# Let's Deal With A Little REALITY Here, Okay?



## Canuck1963 (11 Apr 2010)

Nice site. 

Thanks for letting me join.

I was reading a lot of the comments hereabouts, and while agree with some of them........there are some others that I have to wonder if they maybe ate too many paint-chips as kids. Anyhow, I think it's best if we try to stick to some very basic facts here, okiee-dokiee? Good. Here we go:

1.  It does not matter where our soldiers go, or even with what equipment/training they take with them----- they will STILL do a superior job, and they will always make Canadians proud. They could even take sling-shots with them, and they will STILL do a way better job than any other nations soldiers. 

2.  The above facts notwithstanding, these soldiers also recognize (at least I hope they do) that the military per se is NOT a "democracy"---never has been; never will be. Therefore when they are sent on a mission, whatever/wherever it may be, they will go. If they're for it and volunteer for it, so much the better. But even if they aren't crazy about it and get TOLD to mount-up and GO...they GO. End of story.  Don't get me wrong: it's much, much better if your troops BELIEVE in the cause; absolutely it is. BUT....it's a moot point even if they don't.  The average grunt dose NOT get to pick-and-choose his invasions. Never has; never will. It's my understanding that our troops are going to Afghanistan on a purely voluntary basis---for now. That's cool----but that's only because the folks who sit in the Officers Mess and who sit-in on Policy Meetings with the PM and Minister of Defence et al,  that have MADE that so.  If the day ever comes that they decide this "volunteering" thingy ain't working for them......then they'll move to the "Shut-Yer-Trap-You're-Going" stage.  Unless they've 'democratized' the military since I was in, then that's  the way it CAN be. Which leads me to my next point.......

3.  I've read a few comments here, where some individuals appear to have taken some kind of gleeful, childish delight in denigrating and/or otherwise belittling and insulting the* Canadian people in general*----or the "civvies", as they call them.  Charming.  Well,  let me play the role of bubble-burster here, k?  Each and every single man and woman in the entire Canadian military (including the 'civvie' component)  has one very basic, fundamental core purpose and reason for their existence: to serve at the pleasure--and will----of Parliament, and by extension----the Canadian People, i.e., the very same "CIVVIES" that some around here love to hurl insults at.  Simple as pie, ain't it? We do NOT live under a military junta or dictatorship, wherein military officials make and decide governmental policy. We have ELECTED, *CIVILIAN* representatives who do that.  THEY set policy...and then, if applicable, use the military to enforce it by giving them their marching orders.  Of course, the CIVVIE government will solicit advice/opinions from its military commanders from time-to-time, as needed....but at the end of the day, it's the CIVVIES who will call the shots. If the PM says we're out in 2011....we're out in 2011.  And that will be that. Now, for those service members who don't like this approach and cannot seem to get past the "OOO-RAH!" phase of their current intellectual level, then the solution to this dilemma is quite simple: turn in your kit, and move to one of those backward, Third World, South American crap-holes where they have a army general running the government. Buh-bye. Don't let the door smack you on the way out, or the falling coconuts bonk you on the melon when you get there. 

4.  A few days ago, this a-hole of a 'president', Hamid Karzai, said that unless the West stops giving him a hard time and basically lets him do what the eff HE wants (namely, keep on running the same corrupt, inept, rotted, useless 'government' in the same corrupt, inept, rotted fashion as he's been doing), then he will "*join the Taliban*". *He really said that*!  Y'all DO remember THIS guy...don't you? He's the idiot that 141 Canadians soldiers died trying to prop up. Yeah...HIM.  The whole point of why we went into Afghanistan in the first place was to take down the ruling Taliban (which we did); then, it was to "prevent the terrorists from taking over" (which we did); then it was to destroy Al-Queada (which we did; American N.I.E. estimates currently place their numbers at LESS than 100); then, it morphed again into some kind of attempt at nation-building (of which we are in the process of).  We have now been there just as long as WWII and Korea COMBINED.  Exactly how long is Canada (as part of the I.S.A.F.) supposed to stay there? Another eight years? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? Forever?? How come it takes roughly eight to ten weeks to put a kid in OUR country through Basic Infantry-----and yet these Afghans STILL haven't got a functioning army or police force-----especially with  all of the help we've given them after EIGHT YEARS???  And also, these Afghans have NEVER, EVER, *in their whole history*, had anything even coming CLOSE to a functioning, responsible, DEMOCRATIC central government. Ever.  And this Karzai idiot is about the furthest thing from it.  And it's somehow worth it, to have OUR troops die for this creep and the opium crops that he and his scumbag brother both operate??  No. Sorry. I don't. I don't fault our *civilian* government for sending our troops there in the first place---I actually think this mission started out as a worthy venture. I seriously do. But that was THEN. This is NOW. I don't even fault them for saying we're out in 2011. No Siree, I don't. 

I just fault them for waiting that long to get us out.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Apr 2010)




----------



## Yrys (11 Apr 2010)

Let's Deal With A Little REALITY Here, Okay? 


So, in 6 minutes, you made a double lengthy post, mmm?

Love the art, Wonderbread, truly do.
Nice a propos, and the artist has a nice touch  ...


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Nice site.
> 
> Thanks for letting me join.



Hi, and welcome, although its not cumpulsory, it might benifit you by filling out your profile with a bit of detail, as you may get a better calibre of answers to your queries and argument. Firing from the hip at low light for a first post, without any credentials to back you up might not be the right thing to do.

Just a suggestion.

OWDU


----------



## Tetragrammaton (11 Apr 2010)

As a fellow newbie, let me say welcome to the forum.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Nice site.



Agreed.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> 1.  ... equipment/training they take with them----- they will STILL do a superior job, and they will always make Canadians proud. They could even take sling-shots with them, and they will STILL do a way better job than any other nations soldiers.



Overstated, but confidence in the officers and men of the CF is a good thing. As for your opinion on equipment and training, I strongly disagree. Yes the job will probably get done regardless but not with the same proficiency or cost.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> 2.  The above facts notwithstanding, ...



Assumptions aren't facts.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> ... military per se is NOT a "democracy"---never has been; never will be.



Agreed. But this is an online discussion forum, where opinions can be voiced somewhat openly, whereas if done so in other venues may be inappropriate and subject to regulations and protocol.    



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> ...  gleeful, childish delight in denigrating and/or otherwise belittling and insulting the* Canadian people in general*




Some times it isn't so much the bottom line of what people write on a forum that is questionable, but the particular choice of wording and attitude that may be denigrating and insulting. Try to read past it, I have... for the most part. 



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Exactly how long is Canada (as part of the I.S.A.F.) supposed to stay there?



Until the Canadian government decides which appears to be until sometime in 2011.



			
				Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> ... it might benefit you by filling out your profile with a bit of detail, as you may get a better calibre of answers to your queries and argument. Firing from the hip at low light for a first post, without any credentials to back you up might not be the right thing to do.



Should this even matter? 

I guess it does for some people, but are opinions perceived based on who and what we say we supposedly are or have been or on the thoughts in the posts themselves? If  Canuck1963's profile says 30 years of former service, he's suddenly more entitled or correct than if he had no previous military experience, or is it simply that we are more willing to accommodate opinionated expression if the poster has "enough" time-in or achieved "sufficient" rank?


----------



## Towards_the_gap (11 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Nice site.
> 
> Thanks for letting me join.
> 
> ...



