# Canada's Shame



## Hunter368 (Oct 18, 2007)

Canada is having a hard time recruiting enough troops for its armed forces. Despite aggressive recruiting over the last four years (which brought in 20,000 new troops), there was a net gain of only 700 in the force of 56,000. Compared to the United States (which has ten times the population), Canada has only about half as many troops, per capita, on active duty. Yet the United States, despite being at war, is able to keep their force up to strength. 

The Canadian problem is political, and cultural. While the Canadian armed forces earned a reputation as tough and effective soldiers during the two World Wars and Korea, the country became less enthusiastic about supporting their military during the last few decades. This has reached the point where the armed forces feels resented and unwanted. Budgets were cut so much that Canada is a generation or more behind the United States in many categories of weapons and equipment. 

Canadian army troops have gotten a lot of work on peacekeeping missions, and saw combat in the 1991 Gulf War and Afghanistan, where they distinguished themselves. But for all that, the troops do not feel respected or appreciated in their own country, and this appears to be reflected in the recruiting numbers. Canada wants to increase military manpower 23 percent, but some new ideas, policies and attitudes will be need to carry that out. Conscription is not an option, as Canada has never used it in peacetime, and implemented it only with difficulty in wartime.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 18, 2007)

They also saw combat in Bosnia


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 19, 2007)

I haven't met too many Canadians, but I bet they are good fellows, like the ones on here.

Are you happy though, that Canada's soldiers are not in Iraq?


----------



## Instal (Oct 19, 2007)

Yes but only because there was no plan of how or when to get out. Had there been such a plan I think we should have gone as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2007)

I used to fly with a Canadian in the US Army. He served with me in Germany, Kosovo and Iraq and is now an Apache Pilot. Good guy and good friend. He said he joined the US Army because he wanted to be in a "real" military and actually do something.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I used to fly with a Canadian in the US Army. He served with me in Germany, Kosovo and Iraq and is now an Apache Pilot. Good guy and good friend. He said he joined the US Army because he wanted to be in a "real" military and actually do something.



That's funny I have a buddy, CH-53E driver, in the USMC that left Canada to join our military.


----------



## timshatz (Oct 19, 2007)

There are a fair number of foriegn born in our military, at least there were when I was in. Had a number of Australian, Canadian and NZ types in the Navy back in the early 80s, some of them with experience in their miltary.


----------



## Hunter368 (Oct 19, 2007)

I neighbor of mine, their son serves in the US Army.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 19, 2007)

timshatz said:


> There are a fair number of foriegn born in our military, at least there were when I was in. Had a number of Australian, Canadian and NZ types in the Navy back in the early 80s, some of them with experience in their miltary.



For sure - However, it is slightly different though when someone leaves their homeland specifically to join the US military.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 19, 2007)

Rather telling isn't it. How many Americans do you read about leaving the US to fight in foreign militaries? Certainly there are examples. But I ask the question in seriousness. I really do wonder.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2007)

Lots of Americans have come to canada to fight and many stayed. Look at the Eagle Squadrons most of them came through the RCAF . Some of your better pilots like Gentile, Hofer, Blakesee were all members of the RCAF. in the neighbourhood of 35000


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2007)

You will not find many Americans serving in a foriegn military today.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2007)

I would take their citizenship away cuz they sure ain't Canadian


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 19, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> I neighbor of mine, their son serves in the US Army.



Why? Better chance to see action? Better benefits?

.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Why? Better chance to see action? Better benefits?
> 
> .


Better toys and better chance of action your guys are paid less then ours


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2007)

Really are you sure about that? I am not saying you are wrong but the pay in the US Army sure as hell aint bad. As an E-5 who was married and on flight status I recieved a little over $2,000 every 2 weeks. Thats after taxes and that aint bad...

You guys may make more but I believe once your taxes come out you see less than our guys see because we pay less taxes. Just a theory of mine, correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Really are you sure about that? I am not saying you are wrong but the pay in the US Army sure as hell aint bad. As an E-5 who was married and on flight status I recieved a little over $2,000 every 2 weeks. Thats after taxes and that aint bad...
> 
> You guys may make more but I believe once your taxes come out you see less than our guys see because we pay less taxes. Just a theory of mine, correct me if I am wrong.


 but thats about 5600canadian 5900us a month and it doesn't matter if your single or married thats the equivilant e5 with flight pay
Regular Force Non Commissioned Members (NCM) Rates


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2007)

Actually if you look at it, you dont really make more than the US Army.

