OT - US Presidential Candiates Arrested!

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I find it hard to beleive that the Canadian military could have sufficient equipment, given that a) we've had to ship out soldeirs by renting space in other peoples boats, b) our sea king helicopters, a major part of our air force as I understand it, are 50 years old.

Granted, I'm no expert, but that's an alarming trend.

[AMF]

heh. Helos, airplanes, ships, and pretty much everything else is too old in the US military. Ask any marine about CH-53s...

The only things that aren't too old are the newest sexiest gear of the moment. Like the Osprey, stealth bombers, JSF, etc....services LOVE to buy the latest toys, but seem to have a real hard time replacing or repairing the ones they've got...

narf poit chez BOOM said:
I find it hard to beleive that the Canadian military could have sufficient equipment, given that a) we've had to ship out soldeirs by renting space in other peoples boats, b) our sea king helicopters, a major part of our air force as I understand it, are 50 years old.

Granted, I'm no expert, but that's an alarming trend.

[Krsqk]

alarikf said:
Oh my god, he CHANGED HIS MIND!

No, but seriously, there is no contradiction between being proud of what you are doing at the time and not in favor of the larger policies. When I was in Iraq, I took photos. Can you read my mind as well as yuo can read Kerry's and tell me why? I didn't think so.

EDIT: let me add some words that I think better explain what I mean: There is a world of difference between doing one's duty and trying to right wrongs. When he (or anyone) volounteered to go to Vietnam, to fight and perhaps die for his country, that's a powerful oath you take. You have a duty. It's not just pride in one's work, it's a calling. But, frankly (speaking from personal experience), almost getting killed tends to focus one's mind really well on what is important in life and what is not. And, I would guess that when his duty was over, he felt that he could then move on to dealing with issues or what he heard. A soldier or a marine or a sailor, is not going to disobey, be derelict, or otherwise bring shame upon their oath or their service. But when that is done, then they can reflect on what it was they were asked to do. Again, it takes a courageous man to do such reflection and come to the conclusion that the way the war was waged was wrong. END EDIT

And, perhaps he had an epiphany of sorts. When you're in-country for months and you see just one side, and then you get out and you talk to others and they tell you that they committed atrocities, that certainly could change someone's mind. And, hopefully, it *would* - again, I have a lot more respect for someone who can change their mind, especially on something of vast importance, than for someone who is going to stubbornly cling to some erroneous beleif.

That's why I can't have respect for anyone who says, at *any* point in their life, "Mistakes? I can't recall any I've made..."

That is not the type of person I'd like to be having a beer with.

I don't claim to be able to read his mind. His actions simply seem to indicate that he thought war was fine, or at least that being a hero in a war was fine. All right, no complaints there. But you can't say he simply just changed his mind about war, because he came back and said that he himself committed war crimes! That's not "Well, I used to think war was good, but now I've been enlightened to the evil we're doing"--by his own testimony, he was evil during his four months over there, while at the same time he was making films which promoted war. Something just doesn't add up there. If he had honestly just changed his mind, then I could handle that. But apparently, he held both of those opposing viewpoints simultaneously. Maybe he's just a little more open-minded than I am.

He didn't just "see the big picture" once he got out--he was right there involved in it (his atrocities). That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders. If he did commit them, why did he come back and say so? Conviction for that can bring some serious penalties, and he basically confessed in open testimony. And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country? That doesn't sound like something one can be proud of.

I repeat myself--either he was involved in war crimes while he was making war films, or he lied in his testimony and never saw or committed any war crimes. Either way, his motives are suspect.

[Renegade 13]

Starhawk said:
Okay Renegade I'm sorry here but that whole Canadian citizen deal is just BS as a justification for how "evil" we americans are I had a friend who was detained by the RCMP and kept for over four hours of questioning because of one oops in his passport so political mistakes happen on both sides of the border

Oh and Canada has a military so weak it can barely defend it's own country and relies on allies for everything (not an insult here I'm just saying) so they couldn't go about any serious wars if they wanted too.

You're friend who was detained...he was released wasn't he? Not deported to some foreign country against his will? All I'm trying to say is that, while both sides of the border make large mistakes, (no one can argue about that!) we don't deport people to foreign countries without due cause, and we don't have laws such as the patriot act. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying Canadians are the moral superiors of Americans, not at all. I'm merely pointing out fundamental differences in our ways of doing things.

As for the Canadian military, point well taken. The Canadian military IS pathetic. But, look at our population as compared to yours. You have about 300 million population, we have 30. You're military SHOULD be 10 times the size of ours. I know, I know, the difference is more than a factor of 10 difference, but that accounts for a lot of it. I for one believe we should have a strong enough military that we can defend our own shores and borders without foreign assistance. But I'm just one small voice. However, if Canada was ever invaded, you can bet our military would be defeated, but the occupying force had better watch out, because I've been shooting guns for as long as I can remember, and I'm a damn good shot You can bet many people wouldn't take it lying down, just as if America was invaded, your civilians would fight back But I am forced to agree with most of your arguements.