Really? Thank you for the sentiment, but I'm of the opinion that there is alot we don't do well, and therefore can always be improved upon. We also can learn alot from other countries.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> 2.  The above facts notwithstanding, these soldiers also recognize (at least I hope they do) that the military per se is NOT a "democracy"---never has been; never will be. Therefore when they are sent on a mission, whatever/wherever it may be, they will go. If they're for it and volunteer for it, so much the better. But even if they aren't crazy about it and get TOLD to mount-up and GO...they GO. End of story.  Don't get me wrong: it's much, much better if your troops BELIEVE in the cause; absolutely it is. BUT....it's a moot point even if they don't.  The average grunt dose NOT get to pick-and-choose his invasions. Never has; never will. It's my understanding that our troops are going to Afghanistan on a purely voluntary basis---for now. That's cool----but that's only because the folks who sit in the Officers Mess and who sit-in on Policy Meetings with the PM and Minister of Defence et al,  that have MADE that so.  If the day ever comes that they decide this "volunteering" thingy ain't working for them......then they'll move to the "Shut-Yer-Trap-You're-Going" stage.  Unless they've 'democratized' the military since I was in, then that's  the way it CAN be. Which leads me to my next point.......


Thanks tips. We didn't realise this, now all this pre-deployment training makes sense.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> 3.  I've read a few comments here, where some individuals appear to have taken some kind of gleeful, childish delight in denigrating and/or otherwise belittling and insulting the* Canadian people in general*----or the "civvies", as they call them.  Charming.  Well,  let me play the role of bubble-burster here, k?  Each and every single man and woman in the entire Canadian military (including the 'civvie' component)  has one very basic, fundamental core purpose and reason for their existence: to serve at the pleasure--and will----of Parliament, and by extension----the Canadian People, i.e., the very same "CIVVIES" that some around here love to hurl insults at.  Simple as pie, ain't it? We do NOT live under a military junta or dictatorship, wherein military officials make and decide governmental policy. We have ELECTED, *CIVILIAN* representatives who do that.  THEY set policy...and then, if applicable, use the military to enforce it by giving them their marching orders.  Of course, the CIVVIE government will solicit advice/opinions from its military commanders from time-to-time, as needed....but at the end of the day, it's the CIVVIES who will call the shots. If the PM says we're out in 2011....we're out in 2011.  And that will be that. Now, for those service members who don't like this approach and cannot seem to get past the "OOO-RAH!" phase of their current intellectual level, then the solution to this dilemma is quite simple: turn in your kit, and move to one of those backward, Third World, South American crap-holes where they have a army general running the government. Buh-bye. Don't let the door smack you on the way out, or the falling coconuts bonk you on the melon when you get there.


 Thanks again. Was wondering about that. :




			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> 4.  A few days ago, this a-hole of a 'president', Hamid Karzai, said that unless the West stops giving him a hard time and basically lets him do what the eff HE wants (namely, keep on running the same corrupt, inept, rotted, useless 'government' in the same corrupt, inept, rotted fashion as he's been doing), then he will "*join the Taliban*". *He really said that*!  Y'all DO remember THIS guy...don't you? He's the idiot that 141 Canadians soldiers died trying to prop up. Yeah...HIM.  The whole point of why we went into Afghanistan in the first place was to take down the ruling Taliban (which we did); then, it was to "prevent the terrorists from taking over" (which we did); then it was to destroy Al-Queada (which we did; American N.I.E. estimates currently place their numbers at LESS than 100); then, it morphed again into some kind of attempt at nation-building (of which we are in the process of).  We have now been there just as long as WWII and Korea COMBINED.  Exactly how long is Canada (as part of the I.S.A.F.) supposed to stay there? Another eight years? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? Forever?? How come it takes roughly eight to ten weeks to put a kid in OUR country through Basic Infantry-----and yet these Afghans STILL haven't got a functioning army or police force-----especially with  all of the help we've given them after EIGHT YEARS???  And also, these Afghans have NEVER, EVER, *in their whole history*, had anything even coming CLOSE to a functioning, responsible, DEMOCRATIC central government. Ever.  And this Karzai idiot is about the furthest thing from it.  And it's somehow worth it, to have OUR troops die for this creep and the opium crops that he and his scumbag brother both operate??  No. Sorry. I don't. I don't fault our *civilian* government for sending our troops there in the first place---I actually think this mission started out as a worthy venture. I seriously do. But that was THEN. This is NOW. I don't even fault them for saying we're out in 2011. No Siree, I don't.
> 
> I just fault them for waiting that long to get us out.



Feel better?????


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Apr 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> it might benifit you by filling out your profile with a bit of detail...



Agreed 100% and I wish everyone on this board would put up their real name in their profile / contact info.

It would be interesting to see how many .50 cal postings stopped happening if internet cowboys couldn't hide behind their keyboard.


----------



## Tetragrammaton (11 Apr 2010)

I still do not think "real names" are a requirement as long as we can be civil about things (no pun intended).


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Agreed 100% and I wish everyone on this board would put up their real name in their profile / contact info.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how many .50 cal postings stopped happening if internet cowboys couldn't hide behind their keyboard.




Real names and contact information are not required and there are very good reasons why some members wish to use a pseudonym.

I can *guarantee* that some senior (a few very senior) officers _lurk_ and more than one member has heard, at 'work,' about something (s)he said here.

Some of us are pretty easy to identify, even with pseudonyms, and a few of us do use our real names because we have 'nothing to protect.'

But challenging members to "out" themselves is not on. Mike Bobbitt does not require it, he doesn't even _encourage_ it. If you, personally, are _downrange_ from too many .50 cal postings then I suggest you look inwards, first, for the solution.


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Apr 2010)

I can take what's coming my way.  If anyone wants to take it up with me they can send it to my work account (which I have posted in my contact info).

I am not saying that it should be a rule on the board, only that I am disappointed in a lot of people's integrity if they only have the courage to speak their opinion in an anonymous fashion.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Apr 2010)

Folks, before this continues in a downward spiral or takes off on other tangents, let's wait for Canuck1963 to establish his credentials for the forum to put his remarks in some sort of context other than simply one more random act of internet road rage.

Thank you.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## SeanNewman (11 Apr 2010)

Michael,

Thank you for pointing out how my post looks, after re-reading it I can see how it was pointed at Canuck1963.

Canuck 1963,

I did not mean to imply that you were the one hiding behind anonymity, and as Michael points out you may have just not filled out your profile yet.  I apologize if you took it as against you.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> 3.  I've read a few comments here, where some individuals appear to have taken some kind of gleeful, childish delight in denigrating and/or otherwise belittling and insulting the* Canadian people in general*----or the "civvies", as they call them.  Charming.  Well,  let me play the role of bubble-burster here, k?  Each and every single man and woman in the entire Canadian military (including the 'civvie' component)  has one very basic, fundamental core purpose and reason for their existence: to serve at the pleasure--and will----of Parliament, and by extension----the Canadian People, i.e., the very same "CIVVIES" that some around here love to hurl insults at.  Simple as pie, ain't it? We do NOT live under a military junta or dictatorship, wherein military officials make and decide governmental policy. We have ELECTED, *CIVILIAN* representatives who do that.  THEY set policy...and then, if applicable, use the military to enforce it by giving them their marching orders.  Of course, the CIVVIE government will solicit advice/opinions from its military commanders from time-to-time, as needed....but at the end of the day, it's the CIVVIES who will call the shots. If the PM says we're out in 2011....we're out in 2011.  And that will be that. Now, for those service members who don't like this approach and cannot seem to get past the "OOO-RAH!" phase of their current intellectual level, then the solution to this dilemma is quite simple: turn in your kit, and move to one of those backward, Third World, South American crap-holes where they have a army general running the government. Buh-bye. Don't let the door smack you on the way out, or the falling coconuts bonk you on the melon when you get there.