I just checked out your Army's website and they have a link to the pay rates.

An E-5 makes 4797 Canadian Dollars which equals with todays exchange rate 4966 US Dollars. Average Federal Income Tax is 22 Percent which comes to a deduction of 1055 Canadian Dollars which comes out to a monthly salary of 3741 Canadian Dollars which equals 3873 US Dollars.

You guys are payed every 2 weeks as well which comes out to a salary of aprox: 1870.50 Canadian Dollars which equals to 1936.64 US Dollars. After taxes as I said I saw on average 2183 US Dollars which comes to 2108 Canadian Dollars and a monthly salary of 4366 US Dollars or 4216 Canadian Dollars.


----------



## Maestro (Oct 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I used to fly with a Canadian in the US Army. He served with me in Germany, Kosovo and Iraq and is now an Apache Pilot. Good guy and good friend. He said he joined the US Army because he wanted to be in a "real" military and actually do something.



Ah... You are so right. A few factors can explain that...

1a - Our politicians (since the end of the War of Korea) let down the army, cutting down it's budget every year. For that reason, we are about 30 years behind the US army on the technology side.

1b - Not only are we late on technology, but the equipment we already have is in bad shape... very bad shape. F-18s are rusty and falling apart, Sea Kings can't stay in the air, submarines catch fire... I once saw a Canadian tank with a cookie plate underneath to prevent oil from falling on the floor of the show room. There is also the malfunctionning weapons... Remember that anti-tank rocket ? You want me to use one of those ? No f*cking way !

2 - Actually, some (not all, fortunatly) of our commanding officers are brainwashed freaks (a little like De Gaulle was), running away when the bullets start to fly. The best example being General Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian commander of the peace keeping force in Rwanda, who let ten of his men (mostly, if not all of them, Belgians) being slaughtered there. Those poor blokes fought off the rebels as long as they could but had to surrender when they ran out of ammunitions. They were then beaten up to death with shovels and pickaxes. Making Dallaire look like a coward to the Belgians but was threated like a hero by our politicians (being awarded the Order of Canada and appointed as a senator).

3 - Most of the guys (and gals) enlisting in the Canadian army today (I know some of them personnally), go there to "travel around the world" or to "help peoples who need it". They forgot the main point of being a soldier : killing. Basically, a soldier is a killer hired by a country to fight off an other one. This is very disturbing... because you don't know if the soldier next to you is one of them. Breaking down in tears as soon as someone starts shooting at them. Would you like to sit beside one of those ? Certainly not me !

*Rule 1 :* If you wanna travel around the world, enlist in Air Canada. *Not in the Canadian Army !*

*Rule 2 :* If you wanna help peoples who need it, enlist in the Salvation Army. *Not in the Canadian Army !*

That's the main reasons why I won't enlist in the Canadian Army unless I'm forced to.

Hey ! I got an idea ! Why not combine the US and Canadian Army ? The Canadian Army could become a kind of National Guard like the US have in some states.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 19, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually if you look at it, you dont really make more than the US Army.
> 
> I just checked out your Army's website and they have a link to the pay rates.
> 
> ...


 you might make e5 in less then 4 years but you'd have to be exceptional at which point thats a spec 2 with flight pay for another 300 not that anyone would be aircrew enlisted in that short period of time. Most of the FE's were about 10years in before they reached that plateau .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> you might make e5 in less then 4 years but you'd have to be exceptional at which point thats a spec 2 with flight pay for another 300 not that anyone would be aircrew enlisted in that short period of time. Most of the FE's were about 10years in before they reached that plateau .




Took me 5 years to make E-5.

The pay that I showed you for the Canadian Army was for E-5 as well.

