hopefully not for too long. Or they will be a civilian.

I said it before. Lots of us did our time, we survived. we don't start flaming people on some on line newspaper to tell the word what really important people we are. And for your information I couldn't have been a career corporal but I sort of think you won't even rise to that position. Even a expert like yourself ahould realize folks who drive aircraft arn't corporals, just like guys who control tanks are not corporals. if you feel you are insulting me, well go right ahead. You will attempt to do so anyway .If in fact you actually are in the CF. Rave on History1. People are laughing at your attempts to bully others.

We are told exactly what we are doing there. The exsistance of some larger conspriacy theory is a fairy tale. There is tons of material made available to the troops on the subject from classified materials, to open source documents from sources such as ReliefWeb, ICRC, and UNHCR. Assumption is the mother of all F*** up... And this is one of many assumptions you make.

You only partially right (would help if you bothered to research that which you choose to talk about). Reservists go because they want to. No one forces them to. Frankly, the Inf Bns can't deploy without them. For the past 10 yrs now, the BG deploying over seas have deployed with between 10-20% reservists in inf coy line serials. A reservist deployed over seas, gets full pay, benifits, and allowances that a Reg F member gets. (this is all stuff you could find out easy enough by asking... I would hate to ask you to fuel an argument on fact rather then assumption).

People on your side of the fence laugh at me, no more then people in the combat arms, and many of your own would laugh at you DPL. Either you are the world's longest serving air crew (pushing 40 yrs), or more likely you retired some time ago, and have fallen out of the loop. If you are still in, as I suggested before... best before date expired, time to get out.

Please, tell me which Airforce position does not have a reserve equivelent? I know several pilots and air nav types who would be surprised to discover they are not reservists... Guess they will have to quit their full time jobs.

You originally took issue with the fact that I called your zero Francisco Juarez a liar... Do you have information or knowledge that is the contrary? I would love to hear all about the idea that the CF did not almost give a very unscrupulous individual a commisioning scroll. If he was principalled and left, he would have left with more money in his pocket, and still be able to speak out. It is not necessary for him to lie, and tell all and sundry how he was to be sent to Afghanistan next year. It is very convient how when he talks he drives that point home, and yet FAILS to mention that as a reservist he has to volunteer. You are right. I do not like him. I do not like liars.

I noticed that instead of attacking the substance of my first post, you attacked ME. I respond in kind, and now I am villified... So be it. If I had even a little respect for you, my tone would change... But that is not possible.

Is this supposed to endear anyone in green? Or tan as it were?

more...

continued...

Check you facts... Oh, now how foolish of me... You are too damned important to do research, so you will form your opinion and let reality be damned. Only a pompus blowhard like you copuld possibly miss the fact that roads are necessary to move equipment, and supplies to all around the country... Is OXFAM supposed to buy helicopters? Is the average Afghan supposed to get food (in a droughht no less) by walking to Kabul from Kandhar? Are we to be expected to drive on much slower unprepared roads posing a risk to us and others around us? Yes the roads benifit us, as the benifit all others in the area... And the roads are the first step in actual reconstruction, and no, we did not stop building when the bullets started flying. If you were in the CF, you would be able to check through your Ops office the voracity of stories in the MSM... Assuming you were competant though.

When I came into this thread, a little general sarcasm aside (which you all had already generously engaged in), I was attempting to be pleseant despite the open hostility displayed in a different thread... It did not take too terribly long before the flames and personal attacks came in. Never mind attacking the subject, you know, that the message in the OP article is flawed. Just attack the new guy. He's not like us.

The hypocrisy displayed todate is simply outrageous. You want a LIAR to be the spokesman for the peacemovement... Fill your boots. He has already been widely outed. You want to openly engage in propaganda... Fine, please do not screach so hard next time you beleive you are seeing propaganda (not that you people have a clue what propaganda actually is). If you think I am going to roll over, and play nice, when you won't do me the simple courtesy of actually researching, and getting your facts straight when you attack me, you can get stuffed... Because I am not a nice guy. I am pretty far from it...

You should really watch who you say those things to, and where you say them, History1. And don't think you've got a monopoly on not being a nice guy. People older and more experienced than you have had a lot more time and experiences to learn how to be mean, when needed. Don't overestimate yourself, and if you puff your chest up like you just have, don't presume that you're as tough as you are. There's always someone tougher.

Speaking of which:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0slSsdRzroU

Why don't you and Maestro give Jeff Monson a verbal challenge like you just did to us? I'm sure he'd be glad to meet you in the ring; or in front of a microphone for that matter.

pookums... You don't know me from a hole in the wall. So to be safe, one should avoid making assumptions.

But, a "high" thinker like your self doesn't need any such cautions, eh?

I'm quite likely twice your size, History1. And I guarantee you several times as scary, if you're scary at all....

Hey, fill your boots. Come at me though, and you would be in for a quick surprise. Size is not everything. If you were a scrapper, you would know that already.