And one wonders where this attitude originates.  




			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> 4.  A few days ago, this a-hole of a 'president', Hamid Karzai, said that unless the West stops giving him a hard time and basically lets him do what the eff HE wants (namely, keep on running the same corrupt, inept, rotted, useless 'government' in the same corrupt, inept, rotted fashion as he's been doing), then he will "*join the Taliban*". *He really said that*!  Y'all DO remember THIS guy...don't you? He's the idiot that 141 Canadians soldiers died trying to prop up. Yeah...HIM.



Nice little rant so far, but you really need to get your facts straight to score any real points:



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> ... The whole point of why we went into Afghanistan in the first place was to take down the ruling Taliban (which we did);



Seems to me that there are still lots of Taliban out there waiting to attack our troops at this very moment.  They are far from taken down.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> ....then, it was to "prevent the terrorists from taking over" (which we did);



Seems to be a lot of terrorist attacks still occuring.  Perhaps they are not in charge, but they still exist in great numbers.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> .....then it was to destroy Al-Queada (which we did; American N.I.E. estimates currently place their numbers at LESS than 100);



I can assure you that there are a great deal more Al-Queada than 100, and they are not all located in Afghanistan.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> .... then, it morphed again into some kind of attempt at nation-building (of which we are in the process of).  We have now been there just as long as WWII and Korea COMBINED.  Exactly how long is Canada (as part of the I.S.A.F.) supposed to stay there? Another eight years? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? Forever??



When did Canada finally pull out of Germany?  1992-94?  Fourty years after the end of WW II.  There are still foreign troops in Germany, Japan and Korea.  Perhaps we will have to keep troops in Afghanistan for two or three times as long, due to the demographics of the nation.  Think hard on that one.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> How come it takes roughly eight to ten weeks to put a kid in OUR country through Basic Infantry-----and yet these Afghans STILL haven't got a functioning army or police force-----especially with  all of the help we've given them after EIGHT YEARS???



The vast majority of the Afghan population (read military and police forces into that equation) are illiterate.  First off, the whole Afghan military and police forces had to be rebuilt from the ground up.  It takes a long time to first create an army and a police organization from the ground up, and then train their people overcoming the problems of their illiteracy.  But you never knew that, did you?



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> .....  And also, these Afghans have NEVER, EVER, *in their whole history*, had anything even coming CLOSE to a functioning, responsible, DEMOCRATIC central government. Ever.  And this Karzai idiot is about the furthest thing from it.  And it's somehow worth it, to have OUR troops die for this creep and the opium crops that he and his scumbag brother both operate??  No. Sorry. I don't. I don't fault our *civilian* government for sending our troops there in the first place---I actually think this mission started out as a worthy venture. I seriously do. But that was THEN. This is NOW. I don't even fault them for saying we're out in 2011. No Siree, I don't.
> 
> I just fault them for waiting that long to get us out.



I'd say that your little long winded rant has shown us all one thing:  You have an ill-informed opinion of what is happening in the world.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Agreed 100% and I wish everyone on this board would put up their real name in their profile / contact info.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how many .50 cal postings stopped happening if internet cowboys couldn't hide behind their keyboard.



And guaranteed we would have people running to their various chains of command with comments like"Sgt so and so said this or that on Milnet.ca. While we do have internet sniping, we would also not get the same quality of posts that we have had over the years. And as long as Mr Bobbitt does not require it and I remind you its his site, then the case is closed.


----------



## Gunner98 (11 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I can take what's coming my way.  If anyone wants to take it up with me they can send it to my work account (which I have posted in my contact info).
> 
> I am not saying that it should be a rule on the board, only that I am disappointed in a lot of people's integrity if they only have the courage to speak their opinion in an anonymous fashion.



I am sure many chains of command are pleased that they do not have to answer for some of the silliness posted here. :nod:  I would suggest that it if you like wandering outside of your lane then there are opportunities to show this courage when in uniform and not just in cyberspace.   Opinions are like... :-X


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Apr 2010)

Now I know who this is, I knew that rant sounded as disjointed and rambling as it does at work.

OK, I'll read some of those dumb links you sent me.........if you actually come work out tonight, ...deal?

And  this  is John Tescione's profile,.....I would think any 48th, past or present, should know it.

Try the late  Art Johnson also.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2010)

Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> Should this even matter?
> 
> I guess it does for some people, but are opinions perceived based on who and what we say we supposedly are or have been or on the thoughts in the posts themselves? If  Canuck1963's profile says 30 years of former service, he's suddenly more entitled or correct than if he had no previous military experience, or is it simply that we are more willing to accommodate opinionated expression if the poster has "enough" time-in or achieved "sufficient" rank?



Here is a quote from Mike Bobbit, from the guidelines part of army.ca...


Public Profiles

"I strongly encourage you to fill out all the sections of your public profile that you're comfortable with. We respect your privacy and won't force you to fill out your profile if you don't want to. Bear in mind though, that the amount of identifiable info in your profile will increase your general credibility here. Those with empty profiles are much harder to verify and will have to put a lot more effort into building a credible presence here."

This is where I was coming from, no matter who one is, profiles with some information assists with 'general credibility'.

OWDU


----------



## HollywoodHitman (11 Apr 2010)

Shark fisherman threw chum in the water. I have resisted my temptation to bite.....This thing's post holds no water until it's profile is filled in a little more. However, any credentials given now might be a little suspect given that the original poster might feel the need to now embellish in order to gain some credibility....

Canuck1963 enlighten us to further "realities" to spark some healthy debate or discussion sure, but at least have the courtesty to establish your credibility before you run off too hard at the mouth and offer opinions that many of us have heard/read before. Also, thanks for pointing out that those in the military go where we're told and do what we're told. We serve in places we serve at the direction of the GoC. Just because many or most have a strong belief in the mission and don't want to lose the significance of our comrades who have given either their lives or of themselves or have been wounded or injured in service doesn't mean we are not aware of the 'realities' of the situation. 

For more reality, check out the Wall of Remembrance on the homepage of this site.

 My :2c:

Have a nice day.


----------



## Canuck1963 (12 Apr 2010)

Don't have a lot of time to post here, so I'll be quick----but I promise to get back in a timely fashion to address each point that's been hurled my way.

As for what my "qualifications" are, or "background" is and what entitles to me to the opinions that I have...well, it's really quite frakkin' simple:

1. I am a law-abiding, law-enforcing, taxpaying CITIZEN of this nation, who is concerned that the young troopers who represent his nation are now stuck in quagmire whereby they are dying in order to prop up a drug-dealing, corrupt, ass-backwards "government". Besides, many Canadians have died in the past so that I can say these things openly, have they not? Either you respect free-speech....or you don't. Either it's a right...or it's not. However, I promise I WILL make an effort to know what the hell I'm talking about, okay? 

2.  As a young man, I did serve in the infantry many, many years ago (with the 48th); I never experienced combat. But so what?  But my previous comments had nothing to do this; rather, it was the political angle of what's involved. I'll let some of the folks around here in on a little secret: you need a POLITICAL solution to this mess....NOT a military one.  The military is SUPPOSED to provide a stable security situation, so a *political* solution can become possible, and take place. We can win every single damn battle....but still lose the war.  The majority of the folks on this site seem to be pretty decent types....but there ARE a few cement heads who genuinely think that this fiasco will be settled at the muzzle of a gun. Having a reasoned, rational, intelligent debate with THOSE types is like pistol-whipping a blind kid. 