Why do most Crew Chiefs have 10 years of experience before they can begin to fly? I think that is rather odd, because if you are good at your job and learn well there is no reason for you to have to wait that long. In my opinion it is a waist of a good flight engineer. I only had about 4 months experience before I started flying and I learned more as a Mechanic as a Crew Chief than I did in the Maintenance Company.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 20, 2007)

Making E5 in the CAF is agiven after 4 years but it is not a supervisory position in any way , you'd have be 5b or better to get to flight status if yoy were to achieve that in the Air Trades in 5 years your pretty much walking on water. A pongoe climbs the ranks at a faster rate. 
Maestro whats wrong didn't the CAF accept you is that why your bitter or didn't you get your ration of smegma from your buddy today


----------



## Instal (Oct 21, 2007)

Maestro said:


> Ah... You are so right. A few factors can explain that...
> 
> 1a - Our politicians (since the end of the War of Korea) let down the army, cutting down it's budget every year. For that reason, we are about 30 years behind the US army on the technology side.
> 
> ...



Wow that is a pretty harsh statement. You are as much as calling our troops cowards. I wonder if you would be brave enough to say that to one of them to thier face. I don't think anyone knows how they will react once under fire and there are many different motivations to join any army. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a statement.


----------



## Maestro (Oct 21, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Maestro whats wrong didn't the CAF accept you is that why your bitter or didn't you get your ration of smegma from your buddy today



Uh ? I thought YOU were the blowjob ace around here... I never saw a more "brainwashed high-ranking officer's c*ck sucker" than you. You swallow everything the High Command tells you. But hey, you have the right to have your own opinion too...


----------



## Maestro (Oct 21, 2007)

Instal said:


> Wow that is a pretty harsh statement. You are as much as calling our troops cowards. I wonder if you would be brave enough to say that to one of them to thier face. I don't think anyone knows how they will react once under fire and there are many different motivations to join any army. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a statement.



No, no, no... Read carefully. Points 3 and 4 are only concerning a minority of the staff. And I clearly state it. The rookies (the ones that never saw combat before) are the worst. Why do you think the army got so many soldiers on the "Gulf War syndroma" (basically, a kind of nervous breakdown, for the ones who don't know what I'm talking about) ? Because those kids were not expecting to see brother-in-arms getting killed. But that's war : peoples get killed on both sides.

I remember of a girl in high school... We were talking of the "deal" the army was giving... "We pay your studies in whatever subject you want and you serve a minimum of 5 years for us." She thought it wasn't fair...

"It means that if there is a war within those 5 years, you'll have to go at war ? It's unfair !"

The teacher replied : "Hey ! That's the Canadian Army, *not the Salvation Army*."

I just say what seems to be the truth from the eyes of a non-soldier. Now, if you're too blind to see it...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Making E5 in the CAF is agiven after 4 years but it is not a supervisory position in any way , you'd have be 5b or better to get to flight status if yoy were to achieve that in the Air Trades in 5 years your pretty much walking on water. A pongoe climbs the ranks at a faster rate.



For us getting promoted to E-4 is a given. It just happens with time and grade. E-5 being a supervisory position you have to have time in grade, time in service, experience and you have to go to boards and fullfill certain tasks and gain promotion points.

There is no rank requirment to obtain flight status because you are selected by the flight companies and they do your training. It is not like they go "Hey you are in a flight slot, here is flight suit and flight gear. Now go fly!" 

You are selected and then you go through training with Flight Instructers (Crew Chief Trainers) and Instructer Pilots until they decide you are fit to be on your own.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 21, 2007)

Maestro said:


> No, no, no... Read carefully. Points 3 and 4 are only concerning a minority of the staff. And I clearly state it. The rookies (the ones that never saw combat before) are the worst. Why do you think the army got so many soldiers on the "Gulf War syndroma" (basically, a kind of nervous breakdown, for the ones who don't know what I'm talking about) ? Because those kids were not expecting to see brother-in-arms getting killed. But that's war : peoples get killed on both sides.



Maestro unless you have been to combat you are unqualified to say what you just said. I have seen better men than me crumble under the pressure and fear of combat.

Each man (or woman now) reacts to fire in a different way especially when they see there friends turned into a bloody mess. Hell I cried a bit when I had this girls blood all over my flight suit one night. I pulled it together and did my job and did it well but not everyone can be expected to do so.

You dont know how you will be until you are in it.