I'm not threatening to come at you, you jerk; you're the one who was threatening to come at any one of us. Not sizing up your opponent before you attack them is a fatal bit of stupidity. And much the same kind of gung-ho nonsense our Tory politicians and mad-dog military brass are doing with Afghanistan. If you're such a tough guy, why don't you just get on the plane and go beat the crap out of the Taliban all by your little old lonesome?

Christ pookums... You are an idiot. A smart idiot, but an idiot none the less.

well I had pretty well decided this thread is going nowhere with a blowhard like History1 attacking everyone in sight. Sure the Air Force has had reserve pilots since before 1951. Last bunch I ran into were flying Otters in Edmonton. all had civil flying jobs and wouod be simply dumb to take a much lower paying job in the reserves, and yes I'm not the oldest aircrew person, in fact somewhere along the line I mentioned I had retired and mentioned that the government was hiring on people older than I was when I did retire to go on to civil flying. His attempt to upset me by calling me a career corporal was just a indication that he has little understanding of rank structures in assorted jobs. So my belief is the fellow has a bit of a reading comprehension problem he reads only what he wants to read and then attacks whatever it is he doesn't like.
The long and the short of it all is people ain't rushing in to sign onto the infantry. It's a lot of walking and a low pay scale. If one is joining for a trade, they get considerably more money in other jobs. I have never heard of a reservist aircrew doing active service but of course History 1 will know all their names, or will make them up. Afghanistan was a poorly thought out event. How our loud grunt would know such thigns is beyond my comprehention. More folks will die and nothing much will get sorted out. if the Russians lost 50,000 without stabilizing the place, no small group of 2,000 or so will do the job.They have no air support by their own air force and the dumb thought of sending F18 is about the weirdest thing I ever heard about. They are over the hill, aren't attack aircraft but There is no sense trying to get that into History1's head.If somebody wants a close support aircraft the C130 gun ships are a great people killer. carries a great load of weapons. Maybe he should go join the marines if he is looking for some glamour. I'm out of here. rave on History1

DPL, you are so out of touch, it ain't even funny. Entire Air Reserve Sqds currently deploy on missions. You are out of touch with the rest of it too... On and on... Blithering on about shit you just do not have a clue about, and you get your back all up because you get called on it.

Once again, you evaded the accusation. You evaded the subject, and launched in a personal attack. I merely pointed out your faults (and they are many). Hypocrite.

Tonight's Global National had one of those infomercials for our military, showing manoeuvres in North Carolina as part of what seemed to be a pitch to build political support for spending money on....wait for it...amphibian assault capability. Yeah, we're really going to need that in Kandahar, huh?

Annnnd, the ignorance grows. Rather then ask why... Why not be an idiot about it.

The ships in question are capable of carrying a complete BG in one shot. AFVs, troops, everything. From a land war scenario, they are awsome platforms, and cost effective too boot.

When not deployed in support of an operation, the different countries that have similar vessels use them for crisis, both man made (like the Isreal/Lebanon war this summer), to natural desaster aid. With large holds, that quickly can be converted from holding armour and an entire batallion of troops, they are easily converted into very large hospital ships.

Having said this... Yes, they would be primarily used for getting battle groups around the globe. Currently, we "lease" ships from private companies to do this. And that leads to all sorts of good stuff, like having to board the ship with armed sailors, because they decided they wanted more money then was stipulated in the contract.

It is myopic (not that I am surprised) to think Afghanistan is the limit of what we may need to do in the future. The other option I would suggest, is just seal the border... No one in, no one out. Let everyone else kill each other. We can stay happy and free here in Canada.

OH, and no one is suggesting that we purchase even dozens... I beleive that the best suggestions from all the players, mil and civ, is get one.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/rotterdam1.html

I beleive this design is one of the front runners.

Will this mean no more 189 million dollar bills to fly stale-dated Leopard tanks to war zones half-way round the world? And that's just one way.

What's the story on the two Canucks who took one for the team today? Are they going to survive - limbless no doubt?

Maybe we should invest in advanced prosthetic technology before we spend any more on amphibious capability.

even the US reporting of the 'need for troops' is coming from stale-dated leaders. With Afghani commanders still meeting with Rumsfeld, thinking that he can do anything...

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,119366,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

"DPL, you are so out of touch, it ain't even funny. Entire Air Reserve Squadron's currently deploy on missions".

