Should Canada be sending troops to Ukraine?

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Problem is that our troops won't simply be "staring down the Ruskies" across a static border like in the cold war. There are ethnic Russian rebels fighting there. Are our troops going to fight them? The Russians would love nothing better than for us to be in combat against rebels who don't give a damn. The Russians can continue to say "Hey, those aren't our troops." Just like China sat back and smiled and sent weapons as the Americans fought the Viet Cong.

You are really embarrassing yourself. There is no scope for "mission creep". There is virtually no chance of a Russian or rebel attack on our soldiers. They are 1300km away from the fighting. Furthermore we just had a couple soldiers killed right here in Canada by fanatical crazies. Suggesting that they should be 100% safe anywhere is a fools errand. Stop with the drama. We are supporting a friendly nation, we are supporting NATO. We are doing it in a very small way, yet for some reason folks seem to start making up the strangest scenarios based on little than their apparent dislike for our current government.

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by edmhunter

Am I missing something???

Why are we there in the first place? Could it be because the Russians are sending in troops into the Western part of the country and there is a war going on as I type this post???

I say let the Europeans send in all the non-combatives, trainers etc and we should stay out of it!

Seems to me that the Europeans have as much balls as a neutered Chihuahua!

What do you mean "we" paleface?? First of all, we were asked by the current Ukrainian government for assistance because Canada has a sterling reputation internationally in military circles due to our professionalism and world class ability and soldiers. Second, Ukraine is a friendly country that is having it's borders incurred upon. The international community is stepping up and doing the right thing here and finally, your jabs at the Europeans are quite misplaced. Most have been at the forefront of numerous overseas deployments in recent years. Even France who has continually been the butt of "cheese eating surrender monkey's " jokes over the years have done more than most internationally as of late including conducting a mass airborne drop into Mali a couple years back.

Just for the record, everyone in the military WANTS to deploy on operations no matter what or where they are. That's why they join- to deploy, not to just stay here in Canada and train.

Even Shiny Pony supports this so specifically why don't you? How is it any skin off your teeth?

[edmhunter]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

What do you mean "we" paleface?? First of all, we were asked by the current Ukrainian government for assistance because Canada has a sterling reputation internationally in military circles due to our professionalism and world class ability and soldiers. Second, Ukraine is a friendly country that is having it's borders incurred upon. The international community is stepping up and doing the right thing here and finally, your jabs at the Europeans are quite misplaced. Most have been at the forefront of numerous overseas deployments in recent years. Even France who has continually been the butt of "cheese eating surrender monkey's " jokes over the years have done more than most internationally as of late including conducting a mass airborne drop into Mali a couple years back.

Just for the record, everyone in the military WANTS to deploy on operations no matter what or where they are. That's why they join- to deploy, not to just stay here in Canada and train.

Even Shiny Pony supports this so specifically why don't you? How is it any skin off your teeth?

What do you mean by "paleface"?

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by edmhunter

What do you mean by "paleface"?

Relax, it's just an expression!

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Just for the record, everyone in the military WANTS to deploy on operations no matter what or where they are. That's why they join- to deploy, not to just stay here in Canada and train.

How is it any skin off your teeth?

that is not why we employ a military. we can't concern ourselves with what they want to do personally. they are a resource and we must "spend" them appropriately. it's harsh but true a blood-lust does not justify ruining political relations

"the skin off my teeth" is because it's on my dime.

and yes we have the best personnel in any military in the world imho.

[edmhunter]

I am not uptight, maybe you are?

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

that is not why we employ a military. we can't concern ourselves with what they want to do personally. they are a resource and we must "spend" them appropriately. it's harsh but true a blood-lust does not justify ruining political relations

"the skin off my teeth" is because it's on my dime.

and yes we have the best personnel in any military in the world imho.

Now, there I have you.

To explain military expenditures in a nutshell to you, simply put- the money would have been spent anyway! There are various purses within the CF that take effect on April 1 of each year which is the beginning of the "fiscal year" as we put it. The various purses are filled with budget money and units begin to spend that money conducting training, money is spent on fuel,ammo, rations, travel costs etc etc etc. as well as procuring low level equipment. The purses that are filled with deployment money are pre-allocated within the budget that the CF is given each year and set in reserve by the Treasury Board and the government to be spent on potential deployments. The money is set aside to be used during deployments for legitimate reasons. If that money is not spent it is re-allocated into another purse to be utilized that way. Complaining by saying "I'm paying for it" is asinine as the money is allocated TO be spent.