And please:

While I will willingly entertain ANYONE with ANY style of debate....if you come at me and all you got for ammo is to defend that puke Karzai and for whom it's totally worth dying for because he's the "lesser of any evil" there...then don't bother. I'll just label you as a foolish simpleton, and that'll be that. That a-hole is not worth ONE drop of Canadian blood. At all. AT ALL. 

Dammit.

See what you made me do????

This was supposed to be a SHORT post :crybaby:


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2010)

I'm misssing something here....who/what made Canuck1963 the SME on Afghanistan.?  :


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Apr 2010)

Canuck, let me offer you a few pieces of advice before you continue:

1. Stow the attitude.

2. Stop pretending that everyone here is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal that cannot comprehend your enlightened view that there are political and military options.

Apply those and you may get reasoned debate.  Otherwise, you may feel you're being fed to the internet wolves as people choose to attack your style instead of trying to engage in your chosen debate.

For everyone else - Try to find and address  the issues - without ad hominem attacks.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## ekpiper (12 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963,

No one here has argued your right to say whatever you please because yes, you do have a right to free speech.  In this regard, I frankly don't care what your credentials are, nor what your experience is, because you seem to be pretty bitter towards all of those in the Forces.  You say that we're the best, but you imply that those of us on here are just fools.  

As has been already stated, your 'thoughts' regarding training the ANA are quite wrong, and I would expect someone who had been in the military to understand the fact that while BMQ/SQ/BIQ is done within approximately 20 weeks (reserve), those young newbies then go on to learn continuously from people who have had a full career of up to 44 years in the service, gaining experience and wisdom along the way.  A military is not ready to be on its own until the first privates are the new CWOs, and the first LTs are now Generals.  Even after that, they have a sharp learning curve, but until then, they wouldn't be able to be autonomous in an area such as Afghanistan with any effectiveness.  The infrastructure, leaders and support structures just wouldn't be capable.  Unless of course you think that an army with DP1 privates in command would be useful.

If you wish to argue that Afghanistan is not worth fighting for because the government is a lost cause, say that and stick to the facts instead of doling out insults at everyone in the area.

Next time you try to post here, consider not throwing around your arrogant presumptions and sarcastic tone.   Some members are annoyed by the fact that all citizens think that they're right, and that they're automatically experts in foreign policy and politics.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Everyone else is entitled to judge that opinion, which is what we have done here.

Have a happy stay at Army/Navy/AirForce.ca


----------



## Nauticus (12 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Don't have a lot of time to post here, so I'll be quick----but I promise to get back in a timely fashion to address each point that's been hurled my way.
> 
> As for what my "qualifications" are, or "background" is and what entitles to me to the opinions that I have...well, it's really quite frakkin' simple:
> 
> ...



So let me just clarify, you've never been to Afghanistan and never went to combat in Afghanistan, yet from your comfy chair in Canada, you know everything about our problems in Afghanistan and Karzai?

If that is the case, can you please clarify on your background that have enabled you to be more qualified to judge Afghanistan and Karzai than some of our soldiers who've actually BEEN to Afghanistan?

You criticize the Afghan people for being slow in creating a standing police force or military, but you either neglected to point out, or are unaware of, the reasons for this.


----------



## Teeps74 (12 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> And that will be that. Now, for those service members who don't like this approach and cannot seem to get past the "OOO-RAH!" phase of their current intellectual level, then the solution to this dilemma is quite simple: turn in your kit, and move to one of those backward, Third World, South American crap-holes where they have a army general running the government. Buh-bye. Don't let the door smack you on the way out, or the falling coconuts bonk you on the melon when you get there.



Well, just thought I would point out that this little piece above is going to raise the ire of many on this site (and indeed, already has).  Your post is fraught with assumptions, many of which are inaccurate, and frankly, these same assumptions are insulting to your audience.

Might I make a friendly suggestion? Engage a filter... Stop with the *HIGHLIGHTING* of words unless it is necessary to make a point... Note, leading us by our noses to state the obvious they way you have is offensive to most of us simians with a greater then grade three education. This style of "debate" you are attempting to engage in would be far more suitable if you were established here on these boards (I am pretty far from being established myself, and so, I try (try hard, but sometimes fail) to not get into pokey chest competitions). 

Also. a lot of us here have actually been there. Some for multiple rotations, and they have a very sound working knowledge, not just of what they did, but what the mission as a whole is about. Whereas one can not be expected to know everything, and even less so when one has never been, perhaps one could make a point by asking questions, as opposed to making assumptions.

Anyways, welcome to Army.ca. I think you will find the opinionated folks here to be better educated then average (ergo the reasoning why your well intentioned post went sideways the second you hit "Post"), and we have a real passion for our chosen professions and the need to serve.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> ... is offensive to most of us simians with a greater then grade three education....



...Crickets...


----------



## Teflon (12 Apr 2010)

I truely hope he/she feels better


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> ...... I never experienced combat. But so what?



A short career as a Reservist, never deployed, does have some bearing on your lack of insight.  This, however, is the big thing that I find wrong with you:



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> ........But my previous comments had nothing to do this; rather, it was the political angle of what's involved. I'll let some of the folks around here in on a little secret: you need a POLITICAL solution to this mess....NOT a military one.  The military is SUPPOSED to provide a stable security situation, so a *political* solution can become possible, and take place.



Instead of ranting on army.ca, perhaps you should be ranting on CBC.ca; CTV.ca; www.liberal.ca; www.conservative.ca; www.greenparty.ca; and/or www.ndp.ca.  There are a few more sites, but you can catch the drift of where you should be headed.  Preaching to the choir here isn't going to help you set your politicians straight.  Go to their sites to do that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> . Besides, many Canadians have died in the past so that I can say these things openly, have they not? Either you respect free-speech....or you don't. Either it's a right...or it's not.



You know my friend the moment you have to cower behind the 'free speech' smokescreen it becomes obvious that you are just running on fumes.

First of all free speech is not absolute, go up to the second floor next shift and tell  those folks to f*ck off or just take it dry the next time an inmate tells you to f*ck off........I'll bet it's not 'free'. 

Second, the very free speech you claim to be championing must allow for free rebuttal or it is not 'free' at all, but rather just someone who wishes to be an authoritarian with the right to speak freely.


This isn't face to face, it's hard to win an internet conversation with just bluster..........here, you might have to start engaging.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Apr 2010)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Note, leading us by our noses to state the obvious they way you have is offensive to most of us simians with a greater thean grade three education.



Thanks for speaking up for us muted simians!


----------



## armyvern (12 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Don't have a lot of time to post here, so I'll be quick----but I promise to get back in a timely fashion to address each point that's been hurled my way.
> 
> As for what my "qualifications" are, or "background" is and what entitles to me to the opinions that I have...well, it's really quite frakkin' simple:



My response will also be quite frakkin' simple okiee dokee?



> 1. I am a law-abiding, law-enforcing, taxpaying CITIZEN of this nation, who is concerned that the young troopers who represent his nation are now stuck in quagmire whereby they are dying in order to prop up a drug-dealing, corrupt, ass-backwards "government". Besides, many Canadians have died in the past so that I can say these things openly, have they not? Either you respect free-speech....or you don't. Either it's a right...or it's not. However, I promise I WILL make an effort to know what the hell I'm talking about, okay?



Each one of us is also a law-abiding, law-enforcing, taxpaying CITIZEN of this nation; many of us also know what the hell we are talking about and have been there, done it, seen it, lived it, and lost our comrades and friends in the current theatre of operations being discussed okiee dokiee?? Our free speech counts too, yours is worth no more and no less than ours is - same as your vote.