Just dropped in to see if History1 is still setting policy. At no time did I ever suggest reserve squadron's don't fly. But you fail to mention those are American reserve guys. One dropped a bomb and killed four Canadians in a training zone.Friendly fire of course. The guy had been told not to drop but he did anyway claiming self defence.I can only beleive he is back commercial flying. I see no Canadian aircraft flying in Afghanistan beside the daily Herc runs and the airbus that hauls in assorted generals and politicians. So maybe you should really figure out that although we use the Americans to haul the wounded guys to an American hospital when seriously wounded Canada does not have any squadrons of reservists in that war. It was our government that sold off the helicopters they are about to purchase to do some of the lifting. The C130J's are being bought to replace the slightly dated ones being used today. A sound investment. I did around 4,000 hours in Herc's all around the world and they serve Canada well. Price has gone up quite a bit

The funny part of the blurb on the amphibious assault marketing campaign is that the Indo-Canadian officer - I gather he was Indo-Canadian, although he'd picked up a bit of a US accent, apparently from being based in the US for so long - was going on about how useful amphibious assault capability would be if we were attacked on either Atlantic or Pacific Coasts....

Huh? So, let's see, we have maritime assault from unknown enemies (North Korea presumably on the Pacific, Portugal on the Atlantic?) and we're going to stage a landing on our own beaches. Even better, WHAT BEACHES? Tofino? Kits? White Rock?

Any foreign power who tries to attack the BC Coast for a land invasion deserves what they get; sure, they might take and hold Princess Royal Island, but WHY? And how useful is landing on North Carolina's surfing beaches in terms of preparation for landings on the rocky coastlines of Newfoundland, Cape Breton or the Gulf of St. Lawrence?

And, if Parliament is stupid enough to say, "yeah, gee, we need amphibious assault capability" (notice "assault" rather than "defense" as the terminology here - Nauru, Tonga and Vanuatu beware!), then we'd also need to "borrow" or build some huge troop-carrying ships like the one the US "loaned" the Canadian military for the p.r. exercise in North Carolina. Which, as the shill Global National reporter put it, "proved we could take and hold a beach" - with no incoming fire, no minefields, no barbed wire, no real agenda other than proving we are "able to hold our own" alonside the US and other military powers.

To do what? Invade Sri Lanka? Kenya? Brazil?

Brazil could kick our ass anyway, any time, any day.....

DPL wrong again. Canadian Air Reserve.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/air_reserve/newsletter/aug06/01_e.asp

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/air_reserve/newsletter/feb04/1_e.asp

These are usually 3 month rotations. During Op Palladium, when we were using more Griffons, Air Res Sqds rotated out complete... I spent alot of time in Camp Black bear, zipping around the VK/Bihac AOR with 400 Sqn guys and girls. All good people... All reservists on that Roto. A little harder to get Air Res sqns mobilised now... Most of them are heicopter Sqns.

Google is your friend DPL. This is all stuff avqail open source.

pookums... An amphib carrier IS a HUGE troop carrying ship. I guess you couldn't be bothered to poke around on the link I provided.

True to form.

The Rotterdam class linked above, can carry up to 613 troops, AND 170 armoured fighting vehicles (LAV IIIs) AND stowage for 4 large helicopters (EH101 sized) in the hanger, as well as land on the flight deck 2 large helicopters (though I doubt at the same time).

pookums. Commentary like that is supposed to do what exactly? Make me a nice guy? Make me want to engage in a friendly open conversation? Your expertise in tactics is what exactly? 50 yrs of snakes and ladders on the back porch?

Murdock, what exactly is an "Afghani" commander? Currency does not command much aside from the green-eyed devil.

The proper form of address, and the only acceptable for of address in the english language when approaching an Afghan is "Afghan" or "Afghans". If you know the ethnic background of the person, Pastu, Tajik, etc is also acceptable. An Afghani is money.

Yeah, 613 troops and a couple of choppers will be plenty enough to repel a marine invasion of the BC Coast. Where exactly on the BC Coast would the attack come? To get to where? And why wouldn't the invading power have blown our forces out of the water, even if they had been deployed in preparation for the enemy assault?

History is paved with bad spending/tactical decisions by military brass. Doesn't matter which empire, which military power. They've all spent money on "toys for the boys" which turned out to have no purpose, and no common sense. And no practical strategic value other than allowing the brass and the politicians to point to them and say "see, we're prepared!".

First off, you need beaches. Second you need an enemy who has something to attack. I'm sure it's going to be no problem for the Indonesian or North Korean or, in the event of something much bigger, the Chinese navy/navies to sail up the Strait of Juan de Fuca, through the San Juans, and establish a beachhead in Southlands or Steveston, yeah right. And then CFB Comox can respond with its amphibious assault force....to take back our own beaches. Yeah, right.

Screw your head on a little tighter, jughead; you might start getting some bloodflow to whatever grey cells you have left.

As for the 'Afghani' label - it's common currency to refer to the money and the many tribal groupings which commonly live within Afghanistan's nominal boundaries most of the time. This day and age, with words like 'google' in the OED, I think your point is pedantic and trite.
Sorry.

Further point is that the earnest Canuck officer in North Carolina was only repeating what he's been indoctrinated in, i.e. the notion of national defense. But amphibious assault forces can have only one purpose for Canadian Forces - to participate in the invasion of another country. If we're alone, preferably a small one like Trinidad or the Bahamas, since there's piss-all you can do with less than a thousand troops against a meaningful enemy with national forces of any size. The corollary to that is that it's pretty obvious that Canadian troops are trained (and brain-conditioned) now to be little more than auxiliary forces for US military ambitions, wherever they may be.

