[EyeBrock]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

@2cdo
Please explain to me my incorrectness in my statement then. It is to my knowledge that the U.S. Military focuses there training on pure combat effectiveness. Training a lot of warriors. Specificly the Marines. The evidence for that statement is there attempts at peace keeping.

You stated your PERCIEVED differences in training, of which you have NONE of the training either country does. As far as peacekeeping, the US deployed forces to Macedonia which was a success. So much for unsuccessful US peacekeeping efforts. It was also the ONLY time US forces wore UN blue.

So you have both training than? If not than you are just being a hypocrite. A hypocrite for bashing me because I stated something about something I don't have both training in. Neither do you. So by your logic here, I shouldn't be talking about it however you shouldn't be either neither should you be bashing me or debating on the subject you apparently know nothing about for the simple fact that by your logic you diddn't train in both training aspects.

$1:

You know what they say about opinions, don't you?

No, do tell.

$1:

Nice drama queen pose. Feel free to post whatever you want but if it is pure uneducated drivel about a subject that you have no knowledge of expect to be corrected. Get used to being corrected for all your faults if you join the military, which you have expressed a desire to do. If you don't like people correcting your faults save us the time and effort and don't join the military.

Thus endith the lesson.

Thanks, I rather like it . Just a FYI, I came in here for a debate. If you thought I was wrong. Simply debate me and prove me wrong. I always expect to be corrected. I have been here long enough to know it is coming. Usually I do get it and I will stand corrected. However you and EyeBrock as of lately have not done so. You just insult me, mock me and insult me some more like we were in pre-school. If you had simply corrected my statement. I wouldn't have bothered making this post which you seem to think is over dramatic. Yet I am not the one bothering with the time insulting every post I make that you seem to be incorrect and making the subject dramatic.

When I join the military, I will accept all the faults I have. Nobody is perfect and everybody has faults so what do I care. However there is a difference between somebody correcting my faults and somebody just being plain arrogant and insulting them like you have chosen to do.

[/quote]

Oh boo hoo.

Look bacardi. If you are going to post in a thread where there are a good many well experienced military guys (vets and serving) regulary debating issues, at least get up to speed on the subjects.

Some your posts recently have been sad. The Canadians saved the UK's ass in the Battle of Britain? Oh do come on!

You post on a thread about NATO but are not sure if Germany is in NATO? This is really basic stuff.

I just think you are well out of your league. I'm sure you are a nice young chap but you 'aint cutting it on military threads.

Disengage.

[Bacardi4206]

What I find sad is that you won't leave me alone regarding any post I make regarding the military because I made a post before knowing if Germany was in NATO despite the fact my post wasn't even about Germany or the fact I saw a video of what I thought to be French Forces and stated they kicked ass in the video.

You choose to come to every military post I make and respond with I am not credible because of them. So exactly how would you know if I attempted to get up to speed if you won't even get your head of your ass and leave my comments alone with the same old insults?

You are right when it comes to military, I am not up to speed as those serving in the military or those who are vets. That is obvious. However just because I am not either a active serving soldier or a vet doesn't give you the right to disclude me from the conversation/debate on all military subjects.

[EyeBrock]

Nope, but you have made frequent silly posts on military threads.

Don't get all huffy! If you join the mob, you will get way worse ribbing than this.

I'd just ensure that you research your opinions before you post. And make sure your research isn't off youtube or a wiki site.

Oh and supporting deserters kind of detracts away even further from your credibility.

Quick guide:

Deserters = bad news

Youtube vids = not great research tools

Getting very huffy = infantile


And the Royal Air Force thank the RCAF for their help in 1940, much appreciated.

[Bacardi4206]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Nope, but you have made frequent silly posts on military threads.

Don't get all huffy! If you join the mob, you will get way worse ribbing than this.

I'd just ensure that you research your opinions before you post. And make sure your research isn't off youtube or a wiki site.

Oh and supporting deserters kind of detracts away even further from your credibility.

Quick guide:

Deserters = bad news

Youtube vids = not great research tools

Getting very huffy = infantile


And the Royal Air Force thank the RCAF for their help in 1940, much appreciated.

No, from what you have stated. I have made posted that were not properly researched before I stated my opinion. I know for a fact I am not the first person to do that in this forums or in a military debate for that matter. However you took a couple posts of mine you thought were unfounded and choose to run me off every single military topic because of them. Because I made unfounded posts in your opinion may subject me to be be un-credible in your opinion but I already explained to you that I diddn't care. You made your point that you found me to not be credible. I got that from the first time you said it however every post I make I make in the military section. Including topics that don't require evidence as it's already laid on the table. Just opinions you choose to respond to every one of them with the same old insult and comment.

