Peacekeeping de-valued our military
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military
Off topic but the movie JARHEAD was a complete joke.
cortez said:
Off topic but the movie JARHEAD was a complete joke.
Says the man whose never served a day in uniform.
You forget the Canadians killed in the WTC and on the flights because it's convenient to your argument. Realists remember those killed, and the fact that such MURDER is an act of agression on Canada. We were never attacked in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, The Former Yugoslavia, yet we deployed enmass to those regions and lost literally THOUSANDS. You deem this War different because you've fallen under the mainstream, I hate the U.S., anti-corporation, mindset. Also under the statute of NATO, one attack on a NATO nation is equal to an attack on ALL NATO nations. Our ally the U.S. was attack, thus they envoked the wrath of NATO. Poor bastards. Simple fact beaver, we were attacked, our citizens were killed, our ally was attacked, we're at War.
No soldier will ever say there is no value in peacekeeping. Most however will say it only gets you so far. You cannot peacekeep without both the freedom to enforce the peace and with a peace to keep. If you can't shoot back to defend yourself or defend the innocent the mission has failed. If you can't deploy because the host nation doesn't want you there, you've failed. Peacekeeping only works if a lengthy list of conditions are met. As for not feeling valuable unless we kill someone, please. I have never shot anyone (been shot at however) and I feel valuable to Canada. You cannot draw a correlation between a movie and the Canadian Forces. Yes the U.S. is overly hostile and gears their soldiers in to this "kill kill kill" mentality. We, as Canadians, do not.
It was a stigma Five. We became known as a pacifistic military, good for nothing but putting on a blue beret and standing in a buffer zone. In the later 1/2 of the 20th Century and in the dawning years of the 21st, the World is beginning to see that this nation still has the courage to stand up and fight. We've entered a new era, as i've mentioned before, gone are the days of full out pitched battles, here are the days of the three-block war. Our soldiers cannot peacekeep in these environments anymore, nor can we fight a conventional war in the true sense of the meaning. In esscene peacekeeping and warfare have merged.
Exaclty zoofer.
Exactly, however back then it wasn't trendy to report on the military. A light infantry battalion held off a Croatia mechanized brigade for 2 1/2 days and it never even made the news. The battlaion just last year, over a decade later, finally received their Governor Generals citation.
My two cents:
We maintain a military to fight. We have weapons ranging from a C-7A2 assault rifle to a 155mm towed-howitzer. These aren't instruments of peace, they're instruments of war. I really fail to see why Canadians cannot accept that the PRIMARY role of our military is warfare. The role of the Canadian Infantry is "to close with and destroy the enemy". To the fool who said our military should only ever do humanitarian; why have an Army? If we'll never have to fight, why do we have weapons, tanks, warships, fighers? Why not just disband the whole military and become the laughing stock of the World? A military is an offensive capability aimed at promoting national defence. Human nature is warfare, and even if we as Canadians somehow get away from war, the other nations of the World will not, and we require a highly trained, highly motivated force of men and women to defend us against this. Mock the military all you want. Demean our overseas deployments, but those men and women serve one of the most noble purposes a human can, putting their life on the line for their nation. We have a saying in the Army; Pro Patria, meaning "before Country", or in other words, our lives before our Country. One last little tidbit that I think highlights my who point of view on this issue:
Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military
a kind of agree with you about jarhead-- i just used it for effect up there-- didnt work-- im now getting over it--slowly
yeah jarhead didnt work for me iether-- it kinda made what was a REAL war-- into a FICTIOUS one --- and not very effectively
EagleSmack said:
a kind of agree with you about jarhead-- i just used it for effect up there-- didnt work-- im now getting over it--slowly
yeah jarhead didnt work for me iether-- it kinda made what was a REAL war-- into a FICTIOUS one --- and not very effectively
As usual a great post Mogz. I Ioved the post where you mentioned a group hug, can I be around when all the fish heads commence the hugging. Sorry I meant Navy.
I respect the Canadian military since i am a member. And I wouldn't mind to go to Afghanistan and such in a combat role. But it is kind of sad to see the devolving of Peacekeeping forces. Since it has left a history for Canada. Even if you liked it or not.
Plugs my dear, we call them plugs
I would be 100% behind peacekeeping if it was restructured to better suit the evolving World. As it stands right now the doctrine of peacekeeping is largely based in the mid-20th century and as such does not apply to the 21st. Liken it to the calvary charges of World War I. 19th Century doctrine being used in the era of the machine gun. Not a pretty outcome.
Our Roll in Afcanistan is covered by the UN mission and legitmacy.
However I do not believe our NATO ally in the USA in anyway and form under the alliance forces us to join in a war of aggression against Iraq. As the USA was attacked by Al-Quida and not Iraq, in no way are we forced to go into this conflic.
Also I do not believe that our forces were either weakend or put into harms way by taking an active roll in international UN peacekeeping missions in which was a good reason to keep funding going to the military during periods when cut backs were populer. If not for peace keeping our military would be alot worse then it is now. I also do not believe Canada is in anyway a nation of war hawks and trying to get ourselves in wars we have no legitimate reason in being in has nothing to do with us. Why should we waste our money and our people on a war which will not benifit anybody. If we were in iraq we would be throwing our money away into a black hole and perhaps even throwing away soldurers lifes for nothing.
However I do not believe our NATO ally in the USA in anyway and form under the alliance forces us to join in a war of aggression against Iraq. As the USA was attacked by Al-Quida and not Iraq, in no way are we forced to go into this conflic.
Also I do not believe that our forces were either weakend or put into harms way by taking an active roll in international UN peacekeeping missions in which was a good reason to keep funding going to the military during periods when cut backs were populer. If not for peace keeping our military would be alot worse then it is now. I also do not believe Canada is in anyway a nation of war hawks and trying to get ourselves in wars we have no legitimate reason in being in has nothing to do with us. Why should we waste our money and our people on a war which will not benifit anybody. If we were in iraq we would be throwing our money away into a black hole and perhaps even throwing away soldurers lifes for nothing.
Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military
You're really Tyler Druden aren't you?
But that doesn't answer my question. Why must you be so elusive?
cortez said:
You're really Tyler Druden aren't you?
But that doesn't answer my question. Why must you be so elusive?
Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military
I love that report. We could quote from it all night.
From 22 on the Highlight page.
Your turn.
cortez said:
I love that report. We could quote from it all night.
From 22 on the Highlight page.
Your turn.