Afghanistan

now, it is more apparent than ever before why there is an elected, civilian commander-in-chief.

Jäger wrote:

It must be a civilian thing, I guess.

Considering that THIS civilian's taxes are paying for all of this, I'd really like to know why we are really there and where exactly is my money going. Shouldn't be too much of a problem to answer right? Honestly, explain to me why we are really there.

If we're there as a "peace keeping" force then there needs to be "peace" for us to keep, NATO should therefore pull out all of its troops until such a time that peace is established there.

If we are there as a supplementary force to a weak Afghan military and the mission objective is the quell rebellious forces. Then why are we still there, surely it can't be THAT hard to find where these people are hiding. Hell the US military has satellites that can read the VIN number off a car from space. We should really just stop pussy-footing around and just start unilaterally eradicating any and all rebel forces, none of this "rules of engagement" crap. If this is a war, then lets fight it like one.

Jäger wrote:

rokka wrote:

Jäger you are really well educated.

Has nothing to do with educated or the lack thereof most of the time. What it has to do with is I don't go throwing around opinions about things I don't know much about, and I don't express opinions that I can't back up with a reasoned argument. So if you want to discuss... oh... the IMF for example... you won't see me sticking my nose in that, because I don't know enough about it to have an informed opinion. In those cases, I'll just sit on the sidelines, watch, and learn from those who can back up their opinions and statements with intelligent rationale.

For those who just throw opinions around without any attempt to justify them with a reasoned argument... better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt, eh?

Quote :

I can sense a very heavy opponent. I would love to meet you in a debate in Swedish but i guess it is imposible. And in my favorit area .

Well, it depends if your favorite area is something I have some knowledge and personal experience about. I am not going to stick my neck out to be chopped off by offering opinions that I can't defend, on subjects I know little or nothing about.

All in all, your command of English is pretty impressive. What is it - your third, fourth, or fifth language? I only speak two, and I couldn't begin to have an in depth discussion in my second.

Quote :

I have a word in Swedish. Mental spänst. Maybee you can use google to find out what that means.

Mental elasticity? Nimble minded? I think I know what you're getting at.

Quote :

Hans Blix today http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uk-and-us-should-have-realised-iraq-evidence-was-suspect-2036647.html

And, Hans Blix in his last report to the UN just days before the US invaded:
Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system,
should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed
weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so
far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a
disappointment that Iraq's declaration of the 7th of December did not
bring new documentary evidence... When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for, it is, above all,
credible accounts that are needed, or the proscribed items if they
exist.

On 14 February, I reported to the council that the Iraqi side had become
more active in taking and proposing steps which potentially might shed
new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the
current quarterly report was finalized, there were still relatively
little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in
the report before you. As of today, there is more.

While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade
us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the
permissible range set by the Security Council. The calculations of an
international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq
has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed
and has started the process of destruction under our supervision...

However, I must add that the report I have today tells me that no
destruction work has continued today.More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided.
Many have been found to restate what Iraq already has declared, and some
will require further study and discussion.

Mr. President, what are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat
reluctant cooperation, there's been an acceleration of initiatives from
the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value
of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they
actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has
cooperated, "immediately, unconditionally and actively," with UNMOVIC,
as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441. The answers can be
seen from the factor descriptions that I have provided.
It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by
the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open
disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these
initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said
to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all
areas of relevance....

Well, that wouldn't format so good. Oh well, it's readable.

Blix back then sure wasn't giving the US assurances that Iraq was either fully cooperating, or that he was sure their were no WMDs. The most cheerful thing he could say is "Well, in the face of the US military buildup, their cooperation is starting to improve somewhat".

On this, the leader of a nation is supposed to risk the lives of 300 million people? It's pretty easy for Blix to say "Oh, I think it is unlikely that they will strike with a WMD" when he not only isn't responsible for the lives of those people, but it isn't even his country potentially in the crosshairs, right?

