# Operation"cut and run", effect on Cdn.Military.



## time expired (20 Jul 2010)

Has anyone given any consideration to the effects on the military of the government`s decision

to pullout of A-stan.

I would be concerned with procurement,recruiting,and the morale of the troops,plus the effect 

upon the families who have lost loved ones in this conflict.

                                                         Regards


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2010)

I'm not satisfied we'll be pulling out to begin with.

Yes the government has said we will (end the combat mission IIRC), based on the motion passed in Parliment, spearheaded by the Opposition.

The Opposition parties have just completed a tour of Afghanistan and are now unsure as to whether they made the right decision and are saying we can't leave in 2011. (Gotta love the short memory politics happening here)

Another motion or deal with all sides could prevent the Conservatives from having to go through with the original item

The 'Combat Mission' _may_ end in the sense it's happening now, however, I _think_ it may just get renamed to provide protection for our projects, mentoring for the ANA & ANP, etc.

Active hunting may cease, as we currently know it and there may be a draw down of pers, but I don't think we're leaving.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The 'Combat Mission' _may_ end in the sense it's happening now, however, I _think_ it may just get renamed to provide protection for our projects, mentoring for the ANA & ANP, etc.
> 
> Active hunting may cease, as we currently know it and there may be a draw down of pers, but I don't think we're leaving.


Agreed - I hope you're right, but I have a bit less confidence re:  the government changing its mind, given how long they've been at this.


----------



## GAP (20 Jul 2010)

The government is doing the right thing....if there is going to be change, let the Lieberals wear it. They've done nothing but lie and obfuscate for the past 4-5 years over this. 

The NDP are just twits, but if the Lieberals don't end up wearing the changes, then it's just going to be thrown in the Cons faces come election time....


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Jul 2010)

Truck loads of bitterly disappointed senior officers desperate for glory and shiny bravery medals to speed along their thrusting careers?  ;D


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not satisfied we'll be pulling out to begin with.



I have no problem admitting that you're right sometimes  

The problem though is that public tide is no absurdly against staying there.  If you track the comments at the bottom of CBC, the "approve" and "disapprove" comments have shifted on the messages like "Get out of there now" from 50/50 to 75/25 and now with the latest fatality they're about 90% "approve" for quitting.

Sadly, and political party that said they wanted to stay, even if they had iron clad proof that we were doing great things over there and the Taliban were about to surrender, would be committing political suicide.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I have no problem admitting that you're right sometimes
> 
> The problem though is that public tide is no absurdly against staying there.  If you track the comments at the bottom of CBC, the "approve" and "disapprove" comments have shifted on the messages like "Get out of there now" from 50/50 to 75/25 and now with the latest fatality they're about 90% "approve" for quitting.



Because the CBC has a liberal/left-wing bias it stands to reason that the people who read their articles and make comment on articles will have similar views. Therefore, comments like the ones you mention have to be taken with a grain of salt and may not represent the views of many (most?) Canadians.


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Jul 2010)

Retired AF Guy,

Granted the CBC is left leaning, but it was left leaning years ago when their results were 50/50 on stay or go.

The CBC was left leaning then as it is now 90/10, so the survey sample can be considered relatively sterile and consistent.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Retired AF Guy,
> 
> Granted the CBC is left leaning, but it was left leaning years ago when their results were 50/50 on stay or go.
> 
> The CBC was left leaning then as it is now 90/10, so the survey sample can be considered relatively sterile and consistent.



Or the results could simply indicate that the sentiment on the Left is now 90/10; not necessarily reflective of the rest of the political/social spectrum.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jul 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Or the results could simply indicate that the sentiment on the Left is now 90/10; not necessarily reflective of the rest of the political/social spectrum.


I haven't done any counting, but it appears to me that most folks who comment on Afghanistan stories are the ones who oppose it for one reason or another.  It may just reflect the fact that many who oppose the war are more willing to type it out - I concur that comments on stories = full range of public opinion.