This is underscored not only by the similar rhetoric coming out of Canadian brass, and even the degree of integration of materiele and personnel; which is getting so deep that not only do our officers voice the same quasi-political b.s. that is too common in US ranks (Hillier) but even to the point of Canadian troops picking up US accents by being around US troops so much.

We're being converted into a junior military power; more pointedly, a set of proxy forces for our patron empire to dispose of as it sees fit. Just as we were when Canadians and Anzacs and Sikhs and Gurkhas were used as shock troops by the British Expeditionary Forces.

I repeat: amphibious assault preparedness has only one relevance, and that's assault, NOT defense. Why would we need amphibious assault to protect our own beaches, unless we allowed them to be taken in the first place.

Amphibious landing capability for emergency zones like post-tsunami Aceh might make some sense; but assault capability isn't required for that, rather humanitarian and relief training. NOT ATTACK.

If History1 is exemplary of our current recruits - or god help us, our officer recruits - then you really have to wonder what they're teaching in tactics and military history. Other than how not to think straight, and to repeat whatever you're told by the political directives coming out of senior brass.

It's like the old shibboleth from Cold War times that we should anticipate a Russian invasion from the Beaufort Sea or Hudson Bay. The Russians were never that stupid; their own vast, frozen countryside is what protected them from Napoleon and the Nazis, after all. A beachhead at York Factory or Tuktoyaktuk makes no more sense than one on Jordan River or Sointula or Cape Breton or the Gaspe; even if the US tolerated it; no strategic value and a LONG way from any major population centres or political/tactical targets.

I know, I know, hiding behind the skirts of the US defense shield and all that. But the reality is that even with full mobilization, the only preparedness for marine invasion would be a full fleet of warships off the Pacific Coast, another one off the Atlantic, and - if we really do want to keep the Arctic (which I don't think is viable and the greater powers have no intentions of honouring) - another in the Beaufort. And another in Davis Strait.

Hell, we can't even build a decent ferry, never mind finance it. How the hell are we going to put together two to four fleets of destroyers, frigates and maybe a battleship and aircraft carrier or two. Those would be the only meaningful marine defenses. And we don't have any discernible enemy who's ever going to launch such an invasion.

And we've already been undermined from within, by the cooptation of the political priorities and sentiments of our own troops by US political priorities and military training. And they don't even have to invade us anymore, what with the banks and the power and oil companies already getting a free ride on Canadian resources.

Talk about spending money on humanitarian-aid forces and you might find some sympathy. For assault, it makes no sense at all, other than to be cannon fodder for US invasion plans on some unfortunate lesser power in the world. Gee, we could have taken part in Panama, Grenada, and had a bigger role in Somalia. Maybe we could invade Oman or Morocco, too. Wow, just like real soldiers. Wheeeeeee! Bang, bang, shoot 'em up, cowboy!! Yee-hah!

Hey, it's fair ball apparently around these parts G West. It is a valid point for people who actually deal with Afghans. You know, the people you people think you would protect... But apparently know nothing about.

And you're fair game for mis-using standard slang. "Fair ball" means the ball's in play; "fair game" means anything goes.

More and more it's clear you're either a second-language speaker, or you just haven't been out of your own particular sandbox very much.

How old are you, History1? You've already played the short-man syndrome card; now I'm starting to wonder if you're even out of high school. Oh wait - high schoolers usually have cooler-sounding slang.

Where does your own expertise on Afghanistan come from? Spent a few years trading rugs and guns in Kabul, huh?

To prove that you know something about Afghans, you could try swearing at me in Dari or Pushtu (on-line available materials don't count). Care to describe for me the most sacred object in Kandahar?

pookums. You have zero training. Zero exposure. Zero knowledge.

Morons like you are the reason we have to depend on the American's chairity everytime we need to move. Morons like you bled the CF dry, and now whine because we HAVE to work with the Americans to move around in our own damned country.

pookums, your opinion isn't worth the hot air you are blowing to put it out there.

Oh, last point for you pookums. It is because of people like you that we got out of Somalia. What a success that has been. How many THOUSANDS have died in Somalia since we left? 10's? Hundreds? No one really knows at the moment because no one can move around in the country unless they are one of hundreds of drug running warlords. But that doesn;t matter does it. Because now the Somali warlords are free to kill whomever they want.

http://english.people.com.cn/200609/18/eng20060918_303732.html

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=283101&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/06/23/somalia.shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/05/12/somalia/index.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=3890

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/10/wpeyt10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/10/ixnewstop.html

Do you even know why we went to Somalia to begin with? A clue maybe?

pookums, in this lil tit for tat, you are coming up far short.

pookums. I can't swear at you in pastu as my keyboard does not support the script. Secondly, you are so full of shit, your eyes are brown.

pookums... Your "intellectual" routine is really tiresome. Let me guess... BA in english from an email company? It is the only muscle you have here... So feel free to flex all you want, you are just a know nothing ass without your little dictionary.

