[Thanato]

Chief of Defence Staff looking forward to new government


Canada's top soldier had some frank words for the Liberal party on Tuesday.

With a new government about to be sworn in, Gen. Rick Hillier is preparing for a new commander-in-chief. But while Hillier is looking forward to the future, he also had a few comments about the recent past.

Hillier said he was insulted by a controversial Liberal advertisement that came out during the election campaign. The ad never ran, but was shown on the Liberal party website.

The ad was meant to attack Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, but critics called it an attack on the military.

Hillier said that "like almost every other man and woman in uniform - and I heard from thousands of them and their families - [we were] insulted by that commercial. We don't think it reflects the national treasure that our men and women in uniform are."

Hillier struck a different tone when asked about the incoming Conservative government.

The Conservatives are promising more money, equipment and troops for the military. Hillier says the forces are ready to hire thousands more troops when the government gives the word.

"Can we recruit them? Yes, we can. And then can we absorb them and train them and get them ready to be deployed," he said.

A new command structure for the forces was also unveiled.

The Expeditionary Force Command will oversee the deployment of 2,000 Canadian troops in a dangerous new mission in Afghanistan. "The risk is high, but Canadians have never before flinched in the face of danger," said Hillier.

It is a further shift in emphasis from peacekeeping toward aggressive military operations. For Hillier it is a choice.

"We must export stability to a place like Afghanistan, or we will import instability that results from the lack of action," he said.

Other new commands are:

Special Operations Forces, with new tan berets, who will be employed by special operations forces around the world.

As well, a new Support Command, and Canada Command responsible for North American operations.

Source

~Thanato

[PLO]

"We don't think it reflects the national treasure that our men and women in uniform are."

i think what he meant to say was

"We don't think it reflects the automaton killbots that our men and women in uniform are."

"We must export stability to a place like Afghanistan, or we will import instability that results from the lack of action,"

pay attention to those two words, and here what he really meant was

"We must export stability to a place like Afghanistan, or we will import instability that results on us not getting in on any of the worlds dying energy supplies.,"

IMPORT THE TROOPS EXPORT THE OIL, or vice versa.


"or we will"

man just say those words, its even f***ing sounds like oil.

This post has been edited by PLO: 01 February 2006 - 02:52 AM

[Thanato]

umm. You do know Canada has more Oil then most of the middle east, more then enough to supply our own needs many many many many many times over.

And Canadian Troops are there to help rebuild the nation, and hunt down people who try and kill them. Canadian troops are upholders of the peace and of freedom.

Just ask Stellar, as he is an "automaton killbot" you put it.

~Thanato

[PLO]

no u dont.

peace and freedom?, no your not. your helping take the strain of america.

This post has been edited by PLO: 01 February 2006 - 03:02 AM

[Stellar]

Quote

peace and freedom?, no your not. your helping take the strain of america.

How many troops have you asked why they joined? I really doubt any would say "I joined to help take the strain off of America."

[PLO]

why would they say that?, they get told why their going. for "peace" and "freedom"

here what hillier had to say about afghanistan

“These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I’ll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.”

“We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.”

Given that Hamid Karzai, the head of the new Afghan government, was propelled into power by the US, and remains protected by US forces, it’s fair to conclude that NATO is in Afghanistan at the behest of the US government. NATO btw took over the ISAF[International Security Assistance Force] which canada has been in charge off[they mostly dealt with "hearst and minds" operations, thats right the propaganda divisions]. Their there to basicaly do whatever america want, give america whatever assistance they need whenever america wants it.

[Stellar]

Quote

why would they say that?, they get told why their going. for "peace" and "freedom"

They're not mindless. They have their own reasons for seeing it through.

Quote

“We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.”

And what do you think the job of the military is? You dont think it is necessary for the military to be able to kill? Gee... why dont we replace all our weapons with silly string. Then maybe we'll be an effective military!

Quote

Given that Hamid Karzai, the head of the new Afghan government, was propelled into power by the US, and remains protected by US forces, it’s fair to conclude that NATO is in Afghanistan at the behest of the US government.

Perhaps NATO is there because it recognises that Afghanistan was in the wrong and now needs help to be stabilised.

Quote

Their there to basicaly do whatever america want, give america whatever assistance they need whenever america wants it.

Not at all. We make our own decisions as to what we do, and what assistance we deem necessary.

[PLO]

no you dont, NATO works for america, YOUR working for NATO. Did you not read that post?, i mean i can keep going on about the pretty suspect sh** your forces actually do in that country, and beleive me it isnt defending the ideals of "peace" and "freedom". And i dont honestly see why canada is going so far up Americas ass, the americans are making your forces job a hundred times worse by keeping selling guns to those loose cannon warlords that are all CIA funded.