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Jul 2010)

There are posts that support us being there too, they just get swamped with "disagree" and don't get anywhere near the votes the "we need to get out now" posts do, so if you sort by "agree" you'll never see posts stating we should be there unless you go to page 50.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jul 2010)

The same people that oppose the war in Afghanistan also believe that the taliban are freedom fighters. :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jul 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I have no problem admitting that you're right sometimes
> 
> The problem though is that public tide is no absurdly against staying there.  If you track the comments at the bottom of CBC, the "approve" and "disapprove" comments have shifted on the messages like "Get out of there now" from 50/50 to 75/25 and now with the latest fatality they're about 90% "approve" for quitting.
> 
> Sadly, and political party that said they wanted to stay, even if they had iron clad proof that we were doing great things over there and the Taliban were about to surrender, would be committing political suicide.



CBC has roughly, and this is a generous guesstimate, a viewership and following of roughly 8% of the total population that has a radio or TV. Their say and their viewer's say equates to, I don't know, about dick all of the real population of this country.

CBC has long ago stopped being the voice of what we want or how we do it. You might as well cite what Hugo Chavez has to say about our being in Afghanistan. CBC is a non starter and can't be trusted for the true pulse of the Canadian public.

Everyone wants to hear what Mom says, but Mom is senile and incoherent. Not to be trusted with lit matches or the opinion of the common person in Canada.

As far as political haymaking, the Opposition simply has to admit the situation has changed in the last 18 months and their reassessment shows our presence in certain areas must remain.

Simple combat estimates and reassessments of political goals are the only thing needed to extend the mission. 

Oh, and non partisan political will with an end game of satisfying the Canadian public and our true expectations, and not the furtherance of some myth to provide election fodder for a political party.

This is there for the Opposition to mismanage at their own peril.


----------



## shamu (22 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> CBC has roughly, and this is a generous guesstimate, a viewership and following of roughly 8% of the total population that has a radio or TV. Their say and their viewer's say equates to, I don't know, about dick all of the real population of this country.



Interesting unfactoid. Conrad Black is out of jail (for now), maybe he can help you can get a job at one of his old newspapers 

Supposed "liberal media bias" of the CBC misses the point.  

If Canadians spent more time researching the situation, as to why this mission is ethically sound and why it is necessary to be part of the UN sanctioned, NATO led mission in Afghanistan, we'd be in a better place.

But most common news seen by average people are soldiers dying .  Rather than being reminded of millions of people getting education, healthcare, rights and why they are there in the first place; terrorism, we get 15 second stories or a scrolling text on bottom of a screen.

We have the misinformed; people the "911 truth"/"we're there for oil" crowd.  That's 1/3 Canadians that believe the conspiracy theory (which Skeptic Magasine and Popular Mechanics bust quite handily).  Blame dope and "internet journalism".

And you have a portion of people polarized from the Conservative Party and/or the Liberal Party who, for a variety of reasons, will never agree on their policies on principal alone.  But it was a Liberal led government that committed us to Afghanistan and Conservatives who inherited the mission.  Personally, I think the deadline coincides with the stretched out resources and manning of the CF and to delay the debate.  My feeling is we will extend because the two major parties want to stay.

You are correct in when you say non-partisan political will with an end game will make this mission a success.  In that, a plan to engage Canadians in communicating the facts of the mission beyond 15 second news sound bites.  With a little more information pushed out to the average, sane, reasonable, level headed adult Canadian, the majority should agree with the mission.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2010)

shamu said:
			
		

> Supposed "liberal media bias" of the CBC misses the point.
> 
> If Canadians spent more time researching the situation, as to why this mission is ethically sound and why it is necessary to be part of the UN sanctioned, NATO led mission in Afghanistan, we'd be in a better place.



I think you are missing the point.  Yes Canadians should spend more time researching the situation, but it is even more so a responsibility of the MSM to do a thorough job in their research and reporting.  If the MSM fails on their part, then the people who do research are left with their (MSMs) mistakes.  If the MSM is producing garbage, that is what people are going to find when they JFGI.  Yes, Goggle can be your friend, but it can by your enemy too, if the MSM is posting faulty/incorrect/biased info.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jul 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As far as political haymaking, the Opposition simply has to admit the situation has changed in the last 18 months and their reassessment shows our presence in certain areas must remain.



I think we've already heard that from Iggy ....