Seems to me Hans Blix needs to go back and read the last report he presented to the UN prior to the outbreak of that war. His memory seems to be a little bit fuzzy.

Quote :

Edit: Swedish newspaper today. Try the google to understand it. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7534338.ab

Oh, he got published in English as well. Seems he doesn't doubt Bush and Blair acted in good faith. Makes no reference to the last report he provided to the UN regarding weapons inspections. But does claim he told both governments that he was skeptical that WMDs existed.

And on that verbal misgiving, gentle reader, apparently the West was supposed to ignore his published inspection reports and risk the wellbeing of their countries and the lives of hundreds of millions of their citizens.

Okaaayyyyyyy....

Tibarus wrote:

Jäger wrote:

It must be a civilian thing, I guess.

Considering that THIS civilian's taxes are paying for all of this, I'd really like to know why we are really there and where exactly is my money going.

Would you like your share back? Where do I send the nickle?

Quote :

Shouldn't be too much of a problem to answer right? Honestly, explain to me why we are really there.

Let's see...

• You can't tell us where all this oil is in Afghanistan that you were going on about.
  
• You can't explain how China and Russia would vote in favour of a UN resolution to allow the US to get control of oil in their back yard while they're busily buying up every oil field that is for sale - including a good many in Canada.
  
• The basics of how ISAF came into being, how NATO became involved, and why Canada is there as part of NATO have been laid out for you.
  

And despite that, you come back with "no, why are we REALLY there?"

Did you bother to read the UN Security Council resolutions concerning ISAF? How about the NATO archives concerning ISAF and their decision to take part in ISAF? None of the above?

I've told you why we're there, and apparently that isn't the answer that fits your personal prejudices and biases. Which, as I see it, leaves you three options:

1. If this really is George Bush's war for oil, make a rational argument that explains why China and Russia would vote for a mission that would allow the US to have military forces in their back yard to gain control of oil on their doorstep. Explain how Bush could control the Afghan government years before his election, and the 1500 Afghans that took part in the loya jurga that led to the final request to the UN for ISAF that was finally acted on.
   
2. Make a rational argument that explains that what I posted previously regarding ISAF, the UN, and Canada is wrong.
   
3. Continue on with the "nyah, nyah, nay nyah" school of argument.
   

I can participate in option 1 or 2, but I have no interest in participating in option 3.

Quote :

If we're there as a "peace keeping" force then there needs to be "peace" for us to keep

This, coming from the guy who asked why I repeat points.

Yet again (at the risk of being called redundant): all UN missions are not "peacekeeping" in the manner you envision - in fact, few are.

Korea was not "peacekeeping". Yugoslavia was not "peacekeeping". Gulf 1 was not "peacekeeping". The mission Hans Blix was on in Iraq was not "peacekeeping". Sierra Leone is not "peacekeeping". And Afghanistan certainly is not "peacekeeping". Canada has a long history of being in UN missions other than "peacekeeping" in that CBC touchy-feely sense, extending back to long before you were born. While this may seem like something new to you, it most certainly is not.

Quote :

NATO should therefore pull out all of its troops until such a time that peace is established there.

Oh, where to begin????

Again, this mission is not about "peacekeeping" as you envision it. Never was from day one, no more than Yugoslavia, Korea, etc, etc. If you could ever manage to bring yourself to bother to read the ISAF mission resolution, you would not be continually confused on that point.

If we might rejoin the real world for a moment, just how are Afghans supposed to drive out a multinational gang of extremist thugs and terrorists before asking for help? That's why they went to the UN in the first place.

Using that somewhat twisted logic, the South Koreans should have driven out China and North Korea before we went there. Hell, the people of Poland, France, etc should have driven out the Nazis before we went there to help out. And the Muslims in Bosnia should have drove out the Serbs who were putting them in concentration camps and committing genocide before we went there as well.

