Posted on 06/14/2009 8:57:35 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
NEW YORK -- Military service is in Capt. Kamaljit Singh Kalsi's blood. But his plans to go on active duty in July are now on hold. An Army policy from the 1980s that regulates the wearing of religious items would mean he would need to shave his beard and remove the turban he wears in accordance with his religious precepts.
Sikhs have a long history with the U.S. military, serving in World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and in the Persian Gulf.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
You are the jerk. Facts are stubborn things. Canada spends 1.1% of its GDP on defense, which makes it 132nd in the world and its armed forces of 65,000 are 55th in the world in terms of size. Canada is not pulling its weight and has allowed its military to deteriorate to virtually nothing. It is a joke. Of course, when you have the US taxpayer picking up most of the tab, you can afford to have a virtually non-existent military so you can afford your socialized medical care.
The Canadian Army is paying the butcher’s bill in Afghanistan, and has from day one. They fight bravely and well, and unlike most of the rest of your allies they actually go into Harm’s Way and kill the enemy. Saying that they are “a joke” is in really bad taste.
It really gets tiresome to hear someone touting Canada's contribution in Afghanistan, as though it is something that we should be thankful for. At last, Canada is fulfilling its commitment under NATO. They were AWOL in Iraq, Vietnam, and plenty of other places where we spilled our blood.
The butcher's bill? Give me a break. Canada has lost 120 personnel over the almost 8 years the war has been going on in Afghanistan. The UK has lost 168 and we have lost 704.
The USA is paying the biggest price in blood and treasure. We have lost 3,465 personnel due to hostile fire in Iraq and 31,156 wounded. The UK has lost 179 personnel in Iraq. And the US has provided most of the logistical support to the coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The state of Canada's military has nothing to do with whether its troops are fighting bravely or not. Successive Canadian governments have made their armed forces a joke. The USA can no longer afford to pay for the defense umbrella for our allies. They must start picking up the burden for defense and get off of security welfare.
You might want to do some reading about the Princess Pat’s...one of the most decorated and feared regiments in the world.
Ed
"More funds were also put towards recruitment, which had been dwindling throughout the 1980s and '90s, possibly because the Canadian populace had come to perceive the CF as peacekeepers rather than as soldiers, as shown in a 2008 survey conducted for the Department of National Defence. The poll found that nearly two thirds of Canadians agreed with the country's participation in the invasion of Afghanistan, and that the military should be stronger, but also that the purpose of the forces should be different, such as more focused on responding to natural disasters.
The current CDS, Walter Natynczyk, said later that year that while recruiting has become more successful, the CF was facing a problem with its rate of loss of existing members, which increased between 2006 and 2008 from 6% to 9.2% annually.
actually neither of you are jerks and you’re both sort of right..
Canada’s government are pussed out and don’t carry the weight they ought to in the developed civil world like they did in WWII but on the other hand some of their troops are not too shabby and they are dying unlike me for instance in the WOT
so there...kiss and make up girls!
I do see your point, and it is sad, no doubt. But in Afghanistan, especially, the Pats have helped us out enormously...they have some of the world’s finest snipers, and are put to great effect there.
Ed
You're right: facts are stubborn things. So what do you intend to do with your military when the ChiComs finally decide not to lend you any more gas money? That will be the biggest joke yet -- except nobody will be laughing. Your military spending model is unsustainable. Nobody can afford to fight wars the way the US does. Not even the US.
> Of course, when you have the US taxpayerChiComs picking up most of the tab, you can afford to have a virtually non-existent military so you can afford your socialized medical care.
There. Fixed it. Truth in Advertising.
> You might want to do some reading about the Princess Pat’s...one of the most decorated and feared regiments in the world.
Or the French-speaking Royal 22e “Vandoos”, who are the sister regiment to the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. They had another casualty last week.
> so there...kiss and make up girls!
Yeah, ok.
Thanks, Diehard...I appreciate that heads up.
I never heard of them, I’m glad I have now. God bless them all...
Ed
(grin!) Thanks, Ed!
Without the US Military all you people would have been
killed in WWII or made slaves to the Japs!!! Got It!?
We require our Military to be “Uniform” for a reason that
you do not understand ! (haircut~shave),,,
As for a “non-existent military “,,,
How many Carriers does Your country Have ?