Supporting ONE deserter doesn't make me not credible. I also don't get my opinions from youtube links or wiki. I talked about ONE LiveLeak video of what I believed to be French Forces and simply stated they appeared in the video to kick ass and know what they were doing. Never have I made statements or facts based on a youtube video.

[bootlegga]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

DerbyX DerbyX:

gonavy47 gonavy47:

AND our peacekeeping deployments waned because of the liberal policy of having a weak military!!! You just contradicted your whole argument about not having a strong military.

Blah blah blah. The military decreased and suffered under the PCs and increased under Martins Liberals and its been Harper breaking key military promises.

You are full of shit. Do you actually believe that statement?

Do you actually believe otherwise?

Mulroney promisedin his 1987 White paper: 8-12 nuke subs, 1 heavy class icebreaker, 400 new MBTs, Arctic APCs, 18 frigates (instead of the 6 Trudeau ordered) and an increase in personnel to 90,000. What did we get?

12 frigates and EVERYTHING else cancelled. Then before he left office, he sold our Chinooks, began to cut personnel, starting the slide to 60,000.

$1:

Before the ink was dry on their 1987 white paper, the Conservatives started to cancel the projected purchases. The tanks, nuclear subs and northern-terrain vehicles were cut completely. Six of the new frigates were dropped from the list and three of the helicopter purchases were rolled into one fleet. As for the manpower, it was the Conservatives who made the initial cuts from an establishment of 90,000 down to 60,000.

Soldiers considered surplus were offered large cash incentives to take early retirement and that rapid, poorly planned exodus of experienced personnel continues to plague present-day forces. It was in 1991, under the Conservatives, that the vice chief of defence staff resigned because the course the Defence Department had plotted would result in "a decade of darkness."

The 1992 Somalia incident, involving the murder and coverup of a Somali boy by members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, occurred on the Conservative watch. It would be irresponsible to blame that whole mess and the subsequent leadership crisis that rocked the Canadian Forces through the mid-90s on the Liberals.

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/index.php?o ... &Itemid=80

The only truly honest critique of defence spending is that they have been ignored and short-changed by every government since Pearson until the 9/11. It wasn't until after 9/11 that defence spending increased. Even Harper's much lauded spending isn't all that much more than Martin promised when he ran the Liberals.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Like I said you have to go back to when Pearson won the Nobel Prize. I also said our respect or at least our influence waned as our peacekeeping deployments did.

Pearson, once again, won a Nobel Prize when NOT only we were conducting Peacekeeping efforts, but also when we had a military force to back up peacekeeping efforts. Peacekeeping efforts by Canada in the 90s show how little peacekeeping achieves if you don't have hard, military power.

I'd argue that there were successes, like in Bosnia and Kosovo (and yes, Kosovo was backed by military power). Somalia was a failure more because of lack of political will than the scandal the CAR created.

The key to peacekeeping success is almost always political will. If we have the backbone to stay long enough to effect change, then change will happen, if not, we abandon the mission and failed states become even worse problems (like Somalia is now).

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

They definately are making more money but their no closer to a government that is representative of the people. I doubt the families of the thousand kids who were recently found with dangerously high lead levels would agree with their unbridled and unrestrained growth.

That statement shows your lack of knowledge about Chinese people.

They care far more about being able to feed their children and live in decent housing than worrying about which corrupt leader is governing them (which has been the case pretty much as long as China has existed). That doesn't make it right (corrupt governments), but as I said previously, it's not up to you or me to force democracy on them, that is for them to decide.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The key to peacekeeping success is...

...being willing to do what it takes to establish peace.

Just my humble opinion, but too much consideration is given to focusing military operations on 'peace making' which, honestly, is what happens after the war part is done.

And sending in the military and trying to skip the war part where you put down the guys who are disturbing the peace in order to get to the peace part is planning to fail.

My path to peace is as follows:

1. Kill the bad guys.
2. Make sure they're dead.
3. Now keep the peace.

[gonavy47]

Bootlegga: Nice quote from Esprit De Corps magazine. You however failed to mention; years of neglect for the military before Mulroney came to power. The fact that before the rearming plan could be implemented, the Soviet Union collapsed, thus ending the immediate threat, and to top it off there was a world-wide recession. Just a couple of facts to set the record straight. These weren't liberal plans that were cancelled, in fact the liberal naval plan was doubled by the conservatives. Nice try though.

[Akhenaten]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The key to peacekeeping success is almost always political will.

Well it's not that I'm going to say this is wrong but it's inaccurate. Peacekeeping doesn't enter into it. Any military venture that is going to involve prolonged combat can be lost ONLY 2 ways, and usually only one of them: Lack of firepower or lack of political will power as you point out. For example if Afghanistan is lost (like Vietnam) it won't be due to a lack of fire power but rather a lack of political will.