> 2.  As a young man, I did serve in the infantry many, many years ago (with the 48th); I never experienced combat. But so what?  But my previous comments had nothing to do this; rather, it was the political angle of what's involved. I'll let some of the folks around here in on a little secret: you need a POLITICAL solution to this mess....NOT a military one.  The military is SUPPOSED to provide a stable security situation, so a *political* solution can become possible, and take place. We can win every single damn battle....but still lose the war.  The majority of the folks on this site seem to be pretty decent types....but there ARE a few cement heads who genuinely think that this fiasco will be settled at the muzzle of a gun. Having a reasoned, rational, intelligent debate with THOSE types is like pistol-whipping a blind kid.



Thank you for your service. Although, at this time, I'll have to agree to disagree with you on "solutions" for, as you see, I believe that there can not be peace and stability and political solutions until the military has successfully stabilized the area and rendered it free from constant insurgent threat so that the much-needed political and aid organizations can move about freely and without constant threat to get their jobs done.

I'll bet a pole dance on the fact that when the CF pulls out we hear a much LOUDER cry from the Canadian public when an innocent Canadian Aid Worker is killed because there was 'no protection or security.' Canadians, quick to forget, will cry "why the hell isn't our military pers there ensuring security for our innocent civilians who were just trying to help the citizens of Afghanistan?" I'll bet on this because I remember the Gulf War --- you know when the Liberals chooped, hacked, cut all ourfunding for equipment and troops ... then screamed blue murder about "how can you send our troops to the Gulf War!?? They aren't equipped for that!!" Yes Sir, how soon they forget.



> And please:
> 
> While I will willingly entertain ANYONE with ANY style of debate....if you come at me and all you got for ammo is to defend that puke Karzai and for whom it's totally worth dying for because he's the "lesser of any evil" there...then don't bother. I'll just label you as a foolish simpleton, and that'll be that. That a-hole is not worth ONE drop of Canadian blood. At all. AT ALL.
> 
> ...



No one here is defending Karzai - we are defending our mission and it's righteousness. Should we abandon all those citizens of Afghanistan who want and need us there because you/me don't like Karzai? Remember, we are NOT an occupying force; his government was elected. Afghanistan is a fledgling democracy --- the citizens there don't have the benefit of over a century of experience, but hopefully they'll learn and improve ... if only afforded the opportunity. Give 'em a friggin' break.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Remember, we are NOT an occupying force; his government was elected. Afghanistan is a fledgling democracy



I can, and will, put some words into Canuck's mouth at this point in the conversation.

During some 'conversations' it came out that he is 100% assured that the election was a total fraud, that's how and why I mentioned this site to him, as we have some senior members here who were part of that election.........callin' Teddy Ruxpin.


----------



## armyvern (12 Apr 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I can, and will, put some words into Canuck's mouth at this point in the conversation.
> 
> During some 'conversations' it came out that he is 100% assured that the election was a total fraud, that's how and why I mentioned this site to him, as we have some senior members here who were part of that election.........callin' Teddy Ruxpin.



On that front, I'd agree. I'm sure there's a thread here on the election and the allegations of fraud. I think it's too bad that his opponent pulled out of the call for another vote by the UN. 

Fledgling democracy, ergo my point about the citizens not being the beneficiary of over a century of democracy and hoping that it gets better.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

My-my-my.

When oh-when will *some* folks hereabouts actually READ, UNDERSTAND and RETAIN what I've written??? Huh????  Look, I will stress this again (and this is the LAST time I'll say this): from appearances so far, I genuinely believe the majority on this site are well-reasoned, articulate individuals (whether or not they have "served"); BUT......there ARE a *minority* who are, for want of a better word, brainwashed cement-heads who are INCAPABLE of looking at The Big Picture. They insist on slagging the CIVILIAN population they serve (or served); they insist on slagging the CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT, i.e., Parliament, that they serve (or served); they insist on slagging the media by labeling them as "leftist" just because they don't feel their own views are represented correctly. Like...gimme a break. The few cement-heads around here one day will come to realize that the military does NOT call the shots in this country----the "civvies" do. That is a fact. So there you go. No use in crying to me about it.

*Monk*:

Gimme a break, Dude! I am NOT "_cowering behind the free speech_" argument; far from it, actually. Just some folks have brought up and questioned what gives someone like "me" the "right" to say what I say; I emphasized merely that *ONE* of the things that gives me the leeway to say these things, is that many, many Canadian soldiers in the past have spilled blood and died somewhere to GRANT me this opportunity to do so. Why would you minimalize what those brave souls have given us, by cheapening it, by describing it as something that I would "_cower behind_"??? Hmmm?? Why, Monk, WHY???? For the love of GOD, man, WHYYY??? As far as not having been there to experience it to be able to know what I'm talking about (a totally ridiculous and infantile argument, to be sure), well...I haven't "experienced" suicide (and I'm in no rush to try)....but that does not mean I wouldn't able to talk someone out of it (and I have). C'mon. Seriously. Try better than that. Also, I can talk about matters pertaining to Afghanistan because I'm smart enough, I'm good enough...and dog-gone-it....people like me. So there. 

Someone out there asked me about the 48th....I served a bit before your time, bro. I was in from 1980-1983, back when McGuffin, Shalapata, Leek, Meredith, Yong, Bean, Scott,  et al, where there. William Jensen was the Regimental C.O., I think. A great bunch. It was the best time of my life, come to think of it. But that was almost 30 years and 125 lbs. ago.  iper:

As a final note, I think that all of those who have denigrated, insulted and otherwise belittled the Canadian people in general....should apologize. Unconditionally. And without reservation. 

We'll see now how far the concept of "honor" will go with these few.....folks. 

And to A*rmy Vern*:

You ARE defending that puke Karzai...ok? You ARE defending him by RATIONALIZING the act of dying for this turd....k? And those poor "Afghan citizens" you go on and on about? THAT.......is an interesting point you've brought up----one which I shall now happily and diligently tear to effing shreds by employing something that the aforementioned cement-heads are incapable of utilizing: sensibility. COMMON sensibility. Here goes: Look to our south. See that country? Back when they were nothing more than thirteen rag-tag, dirt-poor colonies....they decided enough was enough and took on the mightiest Empire at that time. And they won. They WON. How? Simple: they wanted their very own freedom so bad, that they were to die for it. And they did. For ANY group or nation of people, they have to WANT to be free so bad, that THEY will be more than happy to pick up the slack and die for it. It is NOT the job of some 20-year-old kid from Saskatoon to do that....okay? THEY have to be WILLING to do that for THEMSELVES. We could stay there for another 20, 30, 50, even a HUNDRED YEARS and that's fine. But unless this loose collection of tribes gets together and decide to get their OWN shit together.....then it's FUBAR. Pointless. Useless. Comprendo? NO AMOUNT of shooting on OUR part is going to change that. 

Plus, there are many, many other tyrannical regimes currently operating on the planet right this second, that are equal to---if not worse---than the Taliban, in terms of abusing and otherwise oppressing their citizenry. You gonna play the Good Joe and get rid of THEM as well? Or do you just feel oh-so-sorry for these Afghans? Get real, dude. besides, helping out the "Afghan people" was *NOT the frakkin' reason we went in there IN THE FIRST PLACE, NOW WAS IT???*

Monk.....you have not been to one of my extravaganzas yet.  I'm still sore at you over this.  :rage:


----------



## midget-boyd91 (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> My-my-my.
> 
> When oh-when will *some* folks hereabouts actually READ, UNDERSTAND and RETAIN what I've written??? Huh????  Look, I will stress this again (and this is the LAST time I'll say this): :rage:


*
My first impression. :*

"Canuck1963
Posts:*2*"

Rough start? Maybe getting to know the crowd beforehand may have helped?

