- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
Canadians going to Iraq
- Thread starter Fusaki
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Gents,
Sounds like a bit of reporting the facts based on the rumour mill. Note the say no warning orders given, yet....key word "yet‘. Its not for sure, but as all of our foriegn policy for the military seems to be dictated by whats on CNN this week, it will probably happen. To what laughable extent...who knows. I give less then 40% that they will send a Infantry battlegroup (like Afgh) to a real shooting war, but who knows, Chretian doesn‘t like to look bad....
Sounds like a bit of reporting the facts based on the rumour mill. Note the say no warning orders given, yet....key word "yet‘. Its not for sure, but as all of our foriegn policy for the military seems to be dictated by whats on CNN this week, it will probably happen. To what laughable extent...who knows. I give less then 40% that they will send a Infantry battlegroup (like Afgh) to a real shooting war, but who knows, Chretian doesn‘t like to look bad....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Isn‘t the US warming up a battlegroup or two to be ready within 96 hours? ...And knowing Cretin, we‘ll probably follow.
"On the list were ground troops, commandos from Joint Task Force 2, CF18 fighter aircraft and ships." (from the article)
CF18s? Why don‘t they just call McDonnell Douglas and ask for spare parts? ...And how are we gonna provide ships for both the war on terror and Iraq? ..As for JTF2 and ground troops, anybody care to guess what our guys will be asked to do?
"On the list were ground troops, commandos from Joint Task Force 2, CF18 fighter aircraft and ships." (from the article)
CF18s? Why don‘t they just call McDonnell Douglas and ask for spare parts? ...And how are we gonna provide ships for both the war on terror and Iraq? ..As for JTF2 and ground troops, anybody care to guess what our guys will be asked to do?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Discussing the differences (similarities?) between the Yanks and our guys the other day with a work colleague (Ex-2Lt P RES), he mentioned that the Americans tend to turn tail and run after they start losing too many of their lads.
We are now facing the very real possibility of the U.S. fighting two wars at the same time -- Iraq, which is only a matter of weeks or possibly days away from turning into a full-blown shooting conflict -- and North Korea.
North Korea is especially interesting. They have basically done the same thing as Iraq -- defied the United Nations by admitting they have continued their nuclear program since 1994 when they told the world they had stopped, and now by expelling international atomic energy inspectors, removing seals and cameras, and ordering up 2,000 fresh uranium fuel rods to add to their 8,000 spent ones. They possess enough nuclear material to make several fissionable warheads per month, once they get the reactors going, AND they possess the means to deliver them as far away as Japan and India.
Korea, if we remember our history books, has already gone to war with the western world once. In fact, if I remember correctly, the war never ended. A state of cease fire exists, and there is a DMZ separating North from South.
It is conceivable that the U.S. will also call upon the usual suspects to assist in dealing with this far more pressing and urgent crisis. Will Canada get the call? Maybe? But if we commit to Iraq at the same time, where are we going to find the troops?
What happens when the 1 million-strong North Korean army starts imposing their favourable odds on the battlefield on our troops? The Americans will surely last longer than us. But we will probably risk several casualties as well. While every soldier understands this and accepts it, the rest of Canada probably doesn‘t share the same sentiment.
And, friendly body counts are bad for re-election.
I think I see us giving this one a miss, which is a shame, because Canada discharged its duties in Korea in the 1950s with honour, and I‘d say the risk Korea poses to the world is far greater than Iraq‘s immediate threat.
We are now facing the very real possibility of the U.S. fighting two wars at the same time -- Iraq, which is only a matter of weeks or possibly days away from turning into a full-blown shooting conflict -- and North Korea.
North Korea is especially interesting. They have basically done the same thing as Iraq -- defied the United Nations by admitting they have continued their nuclear program since 1994 when they told the world they had stopped, and now by expelling international atomic energy inspectors, removing seals and cameras, and ordering up 2,000 fresh uranium fuel rods to add to their 8,000 spent ones. They possess enough nuclear material to make several fissionable warheads per month, once they get the reactors going, AND they possess the means to deliver them as far away as Japan and India.
Korea, if we remember our history books, has already gone to war with the western world once. In fact, if I remember correctly, the war never ended. A state of cease fire exists, and there is a DMZ separating North from South.
It is conceivable that the U.S. will also call upon the usual suspects to assist in dealing with this far more pressing and urgent crisis. Will Canada get the call? Maybe? But if we commit to Iraq at the same time, where are we going to find the troops?
