Peacekeeping de-valued our military

[cortez]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

now quoting point 21 of white paper

21-- At the present time there is no direct military threat to canada.

no threat-- in 1994
no threat now iether

I love that report. We could quote from it all night.

participate effectively in multilateral peace and stability operations and, if and when required, in the defence of North America and our allies in Europe, and in response to aggression elsewhere.

From 22 on the Highlight page.

Your turn.

yes of course i saw that and KNEW you would quote it
it comes down to ones opinion as to wether the afgan thing is trully about peace nd stability and not REALLY about - having a military foothood in the region, about resources etc

i think the reasons we are in afganistan are multiple

-yes in part because of the alqueda training camps
-yes- military foothold
-yes- pipeline
-yes- an element of revenge
- yes- increase democrasy

all are true
its the relative weight of each thats hard to quantify

there are a least a dozen places the canadian military could be deployed-- to HELP the people-- why THAT one

when argusing the case for war the burden is on the one making the case for it- NATO or not

anyway-- its unwinnable- as ive said before -- the millisecond the international forces leave afganistan- stable or not-- al queda and taliban roll right back in from pakistan
we are talking about protracted war
iraq- afganistan-- the whole region is a huge land mass with porous borders-- asia is unconquerable-- especially if you are fighting a ghost...


im no more enigmatic than you

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

now quoting point 21 of white paper

21-- At the present time there is no direct military threat to canada.

no threat-- in 1994
no threat now iether

I love that report. We could quote from it all night.

participate effectively in multilateral peace and stability operations and, if and when required, in the defence of North America and our allies in Europe, and in response to aggression elsewhere.

From 22 on the Highlight page.

Your turn.

yes of course i saw that and KNEW you would quote it
it comes down to ones opinion as to wether the afgan thing is trully about peace nd stability and not REALLY about - having a military foothood in the region, about resources etc

i think the reasons we are in afganistan are multiple

-yes in part because of the alqueda training camps
-yes- military foothold
-yes- pipeline
-yes- an element of revenge
- yes- increase democrasy

all are true
its the relative weight of each thats hard to quantify

there are a least a dozen places the canadian military could be deployed-- to HELP the people-- why THAT one

when argusing the case for war the burden is on the one making the case for it- NATO or not

anyway-- its unwinnable- as ive said before -- the millisecond the international forces leave afganistan- stable or not-- al queda and taliban roll right back in from pakistan
we are talking about protracted war
iraq- afganistan-- the whole region is a huge land mass with porous borders-- asia is unconquerable-- especially if you are fighting a ghost...


im no more enigmatic than you

The Taliban don't even need to come back. The Opritunistic politicians, warlords and judges are pretty ultra conservative already. The difference between the current government and the last (Taliban) is it is American friendly and ever so slightly less strick with liberties.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

[

yes of course i saw that and KNEW you would quote it
it comes down to ones opinion as to wether the afgan thing is trully about peace nd stability and not REALLY about - having a military foothood in the region, about resources etc

i think the reasons we are in afganistan are multiple

-yes in part because of the alqueda training camps
-yes- military foothold
-yes- pipeline
-yes- an element of revenge
- yes- increase democrasy

all are true
its the relative weight of each thats hard to quantify

there are a least a dozen places the canadian military could be deployed-- to HELP the people-- why THAT one

when argusing the case for war the burden is on the one making the case for it- NATO or not

anyway-- its unwinnable- as ive said before -- the millisecond the international forces leave afganistan- stable or not-- al queda and taliban roll right back in from pakistan
we are talking about protracted war
iraq- afganistan-- the whole region is a huge land mass with porous borders-- asia is unconquerable-- especially if you are fighting a ghost...


im no more enigmatic than you

I tend to agree with some of your points, with the excpetion of revenge and although there are other places, I think Afghanistan is as good as any right now. Unless you mean humanitarian efforts only.

Personally, I think most of Asia will go at it at some point in the very near future, I'm just too tired to be overly enigmatic for the time being - so I'll state the obvious instead.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

[
-
Afghanistan is as good as any right now. Unless you mean humanitarian efforts only.