Oddball


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> My-my-my.
> 
> When oh-when will *some* folks hereabouts actually READ, UNDERSTAND and RETAIN what I've written???



You're really not looking for reasoned debate, are you?



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Huh????  Look, I will stress this again (and this is the LAST time I'll say this):



Thank you, your style of presentation is actually quite tiresome.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> from appearances so far, I genuinely believe the majority on this site are well-reasoned, articulate individuals (whether or not they have "served");



Thank you again, we do try to actually communicate with each other, rather than sitting on our own pressle switch.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> BUT......there ARE a *minority* who are, for want of a better word, brainwashed cement-heads who are INCAPABLE of looking at The Big Picture.



I think you're wildly misinformed and haven't been here long enough to form a rational opinion of the body of people here, but don't let that distract you from your wild ranting style, it appears to suit you so well.



			
				Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> They insist on slagging the CIVILIAN population they serve (or served); they insist on slagging the CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT, i.e., Parliament, that they serve (or served); they insist on slagging the media by labeling them as "leftist" just because they don't feel their own views are represented correctly. Like...gimme a break. The few cement-heads around here one day will come to realize that the military does NOT call the shots in this country----the "civvies" do. That is a fact. So there you go. No use in crying to me about it.



I'm sorry, was anyone crying to you, about anything?  By the way, thank you for standing up and speaking for so many who chose not to verbally attack us themselves. The silent majorty now have a voice, too bad it's a ranting crazy one.

I'll let Bruce and Vern individually address your comments to them.

Welcome to Milnet.ca.  Let me close by once again advising you to chill out and balance your tone, otherwise your time here may be nasty, brutish and short (that's a literary reference in case you didn't know it, given that you seem to be spending your time here on "permanent send" and may do so with the rest of your life as well.

Be well citizen.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Apr 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...otherwise your time here may be nasty, brutish and short


Oh, go on, throw in "solitary and poor" as well -- Tom would have wanted it that way  




...now is it "tin foil" or "tinfoil"?  ;D


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Hey...O'Leary:

Put an egg in your shoe, and beat it.

Savvy?


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> *
> My first impression. :*
> 
> "Canuck1963
> ...



Why?

When I read the kind of comments I got from this O'Leary-thingy....I think I pegged some of'em purdy accurately from the get-go.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Hey...O'Leary:
> 
> Put an egg in your shoe, and beat it.
> 
> Savvy?



I'm sorry, I guess you don't like responses matching your own style of prose? I didn't think feelings were being considered here, starting with the first post.  Then again, perhaps I exist in a different reality, one actually shared by other people.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> When I read the kind of comments I got from this O'Leary-thingy....I think I pegged some of'em purdy accurately from the get-go.



So, now you're going to show me my posts that fit this imaginary profile of membership here that you have so liberally abused?

The only thing you've pegged is yourself, as an intenet poster so convinced of his own superiority that you have immediately attacked derision for your narrow-minded rantings.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Your responses were based on petty, stupid childish insults---nothing more.

ALL of MY comments are founded upon a reasoned response, and in the process of said response I called out some folks on the ignorant, clueless things they've said...point-by-point.

And the only people that you claim "share YOUR reality" are your fellow crack-pipe-smoking junkies that share your cardboard box on top of the Yonge/Dundas subway grate.

You are dismissed, I say. 

Get out of my office, and hand in your toothbrush to my adjutant on your way out the door.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

LOL, you're a comedian right, just here to frig with me?


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

(_winks_)

Possibly....possibly......


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Seriously, though:

Way-back-when....I remember one night very vividly when I was "in" (as they say).

I was part of a L.R.R.P. team, and I had this one fella I was stuck with all night long, that I almost drowned in a creek....simply because he was saying the stupidest, most misguided, ignorant things  just SOLELY for the sake of being stupid, misguided and ignorant. It was like arguing with a 4-year-old. I believe my last words to him were, "_When no one's looking....I'm going to effing stab you in the throat until you're dead_." 

Oh well.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> I was part of a L.R.R.P. team, and I had this one fella I was stuck with all night long, that *I almost drowned in a creek*....simply because he was saying the stupidest, most misguided, ignorant things  just SOLELY for the sake of being stupid, misguided and ignorant. It was like arguing with a 4-year-old. I believe my last words to him were, "_When no one's looking....*I'm going to effing stab you in the throat * until you're dead_."


Sometimes I guess you just have to play rock-paper-chainsaw with yourself to decide if you'll drown them, or stab them in the throat.   :nod:


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Seriously, though:
> 
> Way-back-when....I remember one night very vividly when I was "in" (as they say).
> 
> ...



Seriously?

Really?


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Apr 2010)

op:

I should add something aside from the above smiley... 

And so, off to go, I, one weary soul, to my nice warm bed. 

I go now, with the fondest of memories and a chuckle derived from this very thread.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Seriously?
> 
> Really?



Seriously.

True story.

Ahhh.......the indiscretions of youth. 

Teeps:

Do you usually get thoughts like these as per normal? Or just since you gave up your heroin habit? 

You can tell me....honest.

I'm not judgmental.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

Well, I may not have your extensive patrolling experience, but I don't remember the last time I heard it referred to as LRRP in Canada.

But, since I'm being accused of so many things (drugs and all) and obviously out of touch with your version of reality, maybe you just need to sit me on your knee and tell me all about what it's like to be in the ARMY.


----------



## ekpiper (15 Apr 2010)

I think that at this point in the thread, I can safely advise:

"Don't feed the trolls"


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Well, I may not have your extensive patrolling experience, but I don't remember the last time I heard it referred to as LRRP in Canada.
> 
> But, since I'm being accused of so many things (drugs and all) and obviously out of touch with your version of reality, maybe you just need to sit me on your knee and tell me all about what it's like to be in the ARMY.



I wouldn't classify my background as having "extensive patrolling experience"-----it was brief, but intense, to be sure.  I can't "put you on my knee" because that would be an indication of pedophilia---of which I am *NOT* afflicted with. (so you can keep your hairy ass OFF of my knee, thank you very much). And as for what it's "like to be in the Army"....I can't do that, either: as I've already said, there are 30 years that separate "MY" Army from "today's" Army; Hell, even the small arms weaponry (which I recieved a TQ2 in) ain't the same no more. Cripes, you may as well lump in the uniforms while you're at it. Nope....sorry, man: can't help ya there. 

I DO know one thing, though:

Being a little older has left me in a position to instinctively question the cause , why's and wherefores as to the reasons behind why (and what) the young men and women of my country are dying for.  Maybe THAT is the one thing all armies will have in common, regardless of however many years separate them:

They can always die.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

ekpiper said:
			
		

> I think that at this point in the thread, I can safely advise:
> 
> "Don't feed the trolls"



Uhhhhh....what are you sayin', piper?

Are you inferring that I'm a "troll"?

Well?

ARE YOU?  :rage:


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Being a little older has left me in a position to instinctively question the cause , why's and wherefores as to the reasons behind why (and what) the young men and women of my country are dying for.  Maybe THAT is the one thing all armies will have in common, regardless of however many years separate them:



So, which part of the cause are you questioning?



