[WarHawk]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

$1:

dgthe3 wrote:
Ok, that link doesn't help to explain why you mentioned them in responce to large armies facing each other.

Well, being the largest empire in the history of mankind you'd think they would have to wouldn't you say?

No. If you knew how the empire grew and opperated, then it wouldn't. In fact, the opposite could be more true. If you have such a large empire, then all you can enforce are general guidelines for what the population should do. By having very strict punishment, people follow those rules better. They expanded by roving from place to place, saying that they are in charge, and moved on, leaving behind destruction and the aformentioned rules.

I said i didn't know much of the Mongolian Empire, i did know how they ruled China, and the link you provided drew me to the conclusions you see above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongols#Mi ... innovation

It wasn't quite the way you described. They employed superior tatics on the battlefield that allowed them to defeat their enemies. Your claim that only the west had large armies face each other is ludicrous.

$1:

As far as my point on the arms race goes, there was talk of building an army to prevent conflict, i said that it could contribute to another large war. I made no mention of Canada in that post.

But the discussion is about Canada rebuilding her military.

[Canadaka]

I am not taking sides, I am pretty open towards this topic, the peacekeeping stance was just an idea, probably my prefered one, but im not against you.

But i do see the Canadian militaries main role outside defending our own Nation as international peace keepers. thats what made Canada respected in the previous decades.

$1:

“I am Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my
own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what
I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my
country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself
and all mankind.”
-Prime Minister
John G. Deifenbaker
July 1, 1960

[dgthe3]

That about says it all, doesn't it? It is my desktop background, has been for a month or two.

[fred22]

All those things were bought and paid for with the blood of our young men wearing a uniform and killing our enemies. that is the way the world is for now. Someday it may change but until it does we need the regiments. We did not peacekeep at Vimy Ridge, Juno beach or Kap Yong Son. We kicked ass and took names. that is the price of freedom. The canadian soldier when well led and well equipped is a smart feroscious bastard feared by his enemies. I for one celebrate our military heritage and honour those past and present willing to fight and if necessary die for those fine words you quoted.
Cheers
fred

[dgthe3]

$1:

The canadian soldier when well led and well equipped is a smart feroscious bastard feared by his enemies

He was a smart feroscious bastard feared by his enemies when he wasn't well led or well equiped. He would be unstopable if he were.

[SprCForr]

I wonder why it is distasteful to so many Canadians that we have a military with a pretty darn good reputation and history. "We are peacekeepers!" they say, not realizing that effective peacekeeping requires highly trained, motivated soldiers. Why is most everyones head in the sand about this? Is it wishful thinking at work here? Or we just don't want to acknowledge the darker side of life on this planet? Or is our government reflecting a degree of cowardice we possess at a national level? I really wonder some days.

We say we are behind the men and women in uniform but the results of the last couple of decades say otherwise. We should take pride in the fact we are willing to fight to ensure people are treated with common decency, respect and are free. When the time comes (and it will come, people haven't evolved that far yet) we should be be amongst the first to fight, like before. No whining, no bitching, just roll up our sleeves and get at it. Like we did before. What's so wrong with that?

[Tiresias]

SprCForr SprCForr:

When the time comes (and it will come, people haven't evolved that far yet) we should be amongst the first to fight, like before. No whining, no bitching, just roll up our sleeves and get at it. Like we did before. What's so wrong with that?

I take great pride in our military's peacekeeping and disaster relief role, I refuse to look at the darker side war, and it is my personal choice to stick my head in the sand. I do so because I am truly scared that if it were ever necessary for Canada restart its war machine, it wouldn't matter anyways.

If we ever had to resort to Clausewitz's concept of total war, we would all be dead. With one tank for every person, it would still take one nuke to level Toronto. It would still take a couple idealists to level a downtown building, and just one to keep a country living in fear. Two bombs killed one hundred thousand people, August 1945, and -- for me -- the idea that Canada could ever win in total war.

The reserves are finally taking one step out of the WWII mindset through the LFRR, though it is still not enough. I am inclined to believe that peacekeeping, disaster relief, search & rescue, etc. should be its primary role. I question the argument that "it takes man willing to blindly massacre the Enemy" to be a valued member of the military. I am willing to bet that there are many more out there willing to lay down their lives for peacekeeping than politicians.