Quote :

If we are there as a supplementary force to a weak Afghan military and the mission objective is the quell rebellious forces.

That's not why we're there. Which you would know, if you but took the time to bother reading the ISAF mission parameters. There's also ample information available on Canada's priorities in Afghanistan. It isn't that hard to find.

Quote :

Then why are we still there, surely it can't be THAT hard to find where these people are hiding.

Said the man who has neither spent a day in the military or a day in Afghanistan...

Quote :

Hell the US military has satellites that can read the VIN number off a car from space.

No, they don't. You just entered the realm of GIS and remote sensing. Care to name the satellites that can do this - and your source so I can go read about these marvellous satellites for myself?

The US military (and other militaries) contract heavily with Quickbird. It has 60cm resolution from space - on a perfect day. The rule of thumb for resolving something in remote sensing is that you can resolve objects down to 1.5 times the resolving power of your sensor. In other words, to read that VIN number off your car, the numbers would have to be 90cm in size, perfectly motionless, and you'd need a perfect day. The KH-8 satellites had much better resolving power, but they were not in permanent orbits, had a lifespan of a few days while their orbit degraded, and then reentered earth. To the best of my knowledge the KH-8s are long gone.

So what specific satellites are you talking about with that resolving power? Surely they have a name (or is it too secret to be shared with us?).

Of course, we wouldn't use satellites when we have UAVs capable of much higher resolution, dwell capability, and the ability to fly under cloud cover (unlike satellites). So how then, do we use this imaging capability? Do the hajjis have "I am Taliban" tattooed on the tops of their heads? How do we sort out the hajjis from Afghans using remote sensing imagery?

Quote :

We should really just stop pussy-footing around and just start unilaterally eradicating any and all rebel forces, none of this "rules of engagement" crap. If this is a war, then lets fight it like one.

When you can figure out how to call Triple 7s in on hajjis who have started a TIC in the middle of a bunch of Afghan kids without killing any of the people we're over there for in the first place, please let me know.

Are the rules of engagement ridiculous in some areas? Yes, because it is simply impossible to fight a war in urban areas without inevitably injuring and killing innocent people, no matter how extreme and limited your rules of engagement are. We have those ROEs, however, because of the condemnation NATO gets every time civilians are injured or killed by our actions, and the world has come to expect perfect, sanitary wars where we never hurt a good guy, no matter how how far we go in extremes to prevent that happening.

On the other hand, there is a huge difference between reviewing ROEs with a mind to making changes and just saying "screw it" and making all of Afghanistan a free fire zone. That's what the Taliban does, and I have no intention of joining that side.

Jäger wrote:

--------------

Hey Jager, would you like some whine with your cheese?

As for the "nickle" I'm owed, try multiplying that by a few hundred million, that's about what goes into the DEFENCE budget. Key words here, DEFENCE, not "Fighting the Afghanistan civil war for them" budget. From what you've said that is basically what NATO is doing. If that is the case then we should start fighting the war properly, if that means a few villages get raised then so be it.

Tibarus wrote:

Hey Jager, would you like some whine with your cheese?

Saith the man complaining about his share of the Defense budget going to Afghanistan... although it's a pretty safe bet he has no idea what that amount is. I offered to give you your nickle back.

Still, what a profound rational to support the claims you've made so far! I'll take that to mean you can't manage to put together a single argument to back up a damn thing you've posted, and so this is the best you can come up with. Once you've chanted "It's George Bush's war and it's about oil", you've pretty much out of things to add to the discussion.

Why am I not surprised? You're the same guy who proclaimed anyone using a steering stabilizer just needed to man up and develop more arm strength or just drive a car, apparently unaware of the number of world class competitive riders in a class you'll never be in who use those stabilizers.

Ah, the arrogance of youth...