You mention Bosnia and it's a real stretch to call this a peacekeeping mission that worked. It was a peacekeeping mission that was failing miserably until NATO got on board and started running things in a very peace-making fashion. You must agree that there is a difference between peace-making and peace-keeping? After all that's the old debate. For one, there must first be peace before it can be kept (which in of itself occasionally makes peacekeeping superfluous considering both parties have already agreed to peace). But when you look at the peace-making in Bosnia and decide just to still call it peacekeeping you're only lying to yourself as the whole Bosnia experience definitely speaks to those who have always advocated peacemaking over the inherently problematic mission of peacekeeping.

In the old debate of peacemaking vs peacekeeping Bosnia definitely speaks to the former argument and any refusal to accept that is just a refusal to accept reality, imo. IN other words those who have always advocated peacekeeping OVER peacemaking are just forcing the reality to fit their vision when they claim Bosnia was a peacemaking success.

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

My path to peace is as follows:

1. Kill the bad guys.
2. Make sure they're dead.
3. Now keep the peace.

Problem is identifying who the bad guys are.

[ridenrain]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ridenrain ridenrain:

They definately are making more money but their no closer to a government that is representative of the people. I doubt the families of the thousand kids who were recently found with dangerously high lead levels would agree with their unbridled and unrestrained growth.

That statement shows your lack of knowledge about Chinese people.

...

Must be some other China:

$1:

Further anti-pollution riots break out in China
Riots continue as China's pollution controls fail keep up with economic development as China's minister acknowledges that 'environmental quality is not satisfactory'

China's pollution controls have failed to keep pace with economic development, the country's environment minister has admitted as details emerged of another riot sparked by fears of industrial contamination.

In at least the third clash in as many weeks, 2,000 riot police fired tear gas and warning shots during a violent confrontation with anti-pollution protesters near an industrial plant in Quanzhou, Fujian Province.

The demonstrators destroyed cars, threw stones at police and took an official hostage last weekend in an attempt to sabotage a tannery and chemical plant that they blamed for a foul stench and high rates of cancer. Tensions have risen as the smell has worsened, locals said.

According to the local government, the "rioters" badly beat four chemical factory employees, the chief of the nearby Chengping village and at least one policeman during sporadic fighting over the past week.

The authorities said the hostages have been freed and calm has been restored, but locals told the Guardian that at least 100 protestors were still blocking access to the plant.

"Don't believe what the government is saying," a resident named Zhang said by telephone.

Images posted anonymously online showed upturned cars and long ranks of police carrying shields and batons.

On a local government website, the odour problem is blamed on a broken pipe at the Quangang Urban Sewage Plant.

But residents said the facility, built about three years ago, discharged industrial waste that polluted the sea shore and threatened the health and incomes of local people.

"The stench is awful," said a man, who gave only the surname Liu. "Nobody wants to buy our fish. We can't earn money. The fishing boats have been abandoned on the shore."

Calls to government offices in Quanzhou rang unanswered today.

Earlier in the week, the state-run Straits Metropolitan News, blamed "unlawful elements" for the trouble, but it said only 200 protesters were involved.

The clash in Fujian follows recent disturbances in Shaanxi and Hunan provinces, which has led to the arrest of 15 people, say authorities. That unrest had been sparked by the lead poisoning of more than 2,000 children.

The government has acknowledged that it needs to do more to allay environmental health fears.

"Environmental quality is not satisfactory and environmental protection work is arduous," environmental protection minister Zhou Shengxian told the People's Daily.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... riot-china

Thank goodness their not covered under Kyoto eh?

[bootlegga]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Bootlegga: Nice quote from Esprit De Corps magazine. You however failed to mention; years of neglect for the military before Mulroney came to power. The fact that before the rearming plan could be implemented, the Soviet Union collapsed, thus ending the immediate threat, and to top it off there was a world-wide recession. Just a couple of facts to set the record straight. These weren't liberal plans that were cancelled, in fact the liberal naval plan was doubled by the conservatives. Nice try though.

Let me highlight what I said for you...

$1:

The only truly honest critique of defence spending is that they have been ignored and short-changed by every government since Pearson until the 9/11.

Now, if you have any inkling of Canadian history, you'd know I called out the Liberals with that too. But the fact is that Mulroney really started the post Cold War slide into military irrelevance, not the Liberals as is so often thought. I fully admit Chretien continued it with his budget cuts, but the fact is that Mulroney rang up $20-30 billion deficits annually and didn't spend a dime on the CF, while Chretien had to eliminate that deficit (by making cuts in every department, not just defence). To me that is far worse, as the money was available, Mulroney simply choose to spend it on pork barrelling and other BS, instead of doing something positive in the defence portfolio.