This post has been edited by PLO: 01 February 2006 - 03:30 AM

[Stellar]

Quote

no you dont, NATO works for america.

No, NATO is an alliance. It doesnt work for any particular member, it works together. The allies are supposed to help each other out.

Quote

i mean i can keep going on about the pretty suspect sh** your forces actually do in that country, and beleive me it isnt defending the ideals of "peace" and "freedom".

Oh really? Go on about it then and show me. As far as I'm aware, the CF is there in order to ensure the peace and freedom of the Afghani people from the Taliban.

Quote

And i dont honestly see why canada is going so far up Americas ass

Its not going up America's ass at all, its simply fullfilling its part as a member of NATO.

Quote

the americans are making your forces job a hundred times worse by keeping selling guns to those loose cannon warlords that are all CIA funded.

Whether or not that's true, what do you propose Canada does? Withdraw its troops? Why should the Afghanis suffer?

This post has been edited by Stellar: 01 February 2006 - 03:32 AM

[Thanato]

Have you ever looked at Canadas track record?

We fought for Freedom during the second world war, we fought for other peoples freedom. The people in Afgahnistan had little freedom. Women couldnt go to school, couldnt work, couldnt do anything that has changed.

The Canadian soldier is someone to be proud of, the fought four your freedom during the second world war, and would fight for your freedom again.

~Thanato

[PLO]

look man, look into to whats actually goin on over there, its not some f***ing picnic, lots of terrible sh** is going that america has created and theyve dragd yous into it.

regardless of what you think your country is doing, its not their for anything other then furthering Americas economic agenda. Simple as that. It's the same as Britain. France went along with it for a bit, but they pulled a while ago. remember all the propaganda about that?, freedom fries and all that nonesense?. Canada will benefit greatly from america buy lending them support, much like Britain but you effectively open your leaders to public ridicule and open your country to far dangerous threats. Ultimatly its a double edged sword when dealing with america. I dont understand why its so difficult to see.

Look im not slating Canada, your right this is an unexpected turn in your foreign policy Canda is a really chilled country in that regard, but dont let your history cloud your judgements. Thats exactly what your goverment will play on. Look at the bigger picture please.

This post has been edited by PLO: 01 February 2006 - 03:45 AM

[Stellar]

Quote

look man, look into to whats actually goin on over there, its not some f***ing picnic, lots of terrible sh** is going that america has created and theyve dragd yous into it.

What terrible sh** is the CF doing, hmm? The US didnt drag us into anything. We were obligated by our membership to NATO to go into Afghanistan after 9/11.

Quote

its not their for anything other then furthering Americas economic agenda.

Whether the USs economic agenda is furthered by our presence there or not doesnt matter. We're not there with that as our goal.

Quote

remember all the propaganda about that?, freedom fries and all that nonesense?

What does that have to do with Canada?

Quote

Look at the bigger picture please.

Look at THE picture, please.

[PLO]

During the US invasion and occupation of Vietnam, Canadian corporations profited by supplying the American military, and Canadian diplomats ran interference for the US in the “International Control Commission,” a “neutral” body that was supposed to monitor the conflict between the US and the Vietnamese. Then, as now, Canada’s image as more multilateral, less militaristic and imperialistic, was a useful counterpoint to the aggressive posture of the US. Canada could use its good reputation, thus providing tactical support in accomplishing US foreign policy goals.

The same relationship holds today. Canada presents itself as a friend to those countries it is intervening in, as an option over the more unilateral and aggressive approach of the US, Canadian corporations like Bell win a one billion dollar contract with the US military to supply helicopters, or CAE wins a $20 million contract to supply combat simulation technology.

Because the real reasons for intervention are not genuine help and solidarity, Canada’s deployment in Afghanistan has little relationship to what the people of that country actually want. Instead, under the guise of helping Afghanistan, Canada is actually providing a kind face to US contravention of the laws of war. In spite of mountains of evidence exposing US torture and murder of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan (never mind Canada’s own experience with its troops torturing a youth to death in Somalia in the 1990s), Canadian troops are capturing people and handing them over to the US in Afghanistan. The US, the “detainee authority” in Afghanistan, defines people it captures as “unlawful combatants” and denies them Geneva Convention protections.

"remember all the propaganda about that?, freedom fries and all that nonesense?"

it serves to point that canada is quite a junior member in its alliance with america as apposed to Britain and France. But France quit that little arrangement simply becuase they dont really need america, and quite frankly they dont need "terrorist" attacks against their nations but in doing so, they took quite a bit of propaganda against their country from america. Thats how the american goverment works.


You dont know what happens in afghanistan do you?