Anyways, thank you for your illogical opinions, brought to us by a kid who has never been there, never did that, and with no interest in bothering to learn more about it. Having somebody like you give instructions on how to "fight a war properly" does have a certain amusement value, given you know bugger all about the subject. Having that kid also claim he "supports the troops" is downright insulting, however, particularly to those of us who have lost brothers in arms over there.

As I said in my last post, I don't have time for those who can't do better than "oh yeah?" or trying to use silly semantic arguments as a smokescreen for their ignorance. That's what parrots and schoolkids do, not rational adults. I know you're young, but you're not that young. If you can't even attempt to present a reasoned argument to back up what you write, you aren't worth my time.

Jäger wrote:

Tibarus wrote:

Hey Jager, would you like some whine with your cheese?

Saith the man complaining about his share of the Defense budget going to Afghanistan... although it's a pretty safe bet he has no idea what that amount is. I offered to give you your nickle back.

Still, what a profound rational to support the claims you've made so far! I'll take that to mean you can't manage to put together a single argument to back up a damn thing you've posted, and so this is the best you can come up with. Once you've chanted "It's George Bush's war and it's about oil", you've pretty much out of things to add to the discussion.

Why am I not surprised? You're the same guy who proclaimed anyone using a steering stabilizer just needed to man up and develop more arm strength or just drive a car, apparently unaware of the number of world class competitive riders in a class you'll never be in who use those stabilizers.

Ah, the arrogance of youth...

Anyways, thank you for your illogical opinions, brought to us by a kid who has never been there, never did that, and with no interest in bothering to learn more about it. Having somebody like you give instructions on how to "fight a war properly" does have a certain amusement value, given you know bugger all about the subject. Having that kid also claim he "supports the troops" is downright insulting, however, particularly to those of us who have lost brothers in arms over there.

As I said in my last post, I don't have time for those who can't do better than "oh yeah?" or trying to use silly semantic arguments as a smokescreen for their ignorance. That's what parrots and schoolkids do, not rational adults. I know you're young, but you're not that young. If you can't even attempt to present a reasoned argument to back up what you write, you aren't worth my time.

Tibarus wrote:

Ah yes... indeed. What powerful rational.

See that picture in the upper left hand corner of your screen Tibarus?

Well, that's my WR250R.

That picture is about half an hour away from my house.

It was taken about this time last year. In about the same kind of weather we have now.

Now imagine you actually owned a WR - we all know you don't, and you're just here to socialize and be the resident wannabe, but let's just say you did.

And imagine you lived somewhere with scenery like that half an hour from your house, instead of living in a city of millions of people where it takes you hours just to get out of the city sometimes.

Now you don't own a WR and you don't live in the mountains, but let's just pretend for a moment.

If you actually DID own a WR and DID live somewhere like that, would you spend time discussing an issue with somebody who can't do better than parrot slogans and go "Oh yeah?"

Or would you rather get on your WR (if you actually owned one, of course) and go riding in the mountains (if you lived there, of course)?

People like Rokka are pretty interesting and you can learn from them. That's a good use of my time. You have nothing meaningful to say; you're not.

So I'm getting on MY WR and going riding. It isn't personal, it's just a best use of one's time.

You... you can dream about owning a WR one day, or whatever it is you want to do while I'm out riding.

Sooooo........
How bout them Canucks?

Jäger wrote:

--Broken records FTL--

Huh? What? Oh you were talking again, sorry I am finding it hard to stay awake while you preach...

You know it isn't very good for the record to let it keep skipping like that...

As for the picture? Sorry, can't see it. I have a spam filter on my browser.

Come to think of it, you still haven't told me why we're really there and don't hide behind the NATO reports, I want to hear in your own words, or is "parroting" NATO all you know how to do?

That all being said, why did Afghanistan need NATO's help in the first place? For that matter, why should ANY country need NATO's help? If a country isn't strong enough to stand on it's own, without outside help then it deserves to fall. NATO is just an excuse to have a weak military.