[Renegade 13]

Starhawk said:
I agree with you that Iraq probobly shouldn't have happened my point is we are there now and we can't abandon them and still feel right with ourselves, at least I don't think I would feel proud of a country that backs out after it made a mistake and doesn't try to fix it.

We are there it sucks but we have to see this through or Iraq will become an even worse bloodbath then it is now that would make me sick to be honest.

The Afghan war was the right thing at the right time and it's good that we are still there in a more limited capacity because it's a way of ensuring Afghanistan stays independant and hopefully someday prospers.

Like I said I am exausted I am brainshot and I already said I probobly worded things very poorly. Sorry......again....yet.....again.....oy.

I'm 17 I'm young and I have hope for the future of my country, it's seen bad times before and with any luck it will rise again to a position of respect instead of paranoia and hate.

I agree once again with you here, now that you're there you have no choice but to see it through. Also, no need to apologize, there's no reason to be sorry for having an opinion. I've been shot down around here before for my political opinion, and all I can say is this: keep an open mind, but also keep your moral values intact while you have this opinion.

I also am 17, one of the youngest people on these Boards. I'd like to say that I'm not paranoid about the US, and I respect you guys immensely. However, there are always things that could be done better, and I was just trying to point some of those out to you. No offense was intended.

[Renegade 13]

Starhawk said:

Crap I misworded it again I'm sorry to Canadians everywhere lol I did not meant to imply their soldiers were incompetent ro their technology inferior I meant NUMBERS wise they are by far no true military power and can't fight a "serious war" on their own....as it would probobly bankrupt them....sorry again.

Once again you are right Starhawk. We have a very small standing military force, as it would most definitely bankrupt us. However, we were in both world wars, and performed very well in them. IIRC, we had 1 million people serve in WW2, and we performed in many operations, and were some of the best sharp-shooters in the entire war. Still are actually. Snipers. We could not start a war if we wanted to, at least not without a whole hell of a lot of extra spending and armament. But maybe that's a good thing.

I'm sorry if lots of this has been said before, but I'm working my way back through the Posts, without reading the most recent ones

[Katchoo]

Renegade 13 said:
You're friend who was detained...he was released wasn't he? Not deported to some foreign country against his will? All I'm trying to say is that, while both sides of the border make large mistakes, (no one can argue about that!) we don't deport people to foreign countries without due cause, and we don't have laws such as the patriot act. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying Canadians are the moral superiors of Americans, not at all.

Well, if you won't say it, I will.

"Canadians are moraly superior to Americans". Our Government doesn't fund uprisings and supply weapons to Militias (re: Taliban) to overthrow Governemnts that we don't approve of. That's why Canada has never been hit with a Terrorist attack, and that's why we won't.

Terrorists don't "hate America's freedom", as the Bush Administration keeps preaching. Terrorists hate foreign Countires funding revolutions in their homeland. If the U.S. ever got a clue and realized that giving guns & money to rebel factions doesn't work long term, then there would be a hell of a lot less distate (and hate) towards the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere in the World.

[Gandalf Parker]

Krsqk said:I don't claim to be able to read his mind. His actions simply seem to indicate that he thought war was fine, or at least that being a hero in a war was fine. All right, no complaints there.

Im thinking maybe you werent around then from that. Vietnam wasnt a war you did because you thought war was fine. There was a draft on. You were pretty much GOING to go to war when your country called you. Either that or leave the country and lose your citizenship. There were various sidestepping actions you could work real hard to do but of course it wouldnt work if everyone did it so go to vietnam or go to some other country was pretty much the choice for us.

He didn't just "see the big picture" once he got out--he was right there involved in it (his atrocities). That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders. If he did commit them, why did he come back and say so? Conviction for that can bring some serious penalties, and he basically confessed in open testimony. And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country? That doesn't sound like something one can be proud of.

I guess I can see how that might be confusing. All I can say is that its not confusing at all to me. I was, and am still proud of being a VietVet. Instead of ducking out of the country I plowed right in and volunteered. On the other hand Im not proud of that war, or what was done there by many. Im not glad that the US fought it.

And technically, unless a military man specifically signed a secrecy statement about a particular mission, then it IS his military duty to speak up about atrocities when he returns.

[AMF]

I don't think he ever said he committed atrocities, right?

Nor would I say that making movies while over there qualfies as "promoting war" - maybe tourism, but not much more than that.