This post has been edited by PLO: 01 February 2006 - 04:22 AM

[Stellar]

Quote

During the US invasion and occupation of Vietnam, Canadian corporations profited by supplying the American military, and Canadian diplomats ran interference for the US in the “International Control Commission,” a “neutral” body that was supposed to monitor the conflict between the US and the Vietnamese. Then, as now, Canada’s image as more multilateral, less militaristic and imperialistic, was a useful counterpoint to the aggressive posture of the US. Canada could use its good reputation, thus providing tactical support in accomplishing US foreign policy goals.

The same relationship holds today. Canada presents itself as a friend to those countries it is intervening in, as an option over the more unilateral and aggressive approach of the US, Canadian corporations like Bell win a one billion dollar contract with the US military to supply helicopters, or CAE wins a $20 million contract to supply combat simulation technology.

Whats your point?

Quote

Because the real reasons for intervention are not genuine help and solidarity, Canada’s deployment in Afghanistan has little relationship to what the people of that country actually want.

First of all, how do you know what the real reasons are? Second of all, I'm not talking about the reasons Canada deployed in Afghanistan, I'm talking about the reasoning of the troops themselves. Finally, what statistics are you using to support the notion that the Afghanis dont want us there?

Quote

Instead, under the guise of helping Afghanistan, Canada is actually providing a kind face to US contravention of the laws of war. In spite of mountains of evidence exposing US torture and murder of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan

Canada is not providing a kind face to the US at all. It is there, it does its job. If the US recieves a kind face because of it, fine, whatever. That is not our intent, however.

Quote

(never mind Canada’s own experience with its troops torturing a youth to death in Somalia in the 1990s),

And what's that supposed to mean?

Quote

Canadian troops are capturing people and handing them over to the US in Afghanistan. The US, the “detainee authority” in Afghanistan, defines people it captures as “unlawful combatants” and denies them Geneva Convention protections.

Gee, I wonder, then, why Canada made a big deal about what's happening to those that Canada did turn over to the US...

it serves to point that canada is quite a junior member in its alliance with america as apposed to Britain and France.

How does the whole "freedom fries" thing serve to point that?

You dont know what happens in afghanistan do you?

I probably know a bit more than you.

"remember all the propaganda about that?, freedom fries and all that nonesense?"

it serves to point that canada is quite a junior member in its alliance with america as apposed to Britain and France. But France quit that little arrangement simply becuase they dont really need america, and quite frankly they dont need "terrorist" attacks against their nations but in doing so, they took quite a bit of propaganda against their country from america. Thats how the american goverment works.


You dont know what happens in afghanistan do you?

[PLO]

"Whats your point?"

my point is if you cant see it for yourself is, Canada are not going their becuase they want to help, their going their becuase america told them too, and in compensation for it, many large busines' in canada will benefit.

"Finally, what statistics are you using to support the notion that the Afghanis dont want us there?"

statistics?, tell me how statistics can prove in this paticular case the afghan people dont want you there. I think the fact that their fighting against you's speak for itself, oh but obviously its not the people that are fighting against us, its simply a bunch of rag tag mooooslum towel heads that are bent on the destruction of decent american values. Remember communism? remember Vietnam?, which i alluded to earlier to try and help you ,and yes those same small band of fanatics your goverment would have us beleive is spoling the "peace" for everyone else is the entire nation of afghani people.

"Canada is not providing a kind face to the US at all. It is there, it does its job. If the US recieves a kind face because of it, fine, whatever. That is not our intent, however"

yes you do, and yes, it is.

"And what's that supposed to mean?"

your troops in somalia were also part of a "peace" keeping force. Afghanistan is different, your not a "peace" keeping force, your an invasion and occupation force.

"Gee, I wonder, then, why Canada made a big deal about what's happening to those that Canada did turn over to the US"

firstly your goverment doesnt care, and secondly i dubt very highly your news service talk about it. But then i dont know i dont read canadian newspapers, do they?

"How does the whole "freedom fries" thing serve to point that?"

you took that quote out of context. What i fully said was.

it serves to point that canada is quite a junior member in its alliance with america as apposed to Britain and France. But France quit that little arrangement simply becuase they dont really need america, and quite frankly they dont need "terrorist" attacks against their nations but in doing so, they took quite a bit of propaganda against their country from america. Thats how the american goverment works."

"How does the whole "freedom fries" thing serve to point that?"

BEcuase being the junior partner that you are in this axis of allied invasion forces, It would not be in Canadas best interest to ignore America summons, or your country would likely face a surge of similar propaganda from american military controlled news services.

to quote south park. "Blame Canada!, Blame Canada!, We must blame them and cause a fuss Before someone thinks of blaming uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus"


"I probably know a bit more than you."

but you obviously dont though.

This post has been edited by PLO: 02 February 2006 - 01:29 PM