In fact pookums, how about you go talk to my brother. He has a nice dog for you... Maybe you would sleep with it. Yes, go talk to my brother.

As as for why you would feign interest in a tattered old cloak, I wouldn't know... But at least you have proven an ability to use google. Perhaps you can learn something a little useful after all.

For those that are not following what I said above.

I called his bluff. An Afghan tells you to "see my brother" the conversation is over, you have just been told to get lost. Any reference to a dog is a definate escalation.

And the Cloak in question, would be what many in the Muslim world beleive to be the Prophet, Mohammed's cloak. Considering his travels, it is actually more likely the case then the Shroud of Tourin ever was.

Of course, I could have used many religiously motivated insults as well. One needs a dictionary to keep track of them.

Geez, are you ever easily manipulated.

And that "pookums" thing you think is cute - it's vaguely homophobic. All of us here know you have issues, and between being resentful of "intellectual" content and aggressive on the "don't underestimate the little guy" tough-talk, and the string of weird posts just above......I really hope you're not in the officer corps. It's a bad sign that anyone like you could be promoted in the first place.

I'm puzzling over your nickname, too, as are others here. Because it's pretty obvious you haven't really studied any history...not real history anyway.

pookums, nothing homophobic about me. I do not care for your "intellectualism" because whenever you loose, you resort to spelling and grammer flames (very week of you). As I demonstrate above, when I effect such a thing in others, true to the hypocrisy of the left all others scream "how pedantic"...

Feel free to define "real history"... Clearly you mean the stuff you re-wrote. As it has become more then clear that history is WAY outside the pervue of youur usual studies. As is pretty much everything.

Not once in this thread have you even tried to attack anything I actually said. Instead, you started with name calling (I am merely following suit) and spelling flames. IS there any chance for you to actually attack the meat of what I am saying? Or, like the child you are, going to continue to avoid the real questions, like why is the OP article, way at the top there, so openly engaging in propaganda (very poorly constructed propaganada at that...).

I wouldn’t hang your hat on Francisco Juarez to much. Seeing comments from his former comrades they were not impressed with his abilities.

Speaking with recruiters, they indicate interest is up, with the candidates knowing the risks and in fact the risk is part of the driving force to join the forces. I find it difficult to believe in this information age that anyone can join a volunteer military without being aware of what the job entails, and they would not likely be successful candidates anyways.

Part of a blurb on him:

Following service as a seaman in the Canadian Navy, Mr Juarez transferred to the Army Reserves and applied to be commissioned as an infantry officer. Merely a week into the Common Army Phase of his training, where one learns the very basics of soldiering, he expressed doubts about his military future. Refusing a command to complete a fitness obstacle course with his mates, his request for release from the Canadian Forces was granted. But now that he has become an orator for the various anti-Afghanistan factions, it appears that facts and fact checking by journalists are not about to stand in the way of a good story.

Mr Juarez states that he left the Canadian Forces because he did not wish to serve in Afghanistan, indicating that he was to be sent there in 2007. Mr Juarez knows full well that the CF is not deploying untrained Reservist Officer Cadets to Afghanistan. Canada has NOT declared a military mobilization, and is NOT ordering part-time Reservists overseas.

This doesn't sound good. A couple of excerpts from the Ottawa Citizen:

Troops halt 'ambush alley' work
Safety, prosperity goals on hold as Canadians battle Taliban revival

Lee Greenberg
with files from Citizen News Services

Monday, November 20, 2006

ZHARI DISTRICT, Afghanistan - Construction on a deadly road that claimed the lives of six Canadian soldiers in Afghan-istan last month has been halted amid mounting security concerns sparked by a sudden withdrawal of Afghan troops from the area.

...hopes are quickly evaporating as daily battles between Canadian and Taliban troops have displaced entire villages, closed schools and medical clinics, and severely restricted development work.
Far from getting better, the lives of Afghans in this district have gotten worse in the past several months.

Several weeks ago, Afghan troops in the area suddenly withdrew, leaving Canadian forces to defend the territory by themselves.
"They're an excellent, excellent unit -- but they've been at war for three years, so at some point in time they had to have a leave," said Capt. Brown, second in command of Charles Company, 1st Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment, based in Petawawa.
"Ramadan came along and all of a sudden no one wanted to play the game, they all wanted to go home with their families."
Canadian troops moved into several positions along the road to fill the gap. Capt. Brown said they were "stretched thin."
"What we're doing (now) is preventing outright defeat."
Afghanistan's four-year-old professional army is beset by numerous problems, including failing equipment, insufficient training and low retention rates.
The desertion rate is hovering around 15 per cent, said U.S. army Brig.-Gen. Douglas Pritt, who oversees the effort to train the Afghan military. That's better than last year, when it peaked above 25 per cent.
Afghan soldiers recently received a raise in their tiny salaries, from the equivalent of $80 to $115 a month, Brig.-Gen. Pritt said, a decision that followed the revelation that soldiers who deserted could earn $80 a month as day labourers without facing combat.