What happens when the 1 million-strong North Korean army starts imposing their favourable odds on the battlefield on our troops? The Americans will surely last longer than us. But we will probably risk several casualties as well. While every soldier understands this and accepts it, the rest of Canada probably doesn‘t share the same sentiment.
And, friendly body counts are bad for re-election.
I think I see us giving this one a miss, which is a shame, because Canada discharged its duties in Korea in the 1950s with honour, and I‘d say the risk Korea poses to the world is far greater than Iraq‘s immediate threat.
- Reaction score
- 8,557
- Points
- 1,160
I think in these times it‘s totally counterproductive, not to mention just plain bad form, to heep derision on our allies the way your neophite collegue has done. His real world experience is sorely lacking. Taking counsel from an EX- 2Lt PRes is NOT the path to wisdom and enlightenment. Especially since you just started with the military. Listen politely, and store it away, no need to repeat unsubstantiated drivel. There will always be the left leaning bleeding hearts looking for an out or excuse.
As to what will happen, who knows. We‘ll have to wait and see. There‘s lots of others further up the food chain and with a lot better intel than the newspapers and CNN. Let them gather the facts and make the descisions. We‘ll go where they tell us and do our best work, under equipped and under manned if necessary.
As to what will happen, who knows. We‘ll have to wait and see. There‘s lots of others further up the food chain and with a lot better intel than the newspapers and CNN. Let them gather the facts and make the descisions. We‘ll go where they tell us and do our best work, under equipped and under manned if necessary.
A
ArmyAl
Guest
4 scarest things to hear from troops
1. Pvt saying " well from what I learned"
2. Capt saying " I‘ll get back to you on that"
3. 2LT saying " from my experence"
4. Sgt saying " TRUST ME SIR "
What the **** does your 2LT buddy know?
1. Pvt saying " well from what I learned"
2. Capt saying " I‘ll get back to you on that"
3. 2LT saying " from my experence"
4. Sgt saying " TRUST ME SIR "
What the **** does your 2LT buddy know?
2
2Lt_Martin
Guest
Please correct me if I‘m wrong but when a "battle group" engages in a conflict do they not fight together. Example: our snipers and US Special Forces in Afghanistan.
Having never been on a tour or in combat myself I am looking for advice/input not trying to start a posting war.
Any thoughts on this?
- Reaction score
- 11,244
- Points
- 1,160
I like that post ArmyAl.
One of my favorite all time quotes from anyone in the military was having a brand new master corporal (Who had about a year and a half in the military-reserves) say during a class "In my experence with the military"
It was classic.
One of my favorite all time quotes from anyone in the military was having a brand new master corporal (Who had about a year and a half in the military-reserves) say during a class "In my experence with the military"
It was classic.
A
Airghardt
Guest
Now a days the (Western) world has taken on a anti war approach. Take a look for instance the movie: "Black Hawk Down". At the end of the film it showed how horrible it was, and no one ever wanted to go back to war (now don‘t get me wrong i‘m not saying it‘s cool and great, and that it wasn‘t horrible, but it‘s not as bad as they showed it) That movie, like any war movie made in the past few years, in the end turns into an anti war movie. We are being fed this subliminal message all the time by any and every form of the media. We have lost all connections with the "fighting spirit" of the heady days of World War 2, where we knew what war meant, what it‘s costs were, but we were determined to win. Now, since Vietnam, we think every conflict we enter shall become another Vietnam. We begin to question what it is we are fighting for. Maybe Vietnam was not the best example of fighting a just war, but it was there, now we question Iraq, North Korea, is it really worth sending our young men (and these days) women into battle to die for some unkown cause? the reallity is that we never see why we are at war until it stirkes home. Like 9-11 for instance: had Canada been the target our stance would have been far more sevear, and our people not so "withdrawn" from taking a tougher stance on terroists. but still even though the threat is there we tend to dismiss it still. Osama has put out a tape a few months ago stating that Canada is on the hit list for future terorist attacks. Yet the facts have not stuck still. so what does it take for us to drop the reason for this petty fear that we have of a threat we think cannot harm us right now (ie Iraq or N. Korea, we don‘t know they don‘t have ICBM capabilities) and take a hard stance like we have done for the axis forces 60 years ago, and rid this world of these threats. I believe it is Cretien, he is too afraid to rock the boat, he is a sheep, he follows the U.S. like they are the shepard, he only puts in just the bear minimum and calls this our great contribution. maybe if he would allocate more money to the military rather than his personal trasportation (the pair of 50 million dollar jets he has), we would be able to send more troops 9or send troops period!) and be able to sustain them, not relying on the Americans, or Air Canada to get us everywhere...
i believe that is enough... :fifty:
i believe that is enough... :fifty:
- Reaction score
- 8,557
- Points
- 1,160
To paraphrase:
Those that beat their swords into plowshares eventually end up working in the fields of those who didn‘t.