All I know is I'd hate to be a woman living there. Shit, there's no way I'd be forced to wear a burka...and everything else that they are subjected to. Maybe one day the Afghani women will all be able to walk the place freely without fear of being stoned, amputated or worse. They can't even bring the burka up in order to have skin contact with their kids. The kids grow up knowing a mother that is always behind a bloody piece of curtain.

Oh and Jager, about you thinking I don't leave the confines of the city and that you live more "in touch" with reality/nature due to where you live, let me ask you this. How often have you been on a beam reach doing 20 knots with two reefs in the main and the storm jib, with the main hull in the air surfing through the troughs of 15 foot rollers 30 feet apart?

"For that matter, why should ANY country need NATO's help? If a country isn't strong enough to stand on it's own, without outside help then it deserves to fall"

Tibarus, you really believe that?
That might be the most ridiculous comment yet, there's a list of countries that could hand Canada it ass
You really going to stand behind that statement?

0007onWR wrote:

"For that matter, why should ANY country need NATO's help? If a country isn't strong enough to stand on it's own, without outside help then it deserves to fall"

Tibarus, you really believe that?
That might be the most ridiculous comment yet, there's a list of countries that could hand Canada it ass
You really going to stand behind that statement?

Yes actually, NATO is nothing but a security blanket for weak countries to hide behind.

NATO is a sound concept, the biggest protecting the littlest, but it only works in a stable environment, where even the smallest countries can afford to have a, for their size, well founded military. In the real world however, the ideals of NATO fall short and you get countries hiding behind NATO as an excuse to not fund their defense budget, believing "NATO will save me if I'm attacked". Countries should be able to defend themselves, NATO should only intercede in a "worst case scenario" situation and only act as buffer forces for the requesting country. They shouldn't be fighting as a main force.

For some reason......I feel just a little bit dumber now

Red... come with me on fire patrol if you wanna see dumb.

Here are some predictions....

When the debt of the US reaches 100% of GDP, maybe a year or two at the current rate, the rich and powerful will suddenly see the austerity light and start to implement the retired Wyoming Senator's study recommendations... cut DoD by 10%; cut support for elderly by 10%; transition the Feds and Military pension plans to 401 (k) type plans; this might realize $1T. Then restore the estate tax; raise the marginal rate on folks earning over $1M/yr; implement a national sales tax of 5%; raise the tax on gasoline by 50cents/gal; charge a transaction tax on all equity trades of $2, $5 on all option trades and $10 on all derivative trades; make all the interstates toll roads; this might raise a $1T/yr. Guess what? Afganistan war will be gone; motorcycle and small car sales will soar; suddenly DoD won't need to have bases in 38 countries around the globe; the middle class will re-emerge; many incumbents will be gone; China will be numero uno.

If you see a different future, now's the time to share it.

Tibarus wrote:

Oh and Jager, about you thinking I don't leave the confines of the city and that you live more "in touch" with reality/nature due to where you live, let me ask you this. How often have you been on a beam reach doing 20 knots with two reefs in the main and the storm jib, with the main hull in the air surfing through the troughs of 15 foot rollers 30 feet apart?

I'd give up a 50 year motorcycle love affair to live where I could sail... probably not at your level anymore but nonetheless...

SheWolf wrote:

Red... come with me on fire patrol if you wanna see dumb.

LOL when I heard the new fire regs I pictured you out there with your fireproof measuring tape telling people their fire is 15mm too wide
Hey can I get free pass on the fire ban this weekend?

SheWolf wrote:

All I know is I'd hate to be a woman living there. Shit, there's no way I'd be forced to wear a burka...and everything else that they are subjected to. Maybe one day the Afghani women will all be able to walk the place freely without fear of being stoned, amputated or worse. They can't even bring the burka up in order to have skin contact with their kids. The kids grow up knowing a mother that is always behind a bloody piece of curtain.