How many heavy bombers ?
How many ICBM’s ?
How many subs ?
~~~
Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 283
Ships Underway (away from homeport): 127 ships (45 % of total)
On deployment: 117 ships (41 % of total)
Attack submarines underway (away from homeport): 36 submarines (66%)
On deployment: 24 submarines (44%)
Ships Underway
Carriers:
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Pacific Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) - Pacific Ocean
USS George Bush (CVN 77) - Atlantic Ocean
Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Nassau (LHA 4) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Essex (LHD 2) - East China Sea
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - 5th Fleet
USS Bataan (LHD 5) - Adriatic Sea
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Atlantic Ocean
Aircraft (operational): 3700+
~~~Navy.mil~~~6~11~09~~~
All paid for by US Taxpayers and manned by AMERICANS !
If they don't like the rules here they can go back to
the Turd world Shiite hole that they came from !!!...
Canada population: 33 Million
UK population: 61 Million
US population; 304 Million.
Do some math, kabar.
O goody. The “you should be grateful / aren’t we mighty” speech. You gotta know this gets tiresome after a while.
And it drags the thread way off-topic. You write:
> Without the US Military all you people would have been killed in WWII or made slaves to the Japs!!! Got It!?
I’m not going to rise to that. It’s a false boast that does the Allied war dead no credit.
Don’t you Yanks ever get tired boasting? The rest of us certainly get tired of listening to it.
> We require our Military to be “Uniform” for a reason that you do not understand ! (haircut~shave),,,
Then let’s hear your rationale, as it is something quite unique to the rest of the Free World. That’s what we are trying to discuss on this thread: the rest is off-topic.
> How many Carriers does Your country Have ?
Two. We call them “North Island” and “South Island” and they cannot be sunk.
> Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 283
(snip)
All of that is irrelevant.
Let’s ask a better question: the coalition of the willing is fighting an asymmetric war against radical muslim irregulars. On average, how much has it cost to kill each terrorist, in dollar terms?
Let’s follow it up with another excellent question: these irregular terrorist forces are being financed by some of the richest countries in the world, true? How much do you think it is costing the enemy to kill coalition forces?
The enemy’s costs will be several orders of magnitude less.
Moreover, the enemy does not need to borrow Treasure to fight America. You, on the other hand, do need to borrow to fight the enemy.
The enemy can pay cash — cash that you have borrowed from the ChiComs so you can buy the enemy’s oil at the ridiculous prices that their OPEC cartel sets. In essence, they are fighting you with your own money, that you’ve borrowed and are paying interest on!
It is clear that the American military model is unsustainable. It does not matter how many vessels you have in your navy. And truth be told, it doesn’t matter how many men you have in your Army. Or how many hi-tech whiz-bangs you’ve built at millions of dollars apiece.
The US will run out of money, fighting this war in the manner in which it is being fought, long before the terrorists will. They have endless supplies of money, endless supplies of men (Indonesia has HEAPS of muslims) and a really inexpensive but effective war model.
Your resources, however, are finite and getting ever more finite as each day goes by and with each multi-trillion-dollar non-military spend-up your Commander-in-Chief is committing to.
How does that make sensible war-making?
We were involved in WW2, from August 26th, 1939.
You joined up after Dec. 7th, 1941.
It is a popular misconception among Americans that the US voluntarily entered WW2, at least against the Germans. In fact, the US didn't. The US entered the general war as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the US entered against Japan and did not, repeat not, declare war on Germany. However, a few days after Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the US, thereby putting an end to the US dilemma. After a meeting between Churchill and Poosevelt, it was agreed that the British and Americans would have a "Germany first" policy. Whether the Americans would have declared war on Germany had not Hitler made the decision for them is one of the great unanswered questions of history. The US had, of course, been completely isolationist prior to 7 December 1941 - Roosevelt's Lend-Lease programme had got through Congress by one, repeat one, vote. The answer is that yes, probably the US would have entered the war against Germany, but possibly not on the scale that it did, and almost certainly not with Germany being given priority over Japan. But nobody will ever know for sure.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2
Nah. I’m a Major in the US Army. My brother is Captain in the USMC. He can take the kilt.
Semper Fi
There. Fixed it. Truth in Advertising.