> Canada’s Priorities
> 
> Canada is focussed on a targeted set of objectives in keeping with proven Canadian strengths and consistent with Afghan objectives and the efforts of the international community.
> 
> ...





> Signature projects:
> 
> * Dahla Dam
> * Education
> * Polio eradication



http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/priorities-priorites/index.aspx?lang=eng


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, which part of the cause are you questioning?
> 
> http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/priorities-priorites/index.aspx?lang=eng



Okay.

Fair enough.

Here's what I have a problem with, per se:

While the information you posted above looks fine-and-dandy in writing and sounds very wonderful.......it's a government-packaged sales pitch. Nothing more. Look......the whole reason why Canada went into that country in the FIRST place, was to take down the Taliban-led government because they were harboring a terrorist network that had to be smashed, i.e., Al-Queada. We did NOT go there to engage in 'Nation-Building".  This entire objective has now morphed into (and suffered from) something called "mission creep": what started out as a very straightforward project.....has now changed radically into something else; something which WE should have *NO* part of, *especially after eight years*. Every available scrap of information/stastic shows that a majority of this "Afghan Army/Police Force" are either A) Drug addicts; B) Drug dealers; C) Just plain incompetent. The Karzai government is NO better. At all. There is not a single piece of information to suggest (that can be verified by the international community, let alone the ISAF) that this character has anything even APPROACHING a 'legitimate, fair, competent and DEMOCRATIC body of governance'. 

If I'm going to see Canadian troopers die....then I can think of LOTS of other worthwhile opportunities to send them into harms way, for other causes in other places.  

Dying for the likes of Karzai, Kabul, Kandahar or Afganistan in general is *NOT* one of them (at least not for the way/manner in which this "mission" *currently* exists). As it stands, Canada has taken on THREE TIMES as many casualties as ANY other nation presently involved there, in ratio to our numbers deployed. *THREE TIMES AS MANY*. This, to me, is totally effing unacceptable. 

See, some posters here will call what I write "rants"; that's cool. They will "rant" for Canadians to keep dying for Hamid Karzai and his thugs; I shall "rant" against having them die for Hamid Karzai and his thugs. 

So it's all good.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> While the information you posted above looks fine-and-dandy in writing and sounds very wonderful.......it's a government-packaged sales pitch. Nothing more. Look......the whole reason why Canada went into that country in the FIRST place, was to take down the Taliban-led government because they were harboring a terrorist network that had to be smashed, i.e., Al-Queada. We did NOT go there to engage in 'Nation-Building".  This entire objective has now morphed into (and suffered from) something called "mission creep": what started out as a very straightforward project.....has now changed radically into something else; something which WE should have *NO* part of, *especially after eight years*. Every available scrap of information/stastic shows that a majority of this "Afghan Army/Police Force" are either A) Drug addicts; B) Drug dealers; C) Just plain incompetent. The Karzai government is NO better. At all. There is not a single piece of information to suggest (that can be verified by the international community, let alone the ISAF) that this character has anything even APPROACHING a 'legitimate, fair, competent and DEMOCRATIC body of governance'.



And your substantive proof for this is?


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

You're kidding me........right?

Let's be honest, here: I could spend all damn night long posting about a gazillion different links/sources which would illustrate/back-up everything I've just said. But YOU ain't gonna be happy with ANY of them, and we both know it. You'll write them off as easy-as-you please. Instead, how about I just go into a simpler tactic here:

I personally,  absolutely, TOTALLY remember the reasons as to why Canada went into Afghanistan IN THE BEGINNING, from Day One. And you know what?

They are NOT the same reasons as are being given NOW. 

Look carefully at the link *you* provided:

Is that what was said in the beginning? Were those PRECISELY the reasons given? 

(This is a yes or no question, btw)


----------



## leroi (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Don't have a lot of time to post here, so I'll be quick----but I promise to get back in a timely fashion to address each point that's been hurled my way.
> 
> As for what my "qualifications" are, or "background" is and what entitles to me to the opinions that I have...well, it's really quite frakkin' simple:
> 
> ...



ANONYMOUS,

Why are you HERE venting displeasure about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to the VERY people who must pay for those decisions with their blood? 

If you really cared about ending the mission you'd be more effective challenging politicians. Why not start up a FaceBook group, a petition, write a few letters?  

I bet many CF members would thank you for it since it's ill-conceived political decisions, often enabled by voter apathy at the polls, that ultimately end up getting them wounded, killed.

This you've written below is pure codswallop. Neither your age nor your past service entitles you to any SUPERIOR ability to emote over deaths of Canadian Forces' members.  NEWSFLASH YOU DON'T OWN other people's emotions. AND, you possess no SUPERIOR ability to question this war.  But unlike you, people with a GENUINE interest in ANALYZING the mission in Afghanistan go here rather than erecting their own soap box to ACT OUT sublimated frustrations.

The sentence in yellow below WAS UNCALLED FOR.  

How much worse could you possibly try to make our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women feel?

AS a civilian, I'm glad you're no longer serve in the military.  

And for all anyone knows here, and based on some of your insulting choice adjectives and disrespect, I'd say it's quite likely you're an anonymous sociopath and incapable of feeling anything for anyone else--other than maybe a misdirected HATE and RAGE coupled by a stifled IMPOTENCE disabling you from following appropriate political channels to effect change.



> Being a little older has left me in a position to instinctively question the cause , why's and wherefores as to the reasons behind why (and what) the young men and women of my country are dying for.  Maybe THAT is the one thing all armies will have in common, regardless of however many years separate them:
> 
> They can always die.


 *NO KIDDING ...*


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Is that what was said in the beginning? Were those PRECISELY the reasons given?



From the UN Security Council Resolution 1386 (2001)



> Adopted by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on
> 20 December 2001
> 
> The Security Council,
> ...



http://www.nato.int/isaf/topics/mandate/unscr/resolution_1386.pdf

You can find links to the other Resolutions supporting the initial ISAF mandate here:
http://www.nato.int/isaf/topics/mandate/index.html


You didn't say which things Canada is doing in Afghanistan that you oppose?

Is it the support to creating national institutions?  Or the eradication of polio? Or something else?


----------



## leroi (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Okay.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> ...



Your preaching to the choir again:  NEWSFLASH: Canada's combat mission ends 2011. 

Maybe you could find a DFAIT or CIDA site to troll?


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

leroi said:
			
		

> ANONYMOUS,
> 
> Why are you HERE venting displeasure about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to the VERY people who must pay for those decisions with their blood?
> 
> ...



Leroi:

What are you?

Some kind of freakin' nut who's off her medication? Or are you just one of those cement-heads who's quite happy to see a never-ending number of our young men and women keep on dying? Why was my last sentence "uncalled for"? Do you even KNOW what context it was intended? Look, if the likes of YOU thinks Hamid Karzai is worth Canadian blood being spilled for....bully for you. Why don't you invite him over for supper, then? Or open up a bed-and-breakfast and make the bastard some hash browns? There's a swell gal. 

I happen to think a little more highly of what our military is worth, that's all.  And dying for your pal does NOT make the cut. End of story. 

"_Why are you HERE venting displeasure about Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to the VERY people who must pay for those decisions with their blood?_"

Because unlike a mental case like yourself, I actually care for the troops and it really hurts my feelings when they are killed or hurt. I dunno. I'm kinda funny that way.  Also, it's an internet-based FORUM titled "_Canadian Military In Afghanistan_"......remember? 

And you will NOT refer to me as "Anonymous" again. 

You *WILL* address me accordingly and properly, as per my designated title---Canuck1963.

This is your only warning, Margot Kidder. 

Hear me?


