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

[Michael OLeary]

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]

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]

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, ***-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:

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]

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]

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

...Crickets...

 

[Teflon]

I truely hope he/she feels better

 

[George Wallace]

...... 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:

........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]

. 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]

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]

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.

Dammit.

See what you made me do????

This was supposed to be a SHORT post :crybaby:

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]

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]

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]

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 Army 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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

...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]

Hey...O'Leary:

Put an egg in your shoe, and beat it.

Savvy?

 

[Canuck1963]

My first impression. :

"Canuck1963
Posts:2"

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

Oddball

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]

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]

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.