> .... Mr. Ignatieff is suggesting that Canadians remain for another three years after the military mission ends in July, 2011, but cautions that any commitment cannot be open ended.
> 
> Training a cadre of officers is a mission that Canadians would be good at, he said, noting that some of the best military trainers are in this country. It would also be a mission that does not involve combat.
> 
> ...



....from Bob Rae....


> .... “The door is open to a serious discussion in Canada, and then
> between Canada and NATO, about what the future looks like,”
> Mr. Rae said earlier this week as committee members paid a
> visit to Kandahar Airfield. “Increasing the capacity both of the
> ...



.... and from Senator Hugh Segal:


> None of us can know what the final phase in Afghanistan will bring in terms of a constructive framework for stability and self-government, but it is clear that Canadian military experience, perspective, local sensitivity and highly-trained capacities need to be a vital part of that final phase ....



So some minds on the other side are changed.....



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> This is there for the Opposition to mismanage at their own peril.



Jack?  Gilles?  Anything to add?  Hello?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Simple combat estimates and reassessments of political goals are the only thing needed to extend the mission.
> 
> Oh, and *non partisan political will with an end game of satisfying the Canadian public and our true expectations, and not the furtherance of some myth to provide election fodder for a political party.*



I have to agree with what E.R. Campbell said here in September:


> .... Most countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada and America are growing more and more tired of this war. *Their populations do not understand the nature of COIN and they are not inclined to learn.* Who can blame them, in the middle of a financial meltdown? Europe has never liked this operation and it is, across the board, casualty averse ....



Given that, so far, it sounds like the PM's pretty keen on maintaining the "get the military outta Dodge by 2011" course.

As for this....


			
				shamu said:
			
		

> You are correct in when you say non-partisan political will with an end game will make this mission a success.  In that, a plan to engage Canadians in communicating the facts of the mission beyond 15 second news sound bites.  With a little more information pushed out to the average, sane, reasonable, level headed adult Canadian, the majority should agree with the mission.


There have been calls for years, here and elsewhere on blogosphere, for better communication by those we elected about the mission, and better engagement of the Canadian public.  Anything is better than nothing, but IMHO, it's too late to change public minds now.

Unless the Government has an epiphany about the value of the mission continuing, saying, as RG suggested, "hey, the situation now is not like the situation earlier, so we have to respond differently," we're (the military component, anyway) outta there.  I'll even bet a donation to a charity halping Canada's war wounded, or families of the fallen, that there will be no government "about face" on this.


----------



## Redeye (22 Jul 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The same people that oppose the war in Afghanistan also believe that the taliban are freedom fighters. :



That couldn't be further from the truth.  Maybe some deluded folks do - but I think they're rare.  Among though who I've talked to, they all consider the Taliban to be a negative influence and an evil force, but one of many in the world, and one that ultimately in their estimate isn't likely to be rooted out.  I've met many people whose views on the matter differ from mine but none come to mind that had much positive sentiment for the Taliban.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (22 Jul 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I think we've already heard that from Iggy ....
> ....from Bob Rae....
> .... and from Senator Hugh Segal:
> So some minds on the other side are changed.....
> ...


Good posting.  I agree completely that the CF will not remain post 2011 in any significant numbers.  There simply is no domestic upside for the govt to extend us.  On the negative side of the political calculus, $22 billion and counting, 151 dead CF members, and minimal public support for the mission.  Internationally the Dutch withdrawal from Afghanistan may well have cascading effects on other European countries.  It has certainly made it easier for Canada to withdraw and also shown our current minority government what can happen if they re-open debate on extending the mission.  I doubt that even President Obama cares one way or the other since he is quite keen to commence the U.S. drawdown himself.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jul 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Internationally the Dutch withdrawal from Afghanistan may well have cascading effects on other European countries.  It has certainly made it easier for Canada to withdraw and also shown our current minority government what can happen if they re-open debate on extending the mission.


One analyst takes it a step further in a recent think tank report:


> .... The Taliban seem to see themselves as gradually gaining the upper hand in the military confrontation and as having so far successfully counteracted the military surge chosen in Washington. They probably see the incipient Dutch and Canadian withdrawals as the first signs that the enemy front is disintegrating ....


So far, I haven't seen this kind of messaging in the Taliban statements I've tracked, but time will tell.