When you're in the service, at war, whether you think war is good or bad is irrelevant. He was serving his country, and he might have thought it wrong what his countryt was doing. I did the same thing in Iraq. If you'd met me over there, and I thought I could speak my mind to you, I would have told you that I thought that war was stupid as heck, but that had NO bearing on whewther I was going to do my duty or not. Now, that's easy for me to say since I was just an analyst, but the concept is ever stronger I would surmise for combat troops. You're over there, whether you agree with the war or not is irrelevant, you have a job to do. Raise your voice when you get out of country, but you don;t do it while in country - that would be probably be illegal under the Uniform Code but would also be very difficult on you and your mates - since you're in combat. I really see no contradiction here. Maybe I'm just being obtuse. Happens a lot.

And, if he did committ atrocities (can you get me a reference?) I think that your statement that " That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders." IS FALSE. A lot of atrocities were committed over there, it is EXTENSIVELY documented and it is also very clear to a lot of people that it wasn;t just "spontaneous" - it was condoned or in some cases ordered by superiors. (remember My Lai?)

I really don;t recall him committeing atrocities, so your statement that "And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country?" seems irrelevant to me, but even if it were true one can certainly be proud of serving one's country, even if one didn't serve it "gloriously" - my own, meager, experience bears this out. And I met a lot of Marines over there who thought it was a damned stupid war - but they were going to serve their country proudly and honorably and they are some of the best people I have ever known (I usually disagree with their politics, but that's another story).

As someone above said, walk a mile in their shoes first...it's easy to second guess someone thirty years after the fact, and about what they did in war...

In any case, I am VERY interested in getting some references that say Kerry himself committed atrocities. Can you point me towards some?

thanks,

Alarik

Krsqk said:
I don't claim to be able to read his mind. His actions simply seem to indicate that he thought war was fine, or at least that being a hero in a war was fine. All right, no complaints there. But you can't say he simply just changed his mind about war, because he came back and said that he himself committed war crimes! That's not "Well, I used to think war was good, but now I've been enlightened to the evil we're doing"--by his own testimony, he was evil during his four months over there, while at the same time he was making films which promoted war. Something just doesn't add up there. If he had honestly just changed his mind, then I could handle that. But apparently, he held both of those opposing viewpoints simultaneously. Maybe he's just a little more open-minded than I am.

He didn't just "see the big picture" once he got out--he was right there involved in it (his atrocities). That didn't have anything to do with his duty or following orders. If he did commit them, why did he come back and say so? Conviction for that can bring some serious penalties, and he basically confessed in open testimony. And if he really did commit them, how can he say he is "proud" of his service to our country? That doesn't sound like something one can be proud of.

I repeat myself--either he was involved in war crimes while he was making war films, or he lied in his testimony and never saw or committed any war crimes. Either way, his motives are suspect.

[Starhawk]

Katchoo said:

Well, if you won't say it, I will.

"Canadians are moraly superior to Americans". Our Government doesn't fund uprisings and supply weapons to Militias (re: Taliban) to overthrow Governemnts that we don't approve of. That's why Canada has never been hit with a Terrorist attack, and that's why we won't.

Terrorists don't "hate America's freedom", as the Bush Administration keeps preaching. Terrorists hate foreign Countires funding revolutions in their homeland. If the U.S. ever got a clue and realized that giving guns & money to rebel factions doesn't work long term, then there would be a hell of a lot less distate (and hate) towards the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere in the World.

Oh dear sweet mother of all things holy I hope your joking because that is the biggest load of bull I've ever had anyone try to force feed down my throat other then the guy who tried to convince me he was having bigfoots baby.

A.) Canada is not worth being hit by a terrorist attack to a terrorist organization because as renegade pointed out so well THEY HAVE an ity bitty tiny population that is not as centralized as the average US big city nor are they as nationally diverse so blowing up a building in Canada would only kill Canadians and most likely far fewer dead (the terrorists were attempting to knock the towers over not make them collapse, estimated body count was nearly 100,000 dead had the towers fallen while rescue personnel were on scene and while the other buildings and streets below were crowded as their fall would have lead to a chain reaction for multiple blocks and killed so many people it's scary), in canada you just couldn't kill that many people that easily unless you dropped a nuke so less body count means less publicity which means not worth it.
And as for Canadians themselves being morally superior because they never fund rebel Groups or anything, uh THEY'RE TOOO POOR buddy! Hand a blue Canadian dollar to a middle easterner he'd use it for toilet paper and then laugh at you (heck he might give it back in the mail)so of course your not funding terrorist Groups.

Ahem TERRORISTS HATE EVERYONE OF A DIFFERENT RELGION look at their doctrines, they hated us for soo many reasons you can't DARE simplify it as a "oooh big bad americans made dumb mistakes during the cold war" crap and th soviet union funded rebels to are they going after Russia.........NO so that blows that theory right clean out of the water buddy.
Oh and no offense to any Canadians here, I hear it's a lovley country with polite people but lets face it in the grand world scheme of things most of the 3rd world nations probobly don't know what Canada is while 99.999% of the world knows of that huge ol' country the United States.