Lots of "nation building" experts say that the fastest way to significant progress is to educate the women, first priority!! Plus they are far better students... even in the US, women are graduating at a higher rate than men and are able to stay employed at a much higher rate.

taoshum wrote:

Tibarus wrote:

Oh and Jager, about you thinking I don't leave the confines of the city and that you live more "in touch" with reality/nature due to where you live, let me ask you this. How often have you been on a beam reach doing 20 knots with two reefs in the main and the storm jib, with the main hull in the air surfing through the troughs of 15 foot rollers 30 feet apart?

I'd give up a 50 year motorcycle love affair to live where I could sail... probably not at your level anymore but nonetheless...

ANyone... even jager, from this forum is welcome on my boat anytime they like, just give me a head up if you're in the Vancouver area

Tibarus wrote:

As for the picture? Sorry, can't see it. I have a spam filter on my browser.

Really? Your "spam filter" removes the pictures that are part of the header on this website because it thinks they're spam? Honestly? Truly?

Hmmmmm....

Well, seeing as you don't own a WR, let me show you what one looks like as apparently your spam filter removes those pictures:



Hopefully that unique spam filter of yours didn't deprive you of that image.

That's my WR. How about a picture of yours?

Oh, that's right - you don't own one. You just hang out here.... why?

Quote :

Come to think of it, you still haven't told me why we're really there and don't hide behind the NATO reports, I want to hear in your own words, or is "parroting" NATO all you know how to do?

Saith the man who can't explain how Russia and China are working to help the US get access to oil on their own doorsteps. Or even tell us where all this oil in Afghanistan is, for that matter. None of us who have been there have seen any, but the kid back in the Lower Mainland who has never spent a day in uniform or in Afghanistan knows it's there.

Actually, I have told you why we're there. You just can't move beyond kiddy "oh yeah?" responses because that's all you can come up with. But I'll play, one last time.

Canada is really there because Canada has really always been pretty consistent with honouring UN requests to man UN missions.

Canada is really there because Canada is honourable enough to meet it's NATO obligations - not just suck up the bennies.

Canada is really there because a majority of Parliament under two Liberal and one Conservative governments have voted to be there.

Quote :

That all being said, why did Afghanistan need NATO's help in the first place? For that matter, why should ANY country need NATO's help? If a country isn't strong enough to stand on it's own, without outside help then it deserves to fall. NATO is just an excuse to have a weak military.

Says the kid who's a civvy who not only won't go in harm's way, but comes from a country which couldn't do much more than give the Russians a nosebleed if they decide they want to take the parts of the Arctic that his country claims. A kid who hasn't been paying much attention to the news of late.

Always easy to be the tough guy when you're not the one in uniform.

SheWolf wrote:

All I know is I'd hate to be a woman living there. Shit, there's no way I'd be forced to wear a burka...and everything else that they are subjected to.

Yeah, you would. Maybe not in Canada. But over there, you would.

Unless you think you're tough enough to endure being stoned to death. Or stood up in the back of a Toyota pickup so they could tie a rope around your neck to the crosspiece of a soccer goalpost and drive away to let you strangle. Or cut all your fingers off. After a dozen or so Taliban "freedom fighters" got tired of raping you after a week or so, of course. They are brutal, evil sons of bitches, and every one of them needs a 5.56 tap on the forehead.

Quote :

Maybe one day the Afghani women will all be able to walk the place freely without fear of being stoned, amputated or worse.

If the deep thinkers like Tibarus have their way, that isn't going to happen. We'll walk away from "Bush's war for oil" and let that gang of multinational parasites use Afghanistan as their host nation.

BTW, point of interest: the Afghani is the currency; the folks over there are Afghans.

Quote :

They can't even bring the burka up in order to have skin contact with their kids. The kids grow up knowing a mother that is always behind a bloody piece of curtain.