Now as for your blowjob cocksucking comments up there. pB gave you a jab and you had every right to jab back at him but come on that was a bit uncalled for.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> For us getting promoted to E-4 is a given. It just happens with time and grade. E-5 being a supervisory position you have to have time in grade, time in service, experience and you have to go to boards and fullfill certain tasks and gain promotion points.
> 
> There is no rank requirment to obtain flight status because you are selected by the flight companies and they do your training. It is not like they go "Hey you are in a flight slot, here is flight suit and flight gear. Now go fly!"
> 
> You are selected and then you go through training with Flight Instructers (Crew Chief Trainers) and Instructer Pilots until they decide you are fit to be on your own.


Over here it was you had to be totally trade qualified and then you would get a course that would move you into flight engineer that would cross train with to other trades relative to the aircraft


----------



## mkloby (Oct 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There is no rank requirment to obtain flight status because you are selected by the flight companies and they do your training. It is not like they go "Hey you are in a flight slot, here is flight suit and flight gear. Now go fly!"



Hey - that's how they recruit us pilots 

Being a primary flight instructor must be hilarious because we're all so stupid at that stage.


----------



## majorwoody10 (Oct 25, 2007)

canadian troops have always aquitted themselves well and im glad they have always been allies for the last century or so ...why is the canadian public going hippie on their gallant military tradition ? we had a bout of it after the vietnam era ,but after grenada and gulf one its been pretty positive ,. is canadian public dissafection connected to our own post viet nam miasma ?


----------



## Instal (Oct 27, 2007)

majorwoody10 said:


> canadian troops have always aquitted themselves well and im glad they have always been allies for the last century or so ...why is the canadian public going hippie on their gallant military tradition ? we had a bout of it after the vietnam era ,but after grenada and gulf one its been pretty positive ,. is canadian public dissafection connected to our own post viet nam miasma ?



In a way I think you are right. After Nam in the States it was primarily the youth that was anti military. I think the same thing is happening here but not for the same reason. The general attitude in this country is stay out of the problems of the world and let them sort it out themselves. History dictates that this never works but there are no conflicts fresh enough in the minds of Canadians to remind them that we MUST intervene where there is evil. We MUST come to the aid of the opressed or everyone suffers. When things are good at home people tend to put blinders on and not want to face the ugliness in the world. It is then that evil has the opportunity to strike. The price of freedom is never paid in full and it astounds me that every generation has to relearn that lesson.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 27, 2007)

Instal said:


> History dictates that this never works but there are no conflicts fresh enough in the minds of Canadians to remind them that we MUST intervene where there is evil. We MUST come to the aid of the opressed or everyone suffers. When things are good at home people tend to put blinders on and not want to face the ugliness in the world. It is then that evil has the opportunity to strike. The price of freedom is never paid in full and it astounds me that every generation has to relearn that lesson.



Very well put, Instal.


----------



## Maestro (Oct 27, 2007)

Instal said:


> The price of freedom is never paid in full and it astounds me that every generation has to relearn that lesson.



_The price of freedom is eternal vigilance._ -Thomas Jefferson

I think the main problem for Canadian hippies is the location of the conflict... I mean, it's in Afghanistan. Afghanistan = Middle East. An in the head of many hippies, Middle East = Petrol.

So, in their head, Middle East + War = War for petrol.

Also, they are sooooooooo concerned with "human lives" that they would do anything to preserve theirs. They would rather bend to an upcoming invader than fight him. Brave men don't have a long life, but cowards lives old.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 27, 2007)

Maestro said:


> _The price of freedom is eternal vigilance._ -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> I think the main problem for Canadian hippies is the location of the conflict... I mean, it's in Afghanistan. Afghanistan = Middle East. An in the head of many hippies, Middle East = Petrol.
> 
> ...


One thing that utterly baffles me is this:
Since they are great "humanitarians" you would think that they would be at least a little bit flustered that someone like Mr Hussein conducted state sponsored kidnapping, rape, murder, etc on thousands. For some reason, those crimes don't seem to matter to them.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 27, 2007)

mkloby said:


> One thing that utterly baffles me is this:
> Since they are great "humanitarians" you would think that they would be at least a little bit flustered that someone like Mr Hussein conducted state sponsored kidnapping, rape, murder, etc on thousands. For some reason, those crimes don't seem to matter to them.


And the you guys weren't to concerned about Rwanda or Bosnia til the havoc was over


----------



## mkloby (Oct 27, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> And the you guys weren't to concerned about Rwanda or Bosnia til the havoc was over



So your mentality would be if you don't stop ALL the tragedy, why stop ANY? Sounds like a good line of thinking to me. It is those people that think in such a way that will let the world go to hell in a handbasket as long as their needs are fulfilled. 