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

leroi said:
			
		

> Your preaching to the choir again:  NEWSFLASH: Canada's combat mission ends 2011.
> 
> Maybe you could find a DFAIT or CIDA site to troll?



Uhhhh.......and maybe YOU could have a nice, hot cup of STFU.


----------



## KnightShift (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> Uhhhh.......and maybe YOU could have a nice, hot cup of STFU.



I can't believe how long you've been permitted to go on like this for


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> From the UN Security Council Resolution 1386 (2001)
> 
> http://www.nato.int/isaf/topics/mandate/unscr/resolution_1386.pdf
> 
> ...



Brigadier O'Leary:

Good links. Seriously. Very stylish-sounding, and I don't doubt their veracity. 

But we come back to the same flaws:

1. Time-lines.

No where is it mentioned (at that time at any rate) how LONG we're supposed to stay and "help" these Afghans achieve this "_freedom from terror_" and "i_nalienable rights_" .  Mind, as one of the recent demented posters here pointed out, we're out in 2011 anyways. And the reason for THAT is quite simple: these Afghans just don't have the will or moxy to do this crap for themselves, and so someone has finally (thank christ) said "_enough is enough_". 

2.  I OPPOSE Canada going in there and nation-building. Not our job. Not our responsibility. Either morally or ethically. I've said that already.  We can hand out as many band-aids as we like....but we can't stay there forever. If these Afghans are unhappy with the Taliban...let THEM smite the scumbags. Simple as that. I do not believe in occupation without end.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

KnightShift said:
			
		

> I can't believe how long you've been permitted to go on like this for



Why?

What I say that was so bad?

Do ya feel lucky?

Well?

Do ya, PUNK?? 

Foolish little man.


----------



## leroi (15 Apr 2010)

ANONYMOUSE, Have fun on your soap box: don't crack your head open when you fall off! op:


----------



## CEEBEE501 (15 Apr 2010)

Boy he must be whipping up a good post  op:


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Sorta.

Actually, I was sidetracked by a truly magnificent bowel movement, which I'm sure was brought about by leroi's last post.  This is just a theory on my part, of course, but I'd stake my mortgage on it, by golly. 

Speaking of which......I see that she has chosen to disregard and violate my last directive.

You see how grateful she should be?

If I was Hamid Karzai, and she acted out in this outrageous manner....I would have ordered her to put her burkha back on and cover herself up, and to not even THINK about uttering another word and just get back out there and milk those goats or else I'll call in the Canadian Army which is helping to prop me up and have THEM fix your wagon, Allah be praised. 

 :nod:


----------



## MARS (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963,

I find your posts to be increasingly aggressive, offensive and distasteful, particularly your last post.  If would ask you to kindly refrain from ad hominem attacks on the membership of this site.  If the quality of the discourse here is not to your liking, then you are certainly free to find another website that is and one where you will find a greater degree of acceptance for both your point of view and your posting style, by which I mean your liberal use of capital lettering, highlighting and underlining.  Perhaps that would increase the amount of enjoyment that all guests of this board would receive and are entitled to.  As this is a private site, I am compelled to caution you that you are likely to find yourself banned at some point if things don't change.  The site owner tends not to tolerate these kinds of posts for very long.

Regards,

MARS
Milnet.ca Mentor

_Edited for spelling and grammar_


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Well, I find YOUR response to be one-sided, biased, prejudicial, blithely oblivious of the nonsense directed at ME, intolerant of a differing viewpoint, devoid of any appreciation/understanding of ironic humor,  mired in an insecure and threatened attitude and lacking any semblance of objective perception.

You don't like my "underlining"??? My use of "CAPITAL LETTERING"??? My "*highlighting*"???  HUH????  This is a gag....right? What....those icons and lettering style options above are meant to be used in case of emergencies? As a last resort? Hah?? 

LMFAO!!!

Okokokokok.......that was a good one. Seriously.

Wilbur...is that you bustin' my chops? Huh? Is it?? 

LOL!

You're a scream, I tell ya.  ;D


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

P.S.

I *love* the quality of the discourse here.

When did I say I didn't?


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

P.P.S.

I think Brigadier O'Leary there and myself had the start of a pretty decent discourse happening for a while......until Her Royal Bi-Polar-ness (alias leroi)  and a certain swabbie-type (yourself) decided to stick their dual beaks into it and try to ruin things.

(Although personally, I still think that's you, Wilbur...lol!)


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2010)

I was going to weigh in here with my recollections, including first hand accounts, of what happened here in Ottawa and in New York, Washington, London and Kabul in later 2001 and early 2002. I was going to agree with Canuck1963 that the mission has _morphed_ into something quite unlike the Government of Canada's original intent, but I was going to take detailed issue with his assessment of what that original intent was. However, as Cancuk1963 has decide to violate the forum guidelines (personal attacks, etc) and slag a Mentor I will just await, impatiently, his inevitable slide, through the warning system, down into Internet oblivion.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Does this mean me getting an apology is not going to happen?

(_Man-oh-man...no wonder I always disliked officers......yeesh. Dull, humorless bunch they always were_).


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

P.S.

The "_original intent_" of the mission was to go after (and dismantle) a terrorist outfit that attacked a country immediately south of this location on Sept. 11, 2001 as well as the government that was harboring them......and NOT because Canada was attacked. 

Did I miss something?

Or did YOU learn something the rest of us didn't while you were at NDHQ? 

I know that asking something like this amounts  to treason on this site, but maybe you can provide an answer for me before I'm banned for "l_aunching another ad hominem_" attack , huh?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2010)

Canuck1963 said:
			
		

> P.S.
> 
> The "_original intent_" of the mission was to go after (and dismantle) a terrorist outfit that attacked a country immediately south of this location on Sept. 11, 2001 as well as the government that was harboring them......and NOT because Canada was attacked.
> 
> ...




Sorry, Canuck1963, but I am not inclined to one sided 'debates' with people who will not honour the site's guidelines and who appear unable to engage in basic, civil discourse. MARS, being one of the site's Mentors, was trying to help you avoid the warning system; your response was impertinent, impolite and improper. I am taking the good advice offered: I'm not feeding the troll.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

P.P.S.

And how did I "_slag a Mentor_"?

Are you implying that a "_Mento_r" is above reproach and can do no wrong? That a "_Mentor_" is always right and who's word and power of observation are sacrosanct? 

Okay....some of you peeps are giving me the heebie-jeebies, here. It's starting to sound a bit like those cultish, tent-revival meetings, where the "brethren" are expected to march in lock-step with the Preacher. 

Oy vey.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Finally.

An apology.

It's about time.


----------



## TN2IC (15 Apr 2010)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> *
> My first impression. :*
> 
> "Canuck1963
> ...



**** Funny Silly Hat Mode Mode On ****

Hey Oddball.. Woof woof... 












**** Funny Silly Hat Mode Mode Off ****

Back to our regular programing.


----------



## Canuck1963 (15 Apr 2010)

Well, that's just ludicrous enough to make me believe that there's at least SOME good humor around this place!

(Although it sure isn't  the first time I've seen a retarded pu----uhhh, never mind)


----------



## Jungle (15 Apr 2010)

OK, enough. Thread locked.

Canuck1963, check your PMs.

This is your first and only warning.

Army.ca moderator.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Apr 2010)

Sorry folks, I thought "Canuck" would be capable of reasoned discussion, hence why I pointed him towards this site, my very bad.

My only guess is his hatred might have something to do with his background and the "Medak Pocket", maybe its time I crank that up.......................at work, of course.


----------