Another point of interest. It's properly a chadri in Afghanistan, which is the most extreme version of what Westerners call "burkhas". It was rarely seen in Afghanistan before the Taliban invasion and religious orders. And the good news - if there is any - is that it isn't worn inside the household, which means children actually can see and touch their mothers once inside the home.

You want to talk to the soldiers who are REALLY hard core about staying the course in Afghanistan?

Go talk to the female troops...

Tibarus wrote:

Oh and Jager, about you thinking I don't leave the confines of the city and that you live more "in touch" with reality/nature due to where you live, let me ask you this. How often have you been on a beam reach doing 20 knots with two reefs in the main and the storm jib, with the main hull in the air surfing through the troughs of 15 foot rollers 30 feet apart?

I crewed on Tanglefleet in the Swiftsure race twice in the early 80's (I'm fairly sure a hard core sailer like you knows what Swiftsure is). Which would be about the time you were nothing more than your daddy's wet dream, given your age. I'm just guessing, but I doubt whatever boat you might own is anything that can race in the Swiftsure Classic.

After all, if you could afford to own anything faintly resembling a blue water boat, the cost of the WR that you don't own would be peanuts in comparison and you'd actually own one instead of being a wannabe.

But this has nothing to do with Afghanistan, does it?

0007onWR wrote:

Tibarus wrote:

Yes actually, NATO is nothing but a security blanket for weak countries to hide behind.

NATO is a sound concept, the biggest protecting the littlest, but it only works in a stable environment, where even the smallest countries can afford to have a, for their size, well founded
military. In the real world however, the ideals of NATO fall short and you get countries hiding behind NATO as an excuse to not fund their defense budget, believing "NATO will save me if I'm attacked". Countries should be able to defend themselves, NATO should only intercede in a "worst case scenario" situation and only act as buffer forces for the requesting country. They shouldn't be fighting as a main force.

For some reason......I feel just a little bit dumber now

Reading that is kind of like a shot of Novacaine to the brain, isn't it? Where does one start?

If countries COULD defend themselves without assistance... why would they need NATO and NATO obligations in the first place? The only country which really doesn't need NATO is the US - and they contribute far more by any measure than anybody else.

It also ignores laws of basic pragmatism. A country the size of Canada taking on Russia? Ha! Russia has more armour sitting in bays getting oil changes at any given time than Canada has in its entirety. More artillery tubes on any one base than Canada has in its entirety. Probably 30 fighter aircraft for every fighter Canada has. A couple of Russian motor rifle regiments could take out Canada's entire combat arms force.

So if countries should be able to defend themselves as claimed, then Tibarus is from a miserable country indeed which couldn't defend itself from either of its nearest neighbors without LOTS of help.

One might also consider that alliances like NATO are a stabilizing force in and of themselves - not something that requires stability to work. Apparently, the concept of "strength in numbers" is uncharted territory for some people.

And here's another concept: instead of nations trying to match bigger, threatening nations in military spending so they can field equivalent forces if attacked, they can band together, spend somewhat less on their military, still be able to field an equivalent force - and use the money they didn't spend on the military on other social spending. They might even be able to put up a strong deterrent while still being able to support their societies while an enemy like the Soviet Union concentrates on military spending and self destructs. Hmmmmm....

Meanwhile, in the news unnoticed by most Canadians who have never worn the uniform, it seems the Russians have been conducting brigade level airborne operations in the Arctic, conducting flag raising exercises on claimed Canadian territory, and Russian long range bombers have been testing Canadian air defense responses with increasing frequency the last three years, the last time just a few days ago according to Janes. I'm pretty sure Tibarus has no idea how many fighter Canada has positioned where they could actually intercept Russian aircraft, but it isn't enough to do much more than splash one or two at most before being blotted out of the sky.

But Canada doesn't need NATO, and therefore shouldn't feel any particular need to either belong to NATO or meet their obligations.

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and
our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered
by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my
strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was
too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these
obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the
Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."
- Robert E. Lee, 1863