And who exactly is this group of "you guys" that you are making this accusation of basically choosing which human rights issues matter and which do not - if I'm understanding your comment correctly.


----------



## Maestro (Oct 28, 2007)

I think he is pointing at you (Americans), who would rather fight where there is worthy natural ressources (so you can make money (i.e. petrol)) rather that fight somewhere where there is no natural ressources worth your attention but peoples in need.

(Note : this is not *my* opinion, but rather what I understood from pb's post.)

Like I received an official warning for one of my posts in this thread, I'll let you the pleasure to slam him.

Have fun, Marine.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

Okay if that is the case. PB please explain to me how we are making money off of the conflict in Iraq. Hell our economy is at an all time low compared to recent history.

Also how did we make money off of Afganistan?

How did we make money off of Kosovo?

How did we make money off of Bosnia?

I would like a detailed report for each conflict.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2007)

What Mkloby said that if we were such great humanitarians how come we were not in Iraq and I in return asked how come the US wasn't in Sarejevo when it was being starved and shelled the longest siege in modern history. The fact is we are *fighting* in Afghanistan in along with the US Brits Dutch and Aussies . Maestro brought up the money issue not I


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> What Mkloby said that if we were such great humanitarians how come we were not in Iraq and I in return asked how come the US wasn't in Sarejevo when it was being starved and shelled the longest siege in modern history. The fact is we are *fighting* in Afghanistan in along with the US Brits Dutch and Aussies . Maestro brought up the money issue not I



Before you ask why the US was not there, ask yourself why the rest of the world was not there first.

If you wish to be technical the rest of the world did not act until the US Acted when they led the NATO airstrikes.

In fact my old company was the first international helicopters to cross the border into Bosnia.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> What Mkloby said that if we were such great humanitarians how come we were not in Iraq and I in return asked how come the US wasn't in Sarejevo when it was being starved and shelled the longest siege in modern history. The fact is we are *fighting* in Afghanistan in along with the US Brits Dutch and Aussies . Maestro brought up the money issue not I



Pb - please let me clarify. I did not mean Canadians. I was referring to those, which generally lie on the far left. Those, that usually come out in force and protest ANY war on the grounds that it is inhumane or unlawful. Those who would rather see a ruler slaughter his own people, even with poisonous gas, rather than intervene with the use of force.

Another avenue these individuals often take is past US policy. Whether the US supported Iraq in the past is not the issue. That cannot be changed. Nobody is saying that US policy in the past was always the best course. Whether the US responded more slowly, too late, or maybe not at all in another conflict is not the issue either.

I think that anyone can recognize that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the US to intervene at the forefront and stop all tragedy in the world. Economically speaking, it is just not possible (not to mention the plethora of other reasons as to why it wouldn't be possible). I can't see the use of the argument that the US didn't respond properly to this conflict or that atrocity in the best way, so therefore the US intervening in any is illegitimate, or not only that but it is self serving.

I know you didn't bring up the economic aspect of Iraq, Pb. There are other considerations in Iraq other than simply removing the past regime from power. As far as the US "making money" or "blood for oil" claims, the US has spent a tremendous amount of resources in Iraq. Some don't let this interfere with their belief that it is profit-motive driven, and use the military-industrial complex theory to counter that, or possibly American companies that are involved in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Everyone should be able to see that the US is not gaining ecnomically from her involvement in Iraq, and should look to other reasons as to why the US got involved.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Before you ask why the US was not there, ask yourself why the rest of the world was not there first.
> 
> If you wish to be technical the rest of the world did not act until the US Acted when they led the NATO airstrikes.
> 
> In fact my old company was the first international helicopters to cross the border into Bosnia.



I think you're right on. Many other countries use the claim of violation of international law, national sovereignty, or war is inhumane - but I just don't think that makes sense to a rational being. Why is it permissible to allow ruthless bloodshed and slaughter to take place? Any nation with a culture establish in Christianity should be appalled at that notion - although religion throughout much of the world is being attacked for being evil and the root cause of war and conflict - it should be the driving force behind preventing such tragedies as ethnic cleansing, oppression, and tyranny.