Still, the defence minister admitted that while Canada's focus is on reconstruction and development, in recent months, Canadian troops have borne the brunt of fighting against the Taliban in the south of the country.
Meanwhile, its pleas for military aid from other NATO countries have been blocked by rules that forbid troops from some countries from putting themselves in harm's way. "All NATO allies must share the burden in Afghanistan," Mr. O'Connor said.
At the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, on Nov. 28 and 29, these restrictions will be discussed.
According to a new report by a commission of Afghan and foreign officials, insurgent and terrorist attacks nationwide have increased fourfold in the past year, reaching 600 incidents per month by September and causing 3,700 deaths since January.

Doesn't exactly sound like things are going that swimmingly!

well its about time to maybe get back on track instead of hearing how the real world operates according to History1. The thread was all about recruiting and went down hill from there. so i figure maybe this guy is working for , or trying to work for national defence. so may links, so many insults. Only he knows anything. Hopefully Tyee shuts down this story before somebody really gets angry. I am not one who doeas, but the bullshit from the guy is starting to grate. Let's see the statistics on new recruits versus those leaving. as for following what he says. why bother he just babbles out stuff. sort of you listen to me or I'll hit you. Sure goes over well. Grow up History 1 and maybe someday you will develop a thought of your own

DPL, I tried to make a discussion, and I got insults instead... If you are upset because you have been proven wrong on many occasions, then you need to get thicker skin, or join a private board... Better still, admit when you are wrong, learn from it, and you will actually find it is less stressful. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong (al la the side track on DU), hell, if you can prove me wrong, I will even support your arguement with what I find...

But if you make grandious false statements, which this thread is completely littered with from yourself, Murdock and others, then do not be the least bit surprised when I jump on that.

Also, it would be really nice if we scale back on the blantent, and repetitive hypocrisy... If you attack me (and you did on several occasions), then expect to be attacked. Your IDIOT's statements with regards to Tim's in KAF did not endear you to me, and only pointed out your shallowness, ego, and ignorance on the subject.

I have no problems listening to people... But you HAVE to return the favour. You are one of the few though that made weak attempts to rebute what I was saying. It's just a shame that you choose to be condescending when you did it. Study a little bit more, and talk to me like you want me to talk to you, and I will do so... Condescend me, and you will get it back tenfold.

G West,

etc...

Does this scenario that is unfolding match more what I posted following your mention of the article in "Operation Backfire" commentaries?

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/16/OperationBackfire/

No matter what the 'rahh rahh!' crowd has to say, the Rules of Engagement or RoE's of the NATO member nations will not allow them to participate with US/Can actions in Afghanistan.

My view of the coming NATO meetings will bring about a 'revelation' in the US view of Afghanistan. A re-declaration of the 'mission accomplished' performances by the Commander-in-Chimp followed by very rapid draw-down of US forces (the Ranger Battalions and perhaps a few hand-picked special operations personel may remain) to a token force (with a very 'training' mandate) in Afghanistan -> the whole group transferred to Iraq for 'pacification' operations in the Sunni Triangle (getting really hot and nasty for a few months).

The US actions may be unilateral, but I suspect that the Germans and French will support the restricted operations mode in Afghanistan, this will prompt the UK to join the US in 'pull-back' from bloody conflict, possibly with the UK forming 'coastal access' formations from Baghdad south into Kuwait, for the eventual retreat. This will prompt a major call for UK forces to fully withdraw from Afghanistan, since Canada is the Operations Commander, let them command.

With nothing to control beyond our own forces, we will be sunk.

The 'thin-red-line' that is there now will be a red wet spot sooner than many think, I fear...

(I'll skip my usual end line, for Frank's sake)

The Germans and the French to a lesser extent are playing to their political audiences at home. The US is considering upping the number of troops, approx another 1,000 troops have been promised by other nations. One the reasons the ANA pulled back is that the troops had been fighting non-stop for awhile and needed to rest, it’s a small and still semi-fragile army. The pay rise will help. I noticed the Taliban have changed from saying: “We will fight through winter” to “We will resume fighting after winter”

We need to keep the pressure up on them throughout winter, and the Germans have excellent mountain troops that would be a great help, winter will mean the Taliban are going to have to hole up and it’s either caves in the mountains or trying to hold onto a village. Even 5,000 more Western troops would mean that most of South Eastern Afghanistan would be very inhospitable to the Taliban. Perhaps Canada can recruit Gurkhas, they serve 5 years and gain Canada Citizenship, It would be an excellent addition to our military and to Canada as a whole.