Now if you want to go back in history look at the systems that those awful Liberals bought and compare them to those the Conservatives bought, you'll see almost every big ticket item (and lots of little ones) were bought by the Liberals, not the PC/Conservatives.

Here's just a sample (merely going back to the 70s);

Liberals bought the Leopard tank, CF-18, 6 Halifax Frigates, MLVWs, the entire LAV fleet (Coyotes, Bison, etc), Victoria SSKs (a really bad decision BTW), 12 MCDVs, Aurora and Arcturus patrol aircraft, M-577 howitzer, G-Wagens, Nyalas, the C-7 rifle (and its variants), and so on.

The PC/Conservatives bought 6 Halifax frigates, Leopard IIs, six CH-47ds and C-17s. (This is admittedly much shorter than it should be, but I honestly can't remember any big ticket items either party has added while in office - and I'm talking paid for and deployed, not promised). Feel free to add in anything else you can remember.

Oh, and BTW, the PCs started the move to close our bases in Germany (which was one of the biggest reasons for our huge drop in our military profile abroad) and MacKay recently cancelled upgrades to eight Auroras (cutting our fleet to 10 from 18).

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

bootlegga bootlegga:

ridenrain ridenrain:

They definately are making more money but their no closer to a government that is representative of the people. I doubt the families of the thousand kids who were recently found with dangerously high lead levels would agree with their unbridled and unrestrained growth.

That statement shows your lack of knowledge about Chinese people.

...

Must be some other China:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... riot-china

Thank goodness their not covered under Kyoto eh?

Yes, Chinese are concerned with pollution, water quality, corruption and so on, but overall Chinese citizens are happy with the direction their country is taking.

$1:

With more than eight-in-ten having a positive view of both, China ranks number one among 24 countries on both measures in the 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center's Pew Global Attitudes Project. These findings represent a dramatic improvement in national contentment from earlier in the decade when the Chinese people were not nearly as positive about the course of their nation and its economy.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=261

Of course, this was done last year when the economy was booming, but that probably wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the results...

[gonavy47]

bootlegga bootlegga:

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Bootlegga: Nice quote from Esprit De Corps magazine. You however failed to mention; years of neglect for the military before Mulroney came to power. The fact that before the rearming plan could be implemented, the Soviet Union collapsed, thus ending the immediate threat, and to top it off there was a world-wide recession. Just a couple of facts to set the record straight. These weren't liberal plans that were cancelled, in fact the liberal naval plan was doubled by the conservatives. Nice try though.

Let me highlight what I said for you...

$1:

The only truly honest critique of defence spending is that they have been ignored and short-changed by every government since Pearson until the 9/11.

Now, if you have any inkling of Canadian history, you'd know I called out the Liberals with that too. But the fact is that Mulroney really started the post Cold War slide into military irrelevance, not the Liberals as is so often thought. I fully admit Chretien continued it with his budget cuts, but the fact is that Mulroney rang up $20-30 billion deficits annually and didn't spend a dime on the CF, while Chretien had to eliminate that deficit (by making cuts in every department, not just defence). To me that is far worse, as the money was available, Mulroney simply choose to spend it on pork barrelling and other BS, instead of doing something positive in the defence portfolio.

Now if you want to go back in history look at the systems that those awful Liberals bought and compare them to those the Conservatives bought, you'll see almost every big ticket item (and lots of little ones) were bought by the Liberals, not the PC/Conservatives.

Here's just a sample (merely going back to the 70s);

Liberals bought the Leopard tank, CF-18, 6 Halifax Frigates, MLVWs, the entire LAV fleet (Coyotes, Bison, etc), Victoria SSKs (a really bad decision BTW), 12 MCDVs, Aurora and Arcturus patrol aircraft, M-577 howitzer, G-Wagens, Nyalas, the C-7 rifle (and its variants), and so on.

The PC/Conservatives bought 6 Halifax frigates, Leopard IIs, six CH-47ds and C-17s. (This is admittedly much shorter than it should be, but I honestly can't remember any big ticket items either party has added while in office - and I'm talking paid for and deployed, not promised). Feel free to add in anything else you can remember.

Oh, and BTW, the PCs started the move to close our bases in Germany (which was one of the biggest reasons for our huge drop in our military profile abroad) and MacKay recently cancelled upgrades to eight Auroras (cutting our fleet to 10 from 18).

Oh I have quite the inkling of Canadian history, especially military, having served for 35 years and counting. What you failed to mention is that liberal governments had roughly a 3 to 1 timeframe in which to keep up the military, and although they bought your great list of equipment, it wasn't enough and it was usually a kneejerk reaction to a crisis. Armoured vehicles for instance. Any government that would send personnel into a war zone driving Iltis vehicles is negligent in the least.