Perhaps many nations have their own economic reasons as to not get involved in these international affairs. Maybe they do not wish to shoulder the massive costs associated with launching such an operation. Perhaps they have trade agreements in place with the nation in question, or are tied economically to the status quo.

You can believe the argument that they oppose involvement on ideological grounds alone. A sucker is born every minute.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

Basically this is how I see it mkloby.

If the US gets involved anywhere in the the world for what ever reason the rest of the world screams "Evil USA" and "USA can not keep there fingers to themselves or mind there own buisness, they are just war wongering cowboys!"

If the US does not get involved and we mind our own business the rest of the world complains that we dont get involved and say we are not doing eneogh to help the world.

The US is damned if it does and damned if it does not.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2007)

The moral of this to me is never comment on a dumb subject  which is what this whole thread is


----------



## plan_D (Oct 28, 2007)

Britain doesn't have a go, only the stupid British do. In fact, Britain has been fighting alongside the U.S in most conflicts and have been fighting in conflicts without the U.S. 

It's alright, yanks, we've got your back as long as there's still some sense left in Britain.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The moral of this to me is never comment on a dumb subject  which is what this whole thread is



I don't understand you, Pb. If global intervention is a dumb subject, then what would be a worthy matter of discussion?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2007)

Not global intervention but the topic of Canada s shame, if you wish to tlk about global intervention fine. No single country walks the moral high ground every nation on earth has messed up in one form or another .But to put Iraq on the moral high ground doesn't cut it with me . When the 2nd gulf war was about to start I was mistakenly for it , but after finding out how the intelligence was (imho) intentionally skewed I'm glad we up North opted out. Yet at the same time I am in full agreement with our participation in Afghanistan . Our NATO ally was attacked on 9/11 and according to NATO its all for one and one for all but the basis for the attack was formed and planned in Afghanistan not Iraq.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

Okay but what does this have to do with intervening in the world or not and why America chooses to do so or not?


----------



## mkloby (Oct 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Not global intervention but the topic of Canada s shame, if you wish to tlk about global intervention fine. No single country walks the moral high ground every nation on earth has messed up in one form or another .But to put Iraq on the moral high ground doesn't cut it with me . When the 2nd gulf war was about to start I was mistakenly for it , but after finding out how the intelligence was (imho) intentionally skewed I'm glad we up North opted out. Yet at the same time I am in full agreement with our participation in Afghanistan . Our NATO ally was attacked on 9/11 and according to NATO its all for one and one for all but the basis for the attack was formed and planned in Afghanistan not Iraq.



Canada's shame - well the title of the thread is another matter. Not that my opinion of Canada matters but I don't think they have anything to be "shameful" about. It is fine to object to the conflict - and we disagree, but I'm not going to throw insults your way  

What do you think regarding Iran developing nuclear power and/or weapons? Do you think it would be justified to intervene militarily? Economic sanctions?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2007)

Iran with nukes is not something I want to see and Sanctions would be the method of choice but in a real world that won't work but feet on the ground or airstrikes will only make the problem far worse . 
In problem solving we have to look at the root cause or common thread and that is the dissension between Israel and the Palestinians solve that and we might have a starting point to make the middle east a peaceful area. in otherwords take away the fuel from the fire .


----------



## mkloby (Oct 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Iran with nukes is not something I want to see and Sanctions would be the method of choice but in a real world that won't work but feet on the ground or airstrikes will only make the problem far worse .
> In problem solving we have to look at the root cause or common thread and that is the dissension between Israel and the Palestinians solve that and we might have a starting point to make the middle east a peaceful area. in otherwords take away the fuel from the fire .



If the Iranian gov't was destroyed, and the capability to develop nuclear weapons removed, how exactly would that make the problem worse? Do you mean other nations attempting to gain nukes, or exacerbating hostility against westerners in an already largely unfriendly region?

Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proved very difficult (obviously)! I think there are many very aggressive Arabs that will not accept any solution other than Israel ceasing to exist. There is surely a large contingent of Persians that feel the same way. Israel will still be the target of attacks, and will need to come up with a way to defend itself - which will likely start the whole cycle all again, even if a peaceful settlement was acheived.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Iran with nukes is not something I want to see and Sanctions would be the method of choice but in a real world that won't work



I agree that in the real world it wont work, but why do you think Sanctions would be the method of choice. As you said it will not work. Sanctions have rarely worked and will not work in Irans case because in order for diplomacy to work both sides have to give and take. 