If assisting a country that has asked for our help and whose citizens have strong ties to Canada as more Ukrainians and their descendants live here than anywhere else outside of the Ukraine is not "appropriate" as you put it- specifically what is?

The Canadian Forces are not a home defence force like Jamaica or Switzerland. We maintain a capable force to be able to deploy and assist our international partners when we are asked. We are obligated to help.

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by edmhunter

I am not uptight, maybe you are?

Loose as a goose my friend.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

If that money is not spent it is re-allocated into another purse to be utilized that way. Complaining by saying "I'm paying for it" is asinine as the money is allocated TO be spent.

we still pay for it, it's still taxpayer money.

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

If assisting a country that has asked for our help and whose citizens have strong ties to Canada as more Ukrainians and their descendants live here than anywhere else outside of the Ukraine is not "appropriate" as you put it- specifically what is?

specifically aiding military operations i don't think is a good idea.

helping people who are cut off from basic necessities because of the war would be a good idea. but they need to do it for all Ukrainians not just non "rebels". that would be a better use

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

The Canadian Forces are not a home defence force like Jamaica or Switzerland. We maintain a capable force to be able to deploy and assist our international partners when we are asked. We are obligated to help.

because we can does not mean we should. also the issue is how, our military is very versatile and can help in many ways not just fighting.

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

we still pay for it, it's still taxpayer money.



specifically aiding military operations i don't think is a good idea.

helping people who are cut off from basic necessities because of the war would be a good idea. but they need to do it for all Ukrainians not just non "rebels". that would be a better use



because we can does not mean we should. also the issue is how, our military is very versatile and can help in many ways not just fighting.

Yes, but what is your solution? Not spend the money, not participate and be seen as either weak or indifferent?

How are we aiding military operations? We are conducting training 1300kms away from hostilities.

We are NOT participating in combat operations. The international community backs this 100%.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Yes, but what is your solution? Not spend the money, not participate and be seen as either weak or indifferent?

How are we aiding military operations? We are conducting training 1300kms away from hostilities.

We are NOT participating in combat operations. The international community backs this 100%.

well peace keeping missions cost money too. historically we have always been a peace keeping country. we would have to use the military we couldn't expect our civilians to help the Ukrainian people they wont survive they're not trained.

we're training Ukrainian military forces, it says that in the like the first sentence. that is aiding their military directly

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

well peace keeping missions cost money too. historically we have always been a peace keeping country. we would have to use the military we couldn't expect our civilians to help the Ukrainian people they wont survive they're not trained.

we're training Ukrainian military forces, it says that in the like the first sentence. that is aiding their military directly

Liberal Party of Canada talking point number 1. False, but thanks for playing.

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

well peace keeping missions cost money too. historically we have always been a peace keeping country. we would have to use the military we couldn't expect our civilians to help the Ukrainian people they wont survive they're not trained.

we're training Ukrainian military forces, it says that in the like the first sentence. that is aiding their military directly

Oh my head almost exploded. Canada HAS NEVER been a predominantly peacekeeping country. That is a liberal myth, you don't seem to even grasp what a peacekeeping mission is. When specifically were we a peacekeeping country??? WW1, WW2, Korea????? Peacekeeping was a way to maintain an international military presence on the cheap and served as the catalyst for the decimation of the capabilities and readiness of the Canadian Forces. During the "peacekeeping years" mid 60's- to about the year 2000 saw defence spending slashed, procurement contracts cancelled, massive force reduction and what Gen Hillier aptly called the "decade of darkness" when describing the 90's under the Liberals. Nothing in our Canadian doctrine mentions peacekeeping. 100% of our training revolves around war fighting- always has.