----------



## stealthylizard (22 Jul 2010)

The government also hasn't done a very good job in selling the conflict in Afghanistan to Canadians.  I'm always being asked, after people find out I just returned from there, "Why are we there anyways?"  I can come up with a couple dozen reasons, but just the fact that people ask that, shows they don't know WHY we are involved, or WHAT we are actually doing.  It does make it fun dispelling the whole "war for a pipeline" myth though.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jul 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That couldn't be further from the truth.  Maybe some deluded folks do - but I think they're rare.  Among though who I've talked to, they all consider the Taliban to be a negative influence and an evil force, but one of many in the world, and one that ultimately in their estimate isn't likely to be rooted out.  I've met many people whose views on the matter differ from mine but none come to mind that had much positive sentiment for the Taliban.



The left supported Afghanistan because Chretian decided that between Iraq and Afghanistan the latter was a safer option [fewer Canadian casualties]. Now that Afghanistan is the main stage and casualties continue with no end in sight,the left doesnt want to be there anymore. Their reasons for getting out were the same they made for Vietnam and then Iraq. Its not worth the cost in blood and treasure they say. Yet Iraq is proof that not only can the enemy be defeated but the groundwork can be laid for lasting stability and peace. If you want freedom you have to be willing to fight for it and the Iraqi's have done that. In Afghanistan much of the ANA is made up of ethnic people's that suffered under the taliban. Getting reliable Pashtun's that want to be rid of the taliban is our most difficult challenge.
Canada has been punching above its weight for quite sometime now and if the civilian leadership wants to go in a different direction then I say "THANKs For Your Support and the sacrifice of so many of your best and brightest !!". At some point the Afghans have to do it for themselves just as the Iraqi's did.


----------



## Redeye (23 Jul 2010)

Well, to a great extent, you're correct - Afghanistan was the more palatable option for most people here, given that I think a broader swath of the Canadian public saw that the _casus belli_ in Iraq was complete nonsense.

I do respectfully disagree with your rosy view about Iraq's future - at least in the short term- based on the experiences of some Iraqi friends of mine and their family's experiences, however.  And that it's a precedent for Afghanistan.  But I do hope to be proven wrong in time.





			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The left supported Afghanistan because Chretian decided that between Iraq and Afghanistan the latter was a safer option [fewer Canadian casualties]. Now that Afghanistan is the main stage and casualties continue with no end in sight,the left doesnt want to be there anymore. Their reasons for getting out were the same they made for Vietnam and then Iraq. Its not worth the cost in blood and treasure they say. Yet Iraq is proof that not only can the enemy be defeated but the groundwork can be laid for lasting stability and peace. If you want freedom you have to be willing to fight for it and the Iraqi's have done that. In Afghanistan much of the ANA is made up of ethnic people's that suffered under the taliban. Getting reliable Pashtun's that want to be rid of the taliban is our most difficult challenge.
> Canada has been punching above its weight for quite sometime now and if the civilian leadership wants to go in a different direction then I say "THANKs For Your Support and the sacrifice of so many of your best and brightest !!". At some point the Afghans have to do it for themselves just as the Iraqi's did.


----------



## time expired (24 Jul 2010)

Tomahawk 6,Thanks for the kind words,however I connot agree with your contention that

we(Canada)are "punching above our weight".5 plus divisions for a population of 18 mil.

in WW2 was "punching above our weight" but a battalion battle group from a country with

a population of 32 mil.definitely is not.

Since WW2 Canada has consistently failed to pull our weight,NATO formation we contributed

a Brigade although the RCAF effort was somewhat greater,Korea a brigade again plus a cruiser

and a couple of destroyers.Vietnam,we decided that providing a haven for US draft dodgers and

supplying the US with arty and small arms ammo,at a good profit,was the role we could best fill.

Falkland war we failed to lift a finger to help the country that had guaranteed our independence

for a !00 or so years.The "stepping up to plate" in A-stan was only done because the Libs. thought

the game was over and the pitcher had gone home,and would mend a few fences after our no-

show in both Gulf wars.Now we are turning our backs on a UN sanctioned and NATO run war ,these

two organizations have been the cornerstone of our foreign policy for decades and now we are

leaving them in the lurch not to mention our allies.