Iran is not willing to give and niether is the west (rightfully so).



pbfoot said:


> but feet on the ground or airstrikes will only make the problem far worse .



Maybe however Iran does not understand anything but the sword. They are not willing to play as adults in the real world. Simple fact.



pbfoot said:


> In problem solving we have to look at the root cause or common thread and that is the dissension between Israel and the Palestinians solve that and we might have a starting point to make the middle east a peaceful area. in otherwords take away the fuel from the fire .



How do you suggest we solve that problem? Iran nuking Israel is no the sollution and unfortunatly that is what they want.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2007)

As discussed im many other threads these guys have a sense of history that goes back a long way. The UK and US overthrew the legally elected gov't of Iran in 53 and installed the Shah who pretty much crushed all opposition and although he modernized Iran also was pretty brutal to opposition . The US also backed Iraq in that bloody war in the 80's . I think the memories these guys have go way too far back . 
If you do a strike on them they close the gulf of Hormuz and although very little oil comes from that area to the US you'll certainly get the Asians upset. 
Sanctions would work if you could get the Russians and Chinese on side not just in name. Remember these guys have overthrown bad govt's before and will again but you have to take the common uniting thread out of the the equation .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

How do you suggest to get Russia and China to sanction them when they enjoy supporting them with military hardware and support at the loss of other nations blood?

I mean how can anyone support Iran when they openly wish to have the mass destruction and death of Israel?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2007)

It's a vicious circle isn't it , the only place I can think to start would be a fair and equitable land settlement with self gov't for the palestinians and thats just the first building block. The only thing a military strike will do is strengthen the resolve of the Iranians much like the bombing of Britain and Germany and Japan did in ww2


----------



## mkloby (Oct 28, 2007)

Adler - You and I agree on this case.

PB - you have good points. The threat that would be posed by a nuclear Iran, however, is what needs to be addressed. I'm afraid that that is what needs to be paramount. Sanctions can, and should, be attempted first. Getting Russia and China on board would be crucial for it to work - and I don't believe that will be possible. The Chinese and Russians will likely cloak their own agendas under the notion of national sovereignty and Iran's right to pursue peaceful nuclear power.

The clock will continue to tick all the while the Persians continue their program. What do you do next? This can't be delayed forever - because one day we will wake up to the news that Iran has successfully tested a nuclear weapon.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> It's a vicious circle isn't it , the only place I can think to start would be a fair and equitable land settlement with self gov't for the palestinians and thats just the first building block. The only thing a military strike will do is strengthen the resolve of the Iranians much like the bombing of Britain and Germany and Japan did in ww2



I agree with you that it will increase hostility within the nation to the west. The overriding objective in the short term must be to stop them from going nuclear. If their ability to develop a nuclear weapon is destroyed, then so be it if other peaceful means to stop their program have failed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> It's a vicious circle isn't it , the only place I can think to start would be a fair and equitable land settlement with self gov't for the palestinians and thats just the first building block.



That will still accomplish nothing. The Palestinians and Arabs will continue to attack Israel until they hand over the whole country. Israel will not do so and rightfully so. Even if they did so give a portian to Palestine the Iranians will still strive at nothing less than the destruction of Israel. It is in there constitution for christs sake.

There is more to this than just the land of Israel and Palestine.



pbfoot said:


> The only thing a military strike will do is strengthen the resolve of the Iranians much like the bombing of Britain and Germany and Japan did in ww2



The only thing to do at a barking dog is to bark back. When it bites you bite back as well.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2007)

Remember I've got 6 months in the Middle East as well spent some time in Damascus as that is where our aircraft staged through on my way to the Golan Heights and both sides are nasty pieces of work ..Your analogy of the barking dog is probably the mind set of the Iranians as well even if it is incorrect in our minds. But something has to change otherwise we are going in ever decreasing circles so I don't see what can be lost by not trying to change the root cause of the whole grudgef##k.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

I am firm believer that the side that wish's to see the death of millions (Iran) is the one that has to waiver and show good faith or they will get nothing in return. 