Gurkhas would be a welcome addition to the CF... However, our current immigration policies are firmly against such an idea, and I support that policy. Serve in the army for citizenship, IMO that is pretty close to conscription.

Granted, within the culture that the Brits draw the Gurkhas from, it is seen as an honour to serve in either the British or Indian Gurkhas. As such,, with them, there would be no shortage of volunteers.

Gurkhas also have a very long history in Afghanistan. Dating back to the first Muslim invasion of the 8th century, they were succesful in driving back the Muslim armies (Afghanistan was originally a Hindu & Budhist country, and hence for the reason why Budha was every where before the Taliban came).

Though I do not doubt their abilities in combat, all the cultures involved (Nepalese and Afghan) have VERY long memories, and I fear including a Gurkha Bn in Afghanistan would be more antagonistic then even the Americans. (This last is just opinion, as I have never witnessed any interaction between the two groups, I could be way off... But is it worth it to chance?)

The best way for us to fight the Taliban during the winter "break" is rebuild rebuild rebuild. We have to convince local Afghan people that we are there to not only rebuild things, but also help provide them with more security then the Taliban ever offered. If we succeed in that, the Taliban and other insurgent forces will not be able to find a home base in villages... As it stands now, they just move into villages (unwanted), and take what they need by force (including men to fight).

The hardest fight is on the boys over there right now... We have proven that we are excellent in combat, now we have to prove we are excellent at rebuilding, and securing... We fail in that, then I think Murdock will be proven right, and we will have bigger problems in the future to deal with.

A German military spokesman, or maybe it was a German foreign or defense ministry official, stated clearly on the news the other night that the Germans had NO INTENTION of redeploying their troops to southern Afghanistan from the north, as it "would damage the security of thier mission in the north" (paraphrase). In other words it would put German lives at risk. The Germans, at least, know which side of the mountain they'd rather be on.....

It's a shame it's not an opinion shared by German troops. The up coming NATO conference will indeed be interesting after such a proclamation.

Ohhh, to be a fly on those walls.

Murdock

Noted and agreed.

I saw that German talking head too Skookum1

History1

Folks buy their way into Canada all the time now - what is the rate - $250,000 in liquid assets these days? I don't understand your reticence. Willingness to fight for your high ideals and all those military perks – sounds like a deal to me. And if your construction of the future holds to be true, we’re gonna need all the help we can get to keep the wogs off our beaches anyway, right?

I am not a fan of conscription. Never have been, never will. Selling a citizenship, in exchange to military service, is well to me somewhat offensive. Canadian citizenship must never be tied to service in the military.

IMO it just opens some scary doors... What if ten years after such a program starts, someone decides that all citizens should serve in the military to maintain citizenship, or even to obtain citizenship al la Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie)?

I am not suggesting that Joe average Canadian would not make a good soldiers, hell I beleive most Canadians would make great soldiers (some with a lil more work then others)... Same goes with immigrants. I just beleive strongly that making anything Canadian, citizenship or whatever, is not the way for Canada, and if it ever comes through like that, I am out.

... ... making anything Canadian, be it citizenship or whatever, tied to service in the military, is not the way for Canada...

Apparently History1 has been able to interview the German troops in northern Afghanistan. This kid must get around, huh?

But it's okay to sell citizenship to all the folks who have a quarter mil in the bank/C'mon, you must be kidding. At least offering citizenship to mercenaries is an honest deal - they have to put up something besides their cash - Yes?

Canada has nothing to brag about anymore - those days are long gone - we know exactly what we are - the haggling is just over the price.

No Skookum1, NATO soldiers train in NATO contries... Perhaps you did not know that the Germans frequently train in Canada (there just is not a lot of training area in Germany, where as Canada has a couple of bases that are the size of the average European province/state).

Citizenship should not be sold either G West, and it is highly offensive to suggest that people should ever be forced to be in the military.

Canada has lots to be proud of... Travel, and people will tell you so. It seems only certain Canadians feel otherwise.

France has been doing that since the days of Louis Napoleon - i.e. the Foreign Legion. Doesn't matter where you're from or "who you used to be" - survive your term of enlistment and you get a nice pension and French citizenship. The key word there is "survive", as the FL are used for things regular troops would not (or could not) be sent into.

DPL:

Your opposing commentator History1 is now acting all wounded and claiming that you must respect him first etc before he will do the same for you?

I shall repost his first post regarding this material:

...Or for that matter your so called "expert" Murdoch? Oh, let me guess... You once drove past an American base, and then watched a Hollywood movie....

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/16/OperationBackfire/

After polite warnings he(?) continued attacks like the depraved, but still basic, blog troll that he is.

Respect is a two-way street, for me the one called History1 has lost mine and I shall resume ignoring and not feeding the troll.

Keep on posting DPL, I enjoy your points.