.

yes
we dont have the material resources to waste on anything other than humanitarian efforts--
enough of our species resources and technical survival resources have been squandered..

if humanitarian missions dont have the WOW factor for the likes of mogz and his militarist type -- they can go play paint ball on the weekend to make up for it

 

[Hank C]

I am glad to see that our troops are starting to lose the stigma that came with the blue beret. Not that I disagreed with humanitarian missions or peacekeeping, but the UN made it easier for the previous governments attempt at defanging our soldiers.

Agree, but the stigma still dogs the public of this country. I have never seen a country whos support for its missions plummet after 3 or 4 bodybags. Perhaps its because the Canadian public has not had the mission explained to them, if you would like to use that as an excuse for ignorance or stupidity? Or possibly its just popular to see Canada as not being involved in anything where we take a side or a stand, be it logical or not? I was watching CPAC and they were interviewing Canadians on the street about the mission in Afghanistan and 9 out of 10 seemed to have no idea what we are doing there, spitting arguements such as "we dont need to be involved in an American war" or "I think we need to get out now, it will be better for the Afghan people".......Canadians aern't any smarter than their American counterparts, at least from what I can see.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

[
-
Afghanistan is as good as any right now. Unless you mean humanitarian efforts only.

.

yes
we dont have the material resources to waste on anything other than humanitarian efforts--
enough of our species resources and technical survival resources have been squandered..

if humanitarian missions dont have the WOW factor for the likes of mogz and his militarist type -- they can go play paint ball on the weekend to make up for it

Mogz aside, on that we don't agree.

No offense to Mogz, he is not of the same mind set of us civilians. I understand where he's coming from, I just don't share his zeal on aggression. It's to be expected and sometimes I wish he'd keep that in mind.

Mogz: If you are reading this, please note that I'm aware of the fact that the military, Canadian or no, doesn't train fluffy bunnies for the purpose of combat or peacekeeping operations.

I really don't like rabbits anyway, they make terrible pets. Probably make good paint ball targets, though.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

[
-
Afghanistan is as good as any right now. Unless you mean humanitarian efforts only.

.

yes
we dont have the material resources to waste on anything other than humanitarian efforts--
enough of our species resources and technical survival resources have been squandered..

if humanitarian missions dont have the WOW factor for the likes of mogz and his militarist type -- they can go play paint ball on the weekend to make up for it

Mogz aside, on that we don't agree.

No offense to Mogz, he is not of the same mind set of us civilians. I understand where he's coming from, I just don't share his zeal on aggression. It's to be expected and sometimes I wish he'd keep that in mind.

Mogz: If you are reading this, please note that I'm aware of the fact that the military, Canadian or no, doesn't train fluffy bunnies for the purpose of combat or peacekeeping operations.

I really don't like rabbits anyway, they make terrible pets. Probably make good paint ball targets, though.

ok ill agree to disagree
hope you are not calling me a fluffy bunny are you....
thats mean...

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

[

ok ill agree to disagree
hope you are not calling me a fluffy bunny are you....
thats mean...

You, a fluffy bunny? The same guy who doesn't think Johnny Cash is an outlaw?

 

[cortez]

phew
for a second there i though i was going to have to join the military to boost my self esteem

wittgensteins statement i think means that much of existence is --as you were saying ---enigmatic -- and cannot be grasped by words-----
there is much more to existence than words -- and logic can illuminate
later in his career ludwigg realized that he had failed to percieve that words have a much deeper and wider significance and function than a mere logical understanding of a given state of affairs

thats another thread
but all these words on this screen
all these words about war etc
what do they REALLY have to do with anything

philosophize and there you are right at the very edge of existence itself-- with nothing to say except


good night

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

phew
for a second there i though i was going to have to join the military to boost my self esteem

wittgensteins statement i think means that much of existence is --as you were saying ---enigmatic -- and cannot be grasped by words-----
there is much more to existence than words -- and logic can illuminate
later in his career ludwigg realized that he had failed to percieve that words have a much deeper and wider significance and function than a mere logical understanding of a given state of affairs

thats another thread
but all these words on this screen
all these words about war etc
what do they REALLY have to do with anything

philosophize and there you are right at the very edge of existence itself-- with nothing to say except


good night

"Words mean things", did Ludwig say that? Someone did, and it wasn't me.