Same with the Palestinians. They will never achieve what they wish by killing innocent women and children.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 11, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> The Canadian problem is political, and cultural. While the Canadian armed forces earned a reputation as tough and effective soldiers during the two World Wars and Korea, the country became less enthusiastic about supporting their military during the last few decades.
> Canadian army troops have gotten a lot of work on peacekeeping missions, and saw combat in the 1991 Gulf War and Afghanistan, where they distinguished themselves. But for all that, the troops do not feel respected or appreciated in their own country, and this appears to be reflected in the recruiting numbers. .


part of an article about the battle in the Medak pocket involving 2PPCLI based in Winnipeg your *home*

"Still, after four months in the region, Calvin considered his force seasoned, especially with his hand-picked group of platoon leaders, including reservist Lt. Tyrone Green. The morning of Sept. 9 started nicely enough for the Vancouver native in charge of 9 Platoon, Charlie Company, with sunshine poking through the cracks in the boarded windows of the platoon's quarters, a two-storey concrete building on the outskirts of the Serb-held town of Medak. 

But as Green dragged a razor across his chin, his morning shave was interrupted by incoming artillery shells. With soap still clinging to his face, Green, who is now a captain in charge of a Canadian Forces recruiting office in Vancouver, grabbed his helmet and raced to his M-113 armoured personnel carrier. At one point he was knocked down when a shell landed in a nearby ditch. He wasn't hurt, but four Canadians were injured in the shelling. "We counted 500 or more shells by the end of the first day," says Green. "About a dozen fell in our compound and one landed about 10 metres from the front door." 

Not knowing where the shells were coming from, Green sent Sgt. Rudy Bajema to establish an observation post. For the next five days, Bajema watched as the Medak Pocket was attacked by more than 2,500 Croat troops, backed by tanks, rocket launchers and artillery. The Serbs finally slowed the Croatian advance on Sept. 12, but it was not until they launched rockets into a suburb of Zagreb, Croatia's capital, that the Croats relented and accepted a UN ceasefire. 

Calvin, who didn't really expect the Croatians to live up to the agreement, ordered his troops to occupy the Croat positions. "We started taking fire almost immediately from the Croats," recalls LeBlanc. The battle raged for the next 15 hours. It was so intense that at night the light from burning buildings reflected off the soldiers' blue UN helmets, prompting them to wrap them in khaki-coloured T-shirts. Finally realizing the Canadians would not back down, the Croats sent word to Calvin that they wanted to talk. They had good reason to call a truce: the Canadians had killed 27 Croats while not taking a single casualty. 

Joined by Col. Michel Maisonneuve, a Canadian officer from the UN headquarters in Zagreb, Calvin met with Ademi at his headquarters in a town near the fighting. Ademi sat on one side of the table, blustering and yelling at the Canadians. "He looked like he was enjoying the role he was playing," says Calvin. "Emotions were very high and I was irate my men were getting shot at." But after an hour and a half, Ademi finally relented and promised to pull his troops out at noon the next day. 

The Croatian commander, however, was determined to terrorize the Serb civilians living in the area before he left. By 10 a.m. the next morning, a thick umbrella of smoke covered all four towns in the Medak Pocket as the Croats tried to kill or destroy everything in their wake. The Canadians witnessed scenes that still haunt many of them. "They could see what was happening from their foxholes," says Calvin. "My soldiers knew their role was to protect the weak and the innocent and they were absolutely incensed." But fearing the ceasefire agreement with Ademi would collapse if they advanced, the Canadians could do nothing but hold their ground. 

Finally, when the noon deadline passed, the Canadians raced ahead, but immediately encountered a company of Croat troops behind a barricade -- and supported by missiles launchers and an ominous Soviet-era T-72 tank. Calvin approached the senior Croat brigadier; their conversation quickly became heated. The large, bearded Croat ordered his men to **** their weapons and point them at the Canadians. "We knew they were stalling so they could clean up evidence of their ethnic cleansing," Calvin recalls. 

Calvin did not order his troops to fight, and instead tried another gambit. With the Medak attack almost a week old, the international media had converged on the area. As negotiations with his bearded counterpart deteriorated, Calvin held a news conference in front of the barricade and bluntly described the atrocities he believed were being committed by the Croatians. Realizing his country's reputation was in jeopardy, the Croat commander suddenly stepped aside. "The transformation was instantaneous," says Calvin. "He made a big show of removing the barriers."


----------