Just a thought
Those that beat their swords into plowshares eventually end up working in the fields of those who didn‘t.
Just a thought
P
Pugil
Guest
##We have lost all connections with the "fighting spirit" of the heady days of World War 2, where we knew what war meant, what it‘s costs were, but we were determined to win##
Correct me if im wrong, I guess you never been to a war. War is not about honnour, prestige or integrity. Looks at the veterans of all the wars that Canada fought, most of them are more toward peace than war. You dont know what war is about until you experienced yourself nevermind the stories of your grand-fathers in ww2 or Hollywood movies. I find in America the tend to have a hawkish attitude toward rogue states, it is because we have never been bomb by a foreign states or occupied, we never tasted whats humiliation. Look at Europe, now a days they only use force at last resort because they know what the word war involves. I will answer to any call if Canada needs me, I will fight a war if necessary but I prefer Canada to stay away from US simplistic view of the world with their axis of evil..to invade country for oil, interest and to test new weapons..
Correct me if im wrong, I guess you never been to a war. War is not about honnour, prestige or integrity. Looks at the veterans of all the wars that Canada fought, most of them are more toward peace than war. You dont know what war is about until you experienced yourself nevermind the stories of your grand-fathers in ww2 or Hollywood movies. I find in America the tend to have a hawkish attitude toward rogue states, it is because we have never been bomb by a foreign states or occupied, we never tasted whats humiliation. Look at Europe, now a days they only use force at last resort because they know what the word war involves. I will answer to any call if Canada needs me, I will fight a war if necessary but I prefer Canada to stay away from US simplistic view of the world with their axis of evil..to invade country for oil, interest and to test new weapons..
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 430
At the end of the day, the main reason we do peacekeeping, peacemaking or combat ops overseas is to keep conflicts as far away from our shores as possible. I believe the USA has been very successful at this, although in a more aggressive way than us. Fighting a war for oil ? why not : pugil, if you own a car, how would you like to pay $2.50/li for gas ? Most people in canada would be outraged and eventually agree with military action (remember the Oka crisis ? ) We must protect our freedom and way of life, and if it means fighting a war, so be it. I‘m ready... 
P
Pugil
Guest
Countries that you dont like doesnt mean that they threaten your freedom, Im tired of that selfish attitude. Im not against all military action, I think that military actions should always be an option during negociation, but we should use it wisely.
#At the end of the day, the main reason we do peacekeeping, peacemaking or combat ops overseas is to keep conflicts as far away from our shores as possible. I believe the USA has been very successful at this, although in a more aggressive way than us##
It is only a pretext to invade other countries, remember how US started to get involved in Vietnam? Simply because a small boat from North Vietnamese navy was firing at an US carrier, but many decades later media revealed that it was false and it was only to give president Johnson to commit more troops in Vietnam. More recently the media reported that Iraqis troops raped and tortured kuwaitis civilians during their occupation of Kuwait, just not long ago it was also revealed that US lied on that to get International support. When they say that Iraq used weapon of mass destruction against their own people, was the US the only ountry that have used atomic bomb on civilian? not once but twice. What about agent orange during Vietnam war? (chemical weapon highly deadly to humans)..ooopss im getting a bit off topic.
#At the end of the day, the main reason we do peacekeeping, peacemaking or combat ops overseas is to keep conflicts as far away from our shores as possible. I believe the USA has been very successful at this, although in a more aggressive way than us##
It is only a pretext to invade other countries, remember how US started to get involved in Vietnam? Simply because a small boat from North Vietnamese navy was firing at an US carrier, but many decades later media revealed that it was false and it was only to give president Johnson to commit more troops in Vietnam. More recently the media reported that Iraqis troops raped and tortured kuwaitis civilians during their occupation of Kuwait, just not long ago it was also revealed that US lied on that to get International support. When they say that Iraq used weapon of mass destruction against their own people, was the US the only ountry that have used atomic bomb on civilian? not once but twice. What about agent orange during Vietnam war? (chemical weapon highly deadly to humans)..ooopss im getting a bit off topic.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
I‘m with Pugil on several points, here.