As an ex Canadian soldier this effects my morale,I wonder what it will do the the soldiers that are

presently serving or have served in A-stan and have lost friends there and how it will effect the opinions

of our erstwhile allies.

                                                                      Regards


----------



## pbi (26 Jul 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Because the CBC has a liberal/left-wing bias it stands to reason that the people who read their articles and make comment on articles will have similar views. Therefore, comments like the ones you mention have to be taken with a grain of salt and may not represent the views of many (most?) Canadians.



This comment reminds me of the words of a US Army Colonel who once told me that no US Army officer would be caught dead listening to National Public Radio.  I think that's BS: you can't pass judgements on people simply because they don't consume privately-owned media. Read and watch whatever you want, and form your own opinions.

I'm a regular reader of the CBC.ca site (I have it with my Tim's every morning), and this comment about CBC news bloggers doesn't match what I see, at all. I look at the blog comments for the cardio-vascular workout value: it raises my heart rate and blood pressure. First of all, the entire place seems to be a collection of tin-foil hatted, mouth-breathing conspiracy mongers who  believe every piece of garbage they see on the net. That said, while there are a very small number of what I would call truly "left-wing" individuals, at least half  if not more of the posters are foaming at the mouth right-wing populists who either:

-support whatever the Govt does, regardless, because it's the Tories, and therefore not "left-wing"; or

-oppose whatever the Govt does, regardless, because it's the Tories, and therefore not "right-wing" enough

Many of these right-wing types rage endlessly about how the left-wing CBC "censors" their posts. (I know this because I read their long, incoherent and rambling anti-CBC posts that somehow don't get censored. Perhaps the CBC only lets stupid right-wing people post, as part of a giant Left-Wing Conspiracy to make the Right Wing look bad) Amazingly, they consistently return to the CBC.ca site and read the articles (or at least, read enough to form the basis for a rant).

The Lefties, on the other hand, squawk about the media mindlessly supporting the US-driven war-mongering, glorifying the military and "supressing dissent" (aren't their posts a form of dissent, visible instantly around the world?). Oh, yes, and "forgetting our UN peace-keeping tradition".

I always find it interesting to hear the Left constantly shriek that the media is controlled by the fascist corporate military-industrial complex, while the Right howls that the same media is controlled by left-wing Marxist tree-hugging liberals.

Cheers


----------



## pbi (26 Jul 2010)

time expired said:
			
		

> ...a battalion battle group from a country with
> 
> a population of 32 mil.definitely is not...



You're not being fair here. In fact you're verging on slagging off the efforts of thousands of Canadian soldiers, aircrew,sailors, police and civilians. This country has put one hell of a lot more into Afghanistan than an infantry battle group, and you know that. The BG has been just one part (albeit an important part) of what  we've done. We have also run what was arguably one of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan for several years. (and, briefly, we ran all of Sector South) We were trusted enough to be given control of US forces (not a common occurrence, at all) as well as an increasing number of Afghan forces. Our intelligence capability (given our size) is second to none, as is our SOF capability. Our Air Wing has earned a very good reputation in Afghanistan: the Griffon pilots in particular are respected in their field. 

Before any of that, we ran the Kabul Brigade, and ISAF.

All of this was done (by two different governments) despite unpredictable (and diminishing) public support, and in the face of other major financial problems both national and military. And all of it was done without a huge military structure, without national mobilization or conscription: it was done by professional volunteers.

Could we have done more? Maybe, but only in a different political environment than what we have to live with in Canada.

We've got nothing to be ashamed of.

Cheers


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2010)

Ahamed?  No, I'm not necessarily ashamed.  We have paid for our efforts in blood and treasure and I am proud of what has been accomplished.   

But, we are indeed a shadow of our former selves.  That cannot be disputed at all.  We once had the third largest Allied Navy and the fourth largest Alliled Air Force for example.  Yes we are good at what we do and have done.  However when I think of what we once were and now become I can get a little embarassed by it.  My first post visit ot Norfolk left me feeling somewhat inadequate.  Americans are curious and interested about us, I have felt like a poor relation when trying to explain what we have become.  Anyhow that's my  :2c:


----------



## dapaterson (26 Jul 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Could we have done more? Maybe, but only in a different political environment than what we have to live with in Canada.
> 
> We've got nothing to be ashamed of.
> 
> Cheers



I think you are in loud, violent agreement here.