This could have the added benefit of fixing the enrolment and attrition problems that plague our current reserves, and besides, if Big Brother ever wanted to, he could call each and every one of us to do his deeds -- peacekeeper or not.

[hormel26c]

At the risk of blowing the ship's Inmarsat bill.... I agree with SprCForr. Inversely, I find myself shaking my head Tiresias' post.

Firstly, you don't get peacekeepers from anything other than a warfighting army... period. The troops must be combat capable or they do not meet the need. They must possess the skills, equipment and attitude to engage in full combat action or the presence of such troops becomes ineffective.

Secondly, we've been in Clauswitz's definition of total war, or has WWII been lost on you?

Thirdly... Toronto was never and never will be a nuclear target. Why waste a MIRV warhead on a useless target. Vancouver was 2nd on the Soviet list of target centers in North America for very obvious reasons. (You need a strategic mind here).

Last... for all the respect I have for reservists, they do not constitute the immediate frontline armed forces of this country and I regret to say would be little more than targets in a "hot" combat environment. I do not mean to denigrate the contribution made by those dedicated individuals, but baby, when you're counting boots on the ground you have to look to see who's there for the university tuition and who's there 24/7 365.

Chosing to "not" look at the darker side of war or human nature is typically Canadian. Living in paradise will do that to you. Step outside... it's really shitty out there.

[dgthe3]

In regars to your nuclear taget list, i heard that there were three aimed at Toronto: one at the city centre, one at the airport, and i foget exactly where the third was. And why was Vancover so high up, just out of curiosity?I mean, Washington DC was number one, but i don't see much Strategic value in Vancover except that it is Canada's western shipping port. But it would make more sense to hit San Diego which is a bigger port and is in the US.

[Rev_Blair]

Vancouver has a large port and is closer to the USSR than any other port its size, dgthe3. It can move troops as well as supplies. It is also a relatively important financial centre now, giving it some secondary importance as well.

Total war now is not the same as total war was in WWII, hormel. Nobody had nukes until the end of WWII. Even without nukes the technologies have moved on to the point where total war could ruin the earth for any sort of reasonable habitation. Think about it...depleted uranium, advanced biological and chemical warfare, powerful defoliants (look at the birth defects in Vietnam). We can destroy ourselves quite effeiciently with anybody ever setting off a nuke.

Do peace keepers need to be trained in warfare? Yes. Should that be their primary reason for existing? No. The UN has been pushing to be able to send peace makers for a while now. The have consistently been limited by the Security Council...I don't have to list the 5 permanent members or who uses vetoes to cover their assets the most, do I? Everybody likes to blame the UN for things like Rwanda, but we all know who was opposing allowing Dallaire to do any more, don't we?

[Guest]

Hi folks,
I am afraid the peacekeeping emphasis is not real. peacekeepers when on the ground engage in patrols where people shoot at them on ocasion and they should know how to shoot back. It is the Un's shitty rules of engagement, confusing directives and complete lack of spine that led to things like the debacle in rhuanda and the srebenica massacre. If you put soldiers in an environment where lots of people are prepared and are making war you better know how to play the game. I am not aginst the idea of peacekeeping but in order to do it well you must pocess excellant soldiers skills.
the arguement we need no warfighting skills becuase of nukes is just off the mark. war comes in many sizes from low scale counterinsurgancy style conflicts to peacemaking not keeping. nuclear wepaons by their very lethality just sit in holes and no has used them for obvious reasons. if we are to defend our soverieignity or those of threatenned allies we need skilled soldiers. these men by virtue of their skills can help in secondary roles like disaster relief but the world is still a dangerous place.
I like the idea of the UN but the execution has been piss poor on many ocasions. The former yugoslavia is a case study in how not deploy men in a war torn country. It was only the courage and professionalism of the underequipped and decidely small focres that kept it from being a disaster.
Hormel with all due respect sir i dsagree about the resrves. The pointy end of many deployments overseas especially the rifles are being fleshed twenty to thirty percent with reservists. look at medak pocket where almost half of the infantry were reservists. this points to the potential of the reserves and if they were run properly they would do more.
Cheers
fred

[Gunbunny]

keep your head in the sand and when it comes to the real world please step back cause things are not all sunshine and lolypops. I've said this once and think you should think this one through. Soldiers can be peace keepers, but peace keepers cannot be peacemakers, both are necesary in creating "PEACE"