And I said lots, don't be mean.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: Peacekeeping de-valued our military

phew
for a second there i though i was going to have to join the military to boost my self esteem

wittgensteins statement i think means that much of existence is --as you were saying ---enigmatic -- and cannot be grasped by words-----
there is much more to existence than words -- and logic can illuminate
later in his career ludwigg realized that he had failed to percieve that words have a much deeper and wider significance and function than a mere logical understanding of a given state of affairs

thats another thread
but all these words on this screen
all these words about war etc
what do they REALLY have to do with anything

philosophize and there you are right at the very edge of existence itself-- with nothing to say except


good night

"Words mean things", did Ludwig say that? Someone did, and it wasn't me.


And I said lots, don't be mean.

i didnt mean to be mean
but meant that I not you had nothng to say-- it was the general you i meant

i think it was neitche who said
existence will always transend anything that can ever be said of it

to which we can all reply-- so what.....

these philosopher are so much less scarier in the morning after weve come back from the world of the half dead and been given yet another day -- another gift of a life-day--------------------------- to mess up again

 

[Said1]

I didn't think you were mean.

Philosophy is the same, no matter what time of day, but the last quote was a little better. Doesn't require much thinking.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

[Agree, but the stigma still dogs the public of this country. I have never seen a country whos support for its missions plummet after 3 or 4 bodybags. Perhaps its because the Canadian public has not had the mission explained to them, if you would like to use that as an excuse for ignorance or stupidity?

Eureka!!The point I was trying to make exactly got lost in the shuffle of Cortez's Anti Nato proclamation. Darkbeavers conspiracy theory where in GW could orchestrate 911, but isn't capable of producing a few WMD's.

Canadians have been lied too, dumbed down as to what are military main objective is. They've been in battle before Afghanistan under the guise of Peacekeeping. So now that they're there in a combat capacity the hand wringing has begun.

NEWS FLASH!! They've been in combat since day 1. Difference is this: Your government and your CDS are telling you the truth, not what they think you want to hear.

Peacekeeping is not a bad thing on its own, but it is not the primary mission of our troops.

Get used to it Canada.
M

 

[Jersay]

Since NATO isn't a peacekeeping organization who was the idiot who coined the phraze peacekeeping for this mission.

I bet i was the damn media.

 

[Blackleaf]

I am glad to see that our troops are starting to lose the stigma that came with the blue beret. Not that I disagreed with humanitarian missions or peacekeeping, but the UN made it easier for the previous governments attempt at defanging our soldiers.

We have forgotten soldiers are employed for fighting against aggressors.

Bosnia, Rwanda and other hot spots were examples of how bureaucrats and politicians could send soldiers into war zones without deeming them actual war zones. The average Canadian equated peacekeeping to negotiators and humanitarians. This couldn't be further from the truth as Canadian soldiers were targeted, fired upon and killed. It wasn't until the Former Yugoslavia that rules of engagement had to be reconsidered.

Perhaps that is why the public seems so shocked that our soldiers are leading the way in Afghanistan. There is no false sense of security. They are truly in harms way, but doing a job they can take pride in.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The troops need our support. They are there for you and me and although they may not be peacekeepers they are doing good work.

Their success is dependent on our support. I know that many Canadians support Canada's Sons and Daughters.

Believe me when I say that they know as well.

[/b]

Man I will say this one more time slowly, I have no problem with the Canadian Armed Forces fighting agresssion but we have not again have not been attacked.

Neither were the British and French when they went to war with Germany in 1939.

For some reason, Canadians can't seem to grasp the idea of going to war WITHOUT having been attacked.

 

[Jay]

Some of us do.

 

[Blackleaf]

And Canada WAS attacked on 9/11 - something else that Canadians can't seem to get their heads around. There were multiple nationalities in the World Trade Center.

And Britain was definetely attacked because, not including Americans, more British citizens lost their lives on 9/11 than citizens from any other country.

