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

[Canuck1963]

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]

 

[Yrys]

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]

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]

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

Nice site.

Agreed.

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.

2.  The above facts notwithstanding, ...

Assumptions aren't facts.

... 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.   

...  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.

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.

... 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]

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.

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.

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.

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. :

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]

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]

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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:

... 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.

....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.

.....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.

.... 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.

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?

.....  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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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