Murdock, if you were ignoring me, why would you post? Further, I merely was responding in kind. Shall I dredge up some of your garbage for all to see?

You, I have no time for... I am interested to see if you could actually post facts, or even rebut anything I have said. But, that interst is much the same as when driving past an accident on the highway. Just as one slows down to gawk, invariably, they are disappointed, just as I am sure I would continue to be in you.

Being insulting and degrading is of course a standard method of reducing the identity and personal self-worth of new recruits in boot camp; it's standard military lore and practice in nearly all armies. I wonder why he/they think it will work here.

It is fun talking about someone in the third person while ignoring him, though, isn't it?

And yeah, DPL, I wouldn't be surprised at all if DND had assigned someone to monitor and kibbitz this forum. Not that they'd admit it, of course. Be interesting if it came out that public money was involved in placing him here, though....

History1
Offering mercenaries a chance to fight for Canada in return for citizenship is hardly forcing them to do anything.

The real shame is the idea that all you 'really' need to be a Canadian (and bring your family here too) is that $250G. That is a real farce now isn't it?

I don't think there are more than a couple handfuls of the guys and gals you're fighting to save in country who would qualify for that deal, right? And they're probably all in Karzai's cabinet.

You might be right about DND parachuting someone in here to raise the flag, Skookum1, but I'd be surprised if even they would send our current interlocutor on such a mission.

G West,

Quite right about them, because they understand argument, logic, discussion, persuation...

I mean their boss uses such pleasant, well-thought out and logical terms as:

"Kill the Scumbags"

LOL!

OTTAWA -- A minimum level of fitness is no longer required of those who wish to join the Canadian Forces.

A notice posted in the recruiting section of Canada's military website says that, as of Oct. 1, the regular test to determine physical capabilities that has traditionally been demanded of all new applicants has been eliminated.

It's a change that comes as the Forces, stretched to the limit with deployment of more than 2,200 soldiers in Afghanistan, tries to increase its ranks by 8,000 members over the next five years even as attrition is depleting them.

After joining the Forces, however, recruits will still be subject to a medical examination -- and those who can't meet the grade physically will be turned over to trainers who will try to get them into the kind of condition required to begin their life in the military, the notice on the website says.

...

"If you're 450 pounds, they will recruit you and then put you in a fat camp until you are ready," said Scott Taylor, a military veteran and editor of Esprit de Corps magazine.

The new edition of the magazine contains a satirical spoof suggesting that anyone who could walk up the stairs to a recruiting office would be signed up. But "it's not funny any more," Mr. Taylor said. Now a recruit "can just yell from the bottom of the stairs and they will wheel him away -- 'Take me off to boot camp.' "

...

Gen. Hillier was responding to questions at the House foreign affairs committee about whether the Canadian Forces might have to take shortcuts in training to get enough combat troops to maintain Canada's commitment to the Afghanistan war for two more years.

There will be "no shortcuts on training," he said. He was not asked specifically about the physical performance requirements new recruits must meet.

Gen. Hillier and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told the MPs that they are thinking of putting some military personnel from the navy or air force into Afghanistan in support roles.

For example, sailors might be able to operate the military truck convoys used to move supplies in Afghanistan, Mr. O'Connor said.

Likewise, radio operators or intelligence officers from other branches might be assigned to support roles in Afghanistan.

New recruits hoping to make a career in the military might have to serve a two-year initial hitch as combat infantry soldiers before they can move on to training for other trades, such as working with high-tech electronics equipment, Gen. Hillier said.

...

SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE AT YOUR PERIL

the above story elements cut from:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061026.MILITARY26/TPStory/Front

The recruiters will tell them anything...ANYTHING to get them to agree to join.

Not knowing what they are really signing, the newest cannon fodd...ahem...recruits will get their TQ1 (Trade Qualification level 1 (very basic training), then they will discover what it is like to fly on a plane, to stand on a mountainside looking at the top of the world, and then...

and then...

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

http://www.zeitcom.com/majgen/09kipling.html

Nothing has changed in the CF, in the past 20 years, until now...the desperate need to get 'warm bodies'.

So long as you have a pulse and can stand upright, while carrying your pack and your rifle, you will 'qualify'.

The only change has been a regressive one, back to the 1800's approach to finding 'volunteers' is all that remains to be seen - when will the 'press gang' become fashionable again?

Right after the sailors and airmen of the rest of the dilapidated CF put in for their 30-days-and-out paperwork because they have been LIED to about what job they were signing on for.

If any other readers out there know someone whom is considering joinging the trainwreck that is known as The Canadian Forces, please advise them of all of what you have read here.

Contrary to what many may think in such a well read society, many of the 'young' pay no attention to these things and they are never taught to even doubt what they are told by thier 'leaders' such as teachers, policemen, aldermen, or politicians...

I am certain that the last two groups have more doubt attached to their words by anyone over the age of 35, this would be why any young person needs to have these words and ideas presented to them, not forced, only given as an alternative reference.