The original poster was in no way critiquing the CF members who have deployed and conducted themselves above and beyond; it is an explicit critique of the national will.

Think about it: A single BG, plus other enablers, totalling not even 3000 deployed from a nation of 33 million is somehow a stretch and taxing the limits of that nation's military capabilities.


----------



## pbi (26 Jul 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> We once had the third largest Allied Navy and the fourth largest Alliled Air Force for example.  Yes we are good at what we do and have done.  However when I think of what we once were and now become I can get a little embarassed by it.  My first post visit ot Norfolk left me feeling somewhat inadequate.  Americans are curious and interested about us, I have felt like a poor relation when trying to explain what we have become.  Anyhow that's my  :2c:



We need some perspective here. We had that big Navy and that big Air Force as a direct result of fighting a World War. (within a few decades both were mostly gone, as national priorities changed) That war was perceived by most (although not all...) Canadians as being an existential crisis. We believed that if we lost it, we stood to lose everything. There was a clearly understood reason for what we were doing. "Winning" and "losing" were pretty black and white terms. Almost the entire nation of 12 million was mobilized in some way. 

I submit that almost none of those conditions have existed for the war in Afghanistan. And, absent those conditions,  but instead under the political and economic conditions we actually live with, we have done about as much as could realistically be expected.  I don't think that our political climate would have let any Canadian government do much more, unless Canadians were somehow convinced that a direct and imminent threat was posed to them, to which the answer was the use of  Canadian military force.

In contrast, I'm actually very surprised we've stuck around as long as we have, under the conditions we've faced, and done what we've done. If you want more, you will have to fundamentally change the way our fellow citizens think.

Cheers


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jul 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> We need some perspective here. We had that big Navy and that big Air Force as a direct result of fighting a World War. (within a few decades both were mostly gone, as national priorities changed) That war was perceived by most (although not all...) Canadians as being an existential crisis. We believed that if we lost it, we stood to lose everything. There was a clearly understood reason for what we were doing. "Winning" and "losing" were pretty black and white terms. Almost the entire nation of 12 million was mobilized in some way.
> 
> I submit that almost none of those conditions have existed for the war in Afghanistan.


Bang on.  Although Canadians are _broadly_ supportive of troops in the fray, to repeat the words of many much wiser than me:  the CF is at war, Canada is at the mall.


----------



## Tank Troll (26 Jul 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But, we are indeed a shadow of our former selves.  That cannot be disputed at all.  We once had the third largest Allied Navy and the fourth largest Alliled Air Force for example.  Yes we are good at what we do and have done.  However when I think of what we once were and now become I can get a little embarrassed by it.  My first post visit to Norfolk left me feeling somewhat inadequate.  Americans are curious and interested about us, I have felt like a poor relation when trying to explain what we have become.  Anyhow that's my  :2c:



Navy 3rd largest behind America and Briton no Russian Navy to speak of then. Air force 4th largest same,same but Russia had an air force.
Reason why we were 3rd and 4th.......every one Else's was sunk, blown up, destroyed or other wise. I feel a Homer Simpson moment can you say "Default, Default"
I agree whole heartedly with pbi


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Jul 2010)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Navy 3rd largest behind America and Briton no Russian Navy to speak of then. Air force 4th largest same,same but Russia had an air force.
> Reason why we were 3rd and 4th.......every one Else's was sunk, blown up, destroyed or other wise. I feel a Homer Simpson moment can you say "Default, Default"
> I agree whole heartedly with pbi



Our guys were being killed and our equipment was being sunk and destroyed as well. We had 2 big oceans that gave us respite and enabled us to build up.


----------



## Tank Troll (26 Jul 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Our guys were being killed and our equipment was being sunk and destroyed as well. We had 2 big oceans that gave us respite and enabled us to build up.



Never said we didn't lose our share just with us being the forth largest Allied contributor to WWII stands to reason we were going to end up with some thing in the top three or four


----------