 

[Finder]

I am glad to see that our troops are starting to lose the stigma that came with the blue beret. Not that I disagreed with humanitarian missions or peacekeeping, but the UN made it easier for the previous governments attempt at defanging our soldiers.

We have forgotten soldiers are employed for fighting against aggressors.

Bosnia, Rwanda and other hot spots were examples of how bureaucrats and politicians could send soldiers into war zones without deeming them actual war zones. The average Canadian equated peacekeeping to negotiators and humanitarians. This couldn't be further from the truth as Canadian soldiers were targeted, fired upon and killed. It wasn't until the Former Yugoslavia that rules of engagement had to be reconsidered.

Perhaps that is why the public seems so shocked that our soldiers are leading the way in Afghanistan. There is no false sense of security. They are truly in harms way, but doing a job they can take pride in.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The troops need our support. They are there for you and me and although they may not be peacekeepers they are doing good work.

Their success is dependent on our support. I know that many Canadians support Canada's Sons and Daughters.

Believe me when I say that they know as well.

[/b]

Man I will say this one more time slowly, I have no problem with the Canadian Armed Forces fighting agresssion but we have not again have not been attacked.

Neither were the British and French when they went to war with Germany in 1939.

For some reason, Canadians can't seem to grasp the idea of going to war WITHOUT having been attacked.

With all due respect you can not place either Iraq, nor Afcanistan in the same boots as Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany invaded France, and our other allied nations, Japan also bombed P.H.

Indeed if we do take what you say, Canada should be at war with the USA over an Agreesive war which is a lot more closer to What Germany did with France then anything else.

 

[vishliberal]

I am glad to see that our troops are starting to lose the stigma that came with the blue beret. Not that I disagreed with humanitarian missions or peacekeeping, but the UN made it easier for the previous governments attempt at defanging our soldiers.

We have forgotten soldiers are employed for fighting against aggressors.

Bosnia, Rwanda and other hot spots were examples of how bureaucrats and politicians could send soldiers into war zones without deeming them actual war zones. The average Canadian equated peacekeeping to negotiators and humanitarians. This couldn't be further from the truth as Canadian soldiers were targeted, fired upon and killed. It wasn't until the Former Yugoslavia that rules of engagement had to be reconsidered.

Perhaps that is why the public seems so shocked that our soldiers are leading the way in Afghanistan. There is no false sense of security. They are truly in harms way, but doing a job they can take pride in.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The troops need our support. They are there for you and me and although they may not be peacekeepers they are doing good work.

Their success is dependent on our support. I know that many Canadians support Canada's Sons and Daughters.

Believe me when I say that they know as well.

[/b]

Man I will say this one more time slowly, I have no problem with the Canadian Armed Forces fighting agresssion but we have not again have not been attacked.

Neither were the British and French when they went to war with Germany in 1939.

For some reason, Canadians can't seem to grasp the idea of going to war WITHOUT having been attacked.

With all due respect you can not place either Iraq, nor Afcanistan in the same boots as Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany invaded France, and our other allied nations, Japan also bombed P.H.

Indeed if we do take what you say, Canada should be at war with the USA over an Agreesive war which is a lot more closer to What Germany did with France then anything else.

Your right. That was a totally different situation. A more modern situation is Bush and Blair invading all these places, and whether it was secret or not, they got their share of terrorism. Some say that we were not really peacekeeping, we were actually IN combat, so the news networks must have censored all that too..makes sense. However, We WERE NOT ATTACKED. And please, the whole 9/11 attacking was not aimed at the percentage of Canadians, be rational. If they wanted bloodshed of Canadians, they would have went into Canada. Many other nationalities were attacked in the WTC, that doesnt indicate that they wanted to kill them, how would they know exactly how many Canadians were in the WTC on 9/11? The point is, if they really wanted to attack Canadians they would of went to CANADA. However, Blair and Bush sent troops to Afghan and compare what happened to them (they were attacked). If Canada was secretly involved in this war and everybody was lieing, how come we werent attacked? Thats a modern comparison. The whole World war 2 was different as it was just explained. Compare it.

 

[Said1]

There have been terrorist attacks in Ottawa, but against Turkish diplomats, hence the lack of invasion.