More Canadians died during peacekeeping operations than died during the combat mission in Afghanistan including more than 30 in the Balkans in the mid-90's. Some Canadian "peacekeepers" saw more active combat in Croatia in 93 than some troops did during the height of the Afghan War. Google the "Medak Pocket". Peacekeeping is a four letter word in the CF- nobody wants to go back to that, hands tied, ridiculous ROE that prevent you from doing what needs to be done and the neutered UN calling the shots on what you can and can't do. ( alas Belgian Peacekeepers in Rwanda) Professional soldiers do not join the profession of arms to hand out candy to children and blankets to old ladies. I used to shake my head in disbelief during Afghanistan when people would say " we should only be there as peacekeepers" Really??? So we should deploy under stifling ROE and stand in between the Taliban and our allies and stop them from engaging each other?? That's how jack Layton earned the nickname "Taliban Jack" for wanting to sing kumbaya with the enemy.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Liberal Party of Canada talking point number 1. False, but thanks for playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...eping_missions

oh i might be wrong...

i guess at pretty much any point during the last 50 years having peacekeeping missions going on isn't good enough to be considered a peacekeeping country

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Oh my head almost exploded. Canada HAS NEVER been a predominantly peacekeeping country. That is a liberal myth, you don't seem to even grasp what a peacekeeping mission is. When specifically were we a peacekeeping country??? WW1, WW2, Korea????? Peacekeeping was a way to maintain an international military presence on the cheap and served as the catalyst for the decimation of the capabilities and readiness of the Canadian Forces. During the "peacekeeping years" mid 60's- to about the year 2000 saw defence spending slashed, procurement contracts cancelled, massive force reduction and what Gen Hillier aptly called the "decade of darkness" when describing the 90's under the Liberals. Nothing in our Canadian doctrine mentions peacekeeping. 100% of our training revolves around war fighting- always has.

More Canadians died during peacekeeping operations than died during the combat mission in Afghanistan including more than 30 in the Balkans in the mid-90's. Some Canadian "peacekeepers" saw more active combat in Croatia in 93 than some troops did during the height of the Afghan War. Google the "Medak Pocket". Peacekeeping is a four letter word in the CF- nobody wants to go back to that, hands tied, ridiculous ROE that prevent you from doing what needs to be done and the neutered UN calling the shots on what you can and can't do. ( alas Belgian Peacekeepers in Rwanda) Professional soldiers do not join the profession of arms to hand out candy to children and blankets to old ladies. I used to shake my head in disbelief during Afghanistan when people would say " we should only be there as peacekeepers" Really??? So we should deploy under stifling ROE and stand in between the Taliban and our allies and stop them from engaging each other?? That's how jack Layton earned the nickname "Taliban Jack" for wanting to sing kumbaya with the enemy.

the longest peace time our country has known is considered the dark ages.

go on

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

the longest peace time our country has known is considered the dark ages.

go on

Outstanding response. I enjoyed the facts you presented to refute by first hand knowledge of this subject. Well played.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Outstanding response. I enjoyed the facts you presented to refute by first hand knowledge of this subject. Well played.

i won't argue your opinion. there's no point

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

i won't argue your opinion. there's no point

Good move. It's hard to argue fact and refute expertise.

[KGB]

Originally Posted by edmhunter

Am I missing something???

Why are we there in the first place? Could it be because the Russians are sending in troops into the Western part of the country and there is a war going on as I type this post???

I say let the Europeans send in all the non-combatives, trainers etc and we should stay out of it!

Seems to me that the Europeans have as much balls as a neutered Chihuahua!

^^

[avb3]

No, we should not be in Ukraine. I don't give a flying fig if Shiny Pony, the bearded one and Jesus Christ himself support it.

If anyone thinks that there are no incremental costs involved due to budget allocations, then that is the same mentality that think a government cutback occurred because rather than having a planned 6% increase in spending, "only" 4% an increase is spent. That is a smoke and mirror argument.

Canada has no legal requirement to send aid to the Ukraine. See:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/po...service=mobile

Do I have empathy for the Ukraine? You bet. Russia is acting in an aggressive and criminal manner, however, the situation currently seems to have subsided. Remember, Vietnam started with only 'advisors'. Things can turn upside down in a hurry.

We should concentrate on ISIS, as that bunch DOES threaten us. Russia at this point, not so much. Not that it can't change, butt not now.

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Good move. It's hard to argue fact and refute expertise.

we would use the same facts and our expertise differs so i see things differently.

you see it as your way of life. i see it as a tool, if you're not using it oil it and put it away.

you see it as good guys and bad guys i see it as people.

will you change your view? no. will i change mine? no.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

If we only honor agreements with our allies when they're easy to fulfill, but tuck tail & hide when they're difficult, what kind of allies would we be? The bully who is behind that whole action is counting on the apathy of all nations. Its a mess for sure, but pulling a Neville Chamberlain didn't help one iota either, it probably even cost more lives. Presenting a unified front is the only way to keep expansionist militaries at bay.