Unless America suddenly discovers a new way to generate massive wealth, your great-grandchildren will be paying for all this kit long after this generation of US Taxpayers are gone.
Now exactly what this has to do with Sikhs in the US military I will never know, but you took us down this path and I felt it useful to follow it to where it ultimately leads.
Thankyou to you and your brother for your Service, FRiend.
As I stated, you US can no longer afford to fund the global defense umbrella for our allies. Our economy is declining under massive debt, which will raise debt servicing costs from the current $400 billion a year to over $800 billion in a decade. Debt servicing costs are the third largest item in the federal budget after entitlements and defense. We will no longer be able to afford guns and butter and the politicians will choose butter. Just as the Briish could no longer afford troops East of Suez, the US global defense role will decline. It is inevitable.
Our allies must do more or this will become an increasingly dangerous world with countries like China trying to fill the vacuum. Canada is an example of a country that could do more, but isn't.
> Of course, when you have the US taxpayerChiComs picking up most of the tab, you can afford to have a virtually non-existent military so you can afford your socialized medical care. There. Fixed it. Truth in Advertising.
You have your facts wrong again. China holds about $1.5 trillion of our $11.4 trillion national debt, hardly picking up the tab for our defense.
The US taxpayer has been picking up most of the tab for the security umbrella for our allies. Unlike the Chinese who hold a real debt instrument and will be paid interest on their holdings and can cash them in to get back their money, the US taxpayer will not see a penny of its money back. That's the difference.
> Our allies must do more or this will become an increasingly dangerous world with countries like China trying to fill the vacuum. Canada is an example of a country that could do more, but isn’t.
If you look at the US warfare model you can probably see why. Nobody can afford to wage war like that: not even the US.
The War on Terror is asymmetric, and the terrorists have huge leverage on a cost-per-casualty basis. The war is on their turf — so they don’t even need to pay travel costs — and their equipment cost is peanuts.
How much does an Apache helicopter cost? And how much does the surface-to-air missiles cost to shoot it down?
How much does a HumVee cost? And how much does an IED cost to blow it to smithereens?
How much does a single jet sortee cost — one that drops napalm and kills, say, 20 terrorists?
Who can afford to wage war on that basis? The US can’t. What chance does Canada or New Zealand or the UK or Germany have of affording it if the US can’t?
These desert ruffians don’t really need to be killed with half-million dollar bombs, surely. But that is the US warfare model.
> You have your facts wrong again. China holds about $1.5 trillion of our $11.4 trillion national debt, hardly picking up the tab for our defense.
Actually, my facts are spot-on.
I was picking on the ChiComs because they are funding about a third of this year’s operating DEFICIT so far — which is a different thing to your national debt. (As you will know, the national debt is an accumulation of many years of deficit financing)
On that basis, I venture that the ChiComs are almost certainly funding this year’s military opex, and probably also this year’s military capex as well. And if not the ChiComs, then some other lender.
Who can afford to wage war like this? Asymmetric warfare waged in this fashion will surely ruin the United States.
So why would Canada want to do something like that?
Their model has tended toward peacekeeping instead: as a Nation they have deployed on nearly every peacekeeping mission worldwide since the UN was founded. Their rationale is obviously to keep the peace so that war expenditures can be avoided. So far, not a bad strategy.
New Zealand follows a similar model: we cannot have a large army even if we wanted one: we’re the size of Chicago. We can afford what the City of Chicago could afford, max. And so we don’t have alot of expensive kit: can’t afford it.
But what we do have is a superbly trained military equipped to fight in the South Pacific theater. And we have elite forces trained to the highest standard in the world, capable of fighting in all theaters. And both are always deployed somewhere.
That is what Chicago could afford, so that is what New Zealand has.
In Iraq, US military losses have been 4,312 dead [hostile and non-hostile] and 31,156 wounded. Add to that the 704 US deaths in Afghanistan. And toss in 3,000 civilian casualties on 9/11. Do the math, i.e., multiply Canada's losses in Afghanstan by 10 and see who has suffered more losses in the WOT.
And double the Canadian numbers and compare it to the UK losses in Iraq [179] and Afghanistan [168]. The UK has done more per capita. And to carry this folishness even further, Estonia [pop. 1.3 million] has lost a total of 5 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, which using your math means that they have lost more per capita than Canada.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.