The greatest advocate for peace is a person just back from a war.
My grandfather didn‘t talk much about his experience in WWII, not because he didn‘t win a VC and was ashamed or something. But simply because, like many, he didn‘t want to be there, but went anyway. Too many people lost their lives too early in life. The cause may be just, but that doesn‘t mean we should collectively hurry back into a war at the drop of a hat.
My uncle, a combat veteran of the Falklands, certainly doesn‘t talk about his experiences there much, either. I had to practically beat him up to get him to tell me how he received a Mention-in-Despatches. He prefers to talk about his peacetime experiences as a pilot on exchange with the U.S. Navy, and the Bundeswehr, among others, flying F-14‘s, Buccaneers, Harriers, etc., throughout his career.
That said, and back on topic, the best thing we can do with Iraq is probably finish what should have been finished in 1991. I find it irresponsible that Saddam Hussein was allowed to remain after the war. So did Gen. Schwartzkopf, thus he retired. The irony, and what antiwar people jumped on at the time, and now, is that Saddam was elevated to his lofty post as a reaction to the Iranians, who deposed the Shah and instituted a despotic, violent regime. Well, you lie with dogs, you get up with fleas. Appeasement never works, as the British found out in 1939.
As to my earlier post, to be fair, my former 2Lt friend (who is now remustering into the CIC after over 10 years out of the CF) wasn‘t talking about Iraq, N. Korea, etc., he was talking about a book of fiction (can‘t remember the title) in which a hypothetical invasion of Canada was perpetrated by the United States. The book proposed the theory that Canada could never be invaded by the U.S. simply because their losses would make it wholly unpopular at home, and Congress would end the war. I felt I should clarify, because this particular person is most definitely not anywhere CLOSE to the left wing, and is an educated man, having a degree in history. But I must digress.
I, too, will go where ever my country needs me, and do whatever I have been trained to do. If it means Iraq or North Korea, then I only pray that I will do my duty to the best of my capacity so as not to disgrace my ancestors and embarass my progeny.
The greatest advocate for peace is a person just back from a war.
My grandfather didn‘t talk much about his experience in WWII, not because he didn‘t win a VC and was ashamed or something. But simply because, like many, he didn‘t want to be there, but went anyway. Too many people lost their lives too early in life. The cause may be just, but that doesn‘t mean we should collectively hurry back into a war at the drop of a hat.
My uncle, a combat veteran of the Falklands, certainly doesn‘t talk about his experiences there much, either. I had to practically beat him up to get him to tell me how he received a Mention-in-Despatches. He prefers to talk about his peacetime experiences as a pilot on exchange with the U.S. Navy, and the Bundeswehr, among others, flying F-14‘s, Buccaneers, Harriers, etc., throughout his career.
That said, and back on topic, the best thing we can do with Iraq is probably finish what should have been finished in 1991. I find it irresponsible that Saddam Hussein was allowed to remain after the war. So did Gen. Schwartzkopf, thus he retired. The irony, and what antiwar people jumped on at the time, and now, is that Saddam was elevated to his lofty post as a reaction to the Iranians, who deposed the Shah and instituted a despotic, violent regime. Well, you lie with dogs, you get up with fleas. Appeasement never works, as the British found out in 1939.
As to my earlier post, to be fair, my former 2Lt friend (who is now remustering into the CIC after over 10 years out of the CF) wasn‘t talking about Iraq, N. Korea, etc., he was talking about a book of fiction (can‘t remember the title) in which a hypothetical invasion of Canada was perpetrated by the United States. The book proposed the theory that Canada could never be invaded by the U.S. simply because their losses would make it wholly unpopular at home, and Congress would end the war. I felt I should clarify, because this particular person is most definitely not anywhere CLOSE to the left wing, and is an educated man, having a degree in history. But I must digress.
I, too, will go where ever my country needs me, and do whatever I have been trained to do. If it means Iraq or North Korea, then I only pray that I will do my duty to the best of my capacity so as not to disgrace my ancestors and embarass my progeny.