Saved my some typing there CT, thanks.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Saved my some typing there CT, thanks.

Which agreements? See the link in my previous post, there are none.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Ukraine isn't our ally. They aren't NATO members.

Don't get me wrong, I support Ukraine over Russia in this dispute, but things seem to be relatively stable. This is not a major invasion or a war with hundreds of casualties every day. I don't think western troops dropped into Ukraine staring down the Russians is going to help the situation. Just keep making Putin pay economically.

I'm much more supportive of using our forces against ISIS.

That pretty much sums it up for me too.

[edmhunter]

Originally Posted by airbornedeerhunter

Loose as a goose my friend.

Me too buddy!

I have a lot of respect for our Military, just so you know.

[Fish along]

This is a very interesting thread ,lots of interesting views.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by MacLeod

Because the reason for sending Canadian troops to Ukraine is twofold;

- Giving them direct advanced training, on their own turf, is far more effective than bringing a few of their trainers over here.
- And equally important, it sends a very strong 'Boots On The Ground' message to Russia ... a language they understand!

What I would like to know is, when will our other allies in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, etc.) be sending their troops to Ukraine?!

Mac

I don't think Putin gives a rat's arse about Canadian boots on the ground. The only one he seems to even remotely respect at the moment is Merkel.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by JamesB

You are really embarrassing yourself. There is no scope for "mission creep". There is virtually no chance of a Russian or rebel attack on our soldiers. They are 1300km away from the fighting. .

I doubt Ukraine is 1300 km across. Pretty unlikely they would be that far from the fighting. And as we have already seen in Iraq, our special forces like to do their training right at the front. There was virtually no chance of an ISIS "soldier" attacking there either.

And how can you so cavalierly say there will be no mission creep? There has been "mission creep" in every action we have sent the forces into. What was once an action limited to Iraq has now spread to Syria. Troops were originally committed in Afghanistan under the UN, but that grew. Blue helmet Canadian "peacekeepers" had more than a few shoot-outs in Bosnia. I'm not saying to never commit troops, but to say "there will be no mission creep" in a situation you don't control is utterly foolish.

Here's the bottom line boys: You don't send troops somewhere and try to bluff. If you send troops it should be because you are prepared to use them. So the real question is this: Are you prepared to go to war with Russia over a province in eastern Ukraine I'm not. And the west wasn't prepared to go to war with the Soviet Union over the invasions of Hungary or, later, Poland or Afghanistan. Nor was Russia prepared to go to war with the US over Vietnam, Iraq, or (again) Afghanistan. It's a long game. Ronald Reagan didn't have to go to war with them. We outlasted the Soviet Union. We can outlast a weaker Russia under Putin. Give the Ukrainians what they need to fight the rebels.

[twofifty]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

NATO should be in Ukraine like Russia should have built missile bases in Cuba.

That sums it up right there.

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I doubt Ukraine is 1300 km across. Pretty unlikely they would be that far from the fighting. And as we have already seen in Iraq, our special forces like to do their training right at the front. There was virtually no chance of an ISIS "soldier" attacking there either.

And how can you so cavalierly say there will be no mission creep? There has been "mission creep" in every action we have sent the forces into. What was once an action limited to Iraq has now spread to Syria. Troops were originally committed in Afghanistan under the UN, but that grew. Blue helmet Canadian "peacekeepers" had more than a few shoot-outs in Bosnia. I'm not saying to never commit troops, but to say "there will be no mission creep" in a situation you don't control is utterly foolish.

Pssstttt..........My first of 3 tours to Afghanistan was the very first deployment in 2002. It was not under the UN nor NATO. It was part of OEF. NO Canadian soldiers were in Afghanistan under the UN- ever.

Oh and the Ukraine is roughly 1400kms east to west. The base the Canadians will be working out of is roughly 1300 kms away from where there is unrest.

There is huge difference between counter-insurgency training being conducted by SF operators with the Peshmerga and a Canadian regular force medic/MP/airforce regular guy/logistician etc teaching Canadian TTP's to other rear-eschelon types inside the confines of a secure base a days drive from hostilities. If the government announces that 1 CMBG complete is deploying to Crimea-then you can sound off about mission creep- at this time, not so much.