- Reaction score
- 8,557
- Points
- 1,160
Pugil,
Just like the rest of the media, just cause you read it there doesn‘t mean it‘s true. The door swings both ways. You have to be careful of sources when you "quote" who or who didn‘t do what.
Just like the rest of the media, just cause you read it there doesn‘t mean it‘s true. The door swings both ways. You have to be careful of sources when you "quote" who or who didn‘t do what.
- Reaction score
- 11,244
- Points
- 1,160
We can justify some brutal things in the name of good.
Theres a saying, something like
‘beware those whom hide behind the shield of rightiousness‘
I find it amazing how quickly people can overlook that the US caused the vietnam war and when it was over how poorly they acted. (using lsd and agent orange on their own troops, not doing as much as they could for POWs). And with iraq how they tried to get the kurdish people to rebel against saddam and then left them to their own devices, more or less.
Im sure theres a bunch of different points of view on that but thats the conclusions i‘ve drawn from what i‘ve seen on the media,have read and the vietnam/gulf war vets i spoke with.
The saddest thing of all is that even if we wanted to go to war i don‘t think we could.
Theres a saying, something like
‘beware those whom hide behind the shield of rightiousness‘
I find it amazing how quickly people can overlook that the US caused the vietnam war and when it was over how poorly they acted. (using lsd and agent orange on their own troops, not doing as much as they could for POWs). And with iraq how they tried to get the kurdish people to rebel against saddam and then left them to their own devices, more or less.
Im sure theres a bunch of different points of view on that but thats the conclusions i‘ve drawn from what i‘ve seen on the media,have read and the vietnam/gulf war vets i spoke with.
The saddest thing of all is that even if we wanted to go to war i don‘t think we could.
W
Wilson601
Guest
Well, Ghost. that sounds like it could be a mixed blessing. :skull:
Jungle
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 430
The US did use 2 atomic bombs in 1945... but how many lives were saved by ending the war that much sooner ? Nobody knows... how many people were killed by the Japanese in the Pacific, including the bombing of Darwin, Australia ? Now keeping in mind that nothing is perfect, and that people (and nations) make mistakes, I think the world is a better place today because of US interventions since 1945. Could things be better ? of course !!! but they could be much worse. Who could stop them if they were expansionists ? What if they had decided to do like the USSR did with East European satellites states ? Finally, Vietnam was a mistake, and mistakes were made after the Gulf war in 1991. But then again, when you don‘t do anything, you can‘t make mistakes...
- Reaction score
- 8,557
- Points
- 1,160
Jungle,
Absolutely, couldn‘t agree with you more! How easy it is to sit back, benefit from their system and pontificate on the righteousness, or lack of it, of the US. Yes, they can be percieved as pompous and arrogant bullies at times. More likely a byproduct of a patriotic upbringing. Something sorely lacking in Canada and other western nations. I agree, we could have been in a world of hurt a few times in the last century, and possibly now, had it not been for the actions of the US. While not condonning their behaviour sometimes, perhaps it is the lesser of two evils. I‘m sure Canada‘s history has more than a few skeletons buried in some old bases in the wilds of the forgotten woods. It‘s always easier to pick on the winner or percieved bully, without looking inwards. Besides, who says you have to fight anyone or anything fairly. The objective is to win, with the least amount of casualties and expenditure to yourself. Axworthy‘s Soft Diplomacy or the US‘s don‘t f**k with me attitude? Sorry, the latter works better for me.
Absolutely, couldn‘t agree with you more! How easy it is to sit back, benefit from their system and pontificate on the righteousness, or lack of it, of the US. Yes, they can be percieved as pompous and arrogant bullies at times. More likely a byproduct of a patriotic upbringing. Something sorely lacking in Canada and other western nations. I agree, we could have been in a world of hurt a few times in the last century, and possibly now, had it not been for the actions of the US. While not condonning their behaviour sometimes, perhaps it is the lesser of two evils. I‘m sure Canada‘s history has more than a few skeletons buried in some old bases in the wilds of the forgotten woods. It‘s always easier to pick on the winner or percieved bully, without looking inwards. Besides, who says you have to fight anyone or anything fairly. The objective is to win, with the least amount of casualties and expenditure to yourself. Axworthy‘s Soft Diplomacy or the US‘s don‘t f**k with me attitude? Sorry, the latter works better for me.
W
Wilson601
Guest
Here here, recceguy. :skull:
Similar threads
