Army Guy

My point is this, Our entire sentencing program is based on progressive sentencing, ie the worse the crime the longer the term. it has nothing to do with financing or budgets or funding at all. The judge does not ask the court clerk for a budget brief before sentencing, nor does he dismiss the case because there is no money to imprison a convicted felon. When we start releasing convicts because of budgetary reasons then we have a real serious issue, the very fabric of our criminal system will be threatened. While you say there is no real evidence on longer sentences on deterring crimes, What evidence is there that these criminals will not reoffend when released early....Shorter terms means less rehabilitation can be administered, and while budgets get tighter, these types of programs will be cut.....to the point there will be no readjustment programs at all..... Not to mention with the luxuries they have in prison today , does it deter anyone from the life of crime....take a trip back in time when prisons were just that prisons no tennis courts, no TV, no intra net, no programs at all,....and tell me the if the amount of convicts that re offended is smaller or larger.... No one wanted to return ever.....Now I get we as a nation have grown in the way we treat our prisoners, some one once said you could tell a great deal about a nation by the way the treat their prisoners... And yet the what has the corrections dept done about growing costs, have they looked into programs such as the one happening down south. here prisoners are responsible to grow all their own food, they sell the surplus and use the profits to fund their own rehabilitation programs, housing is kept to a minimum, because they are kept in tents....no tv, no tennis courts, no nothing they work all day ...That jail produces a positive cash flow. it cost the tax payers nothing.....inmates are taught valuable farming skills, machine maintenance skills, plus leadership skills running small teams of prison workers, and it has one of the lowest re offender rates in the US..... The question we have to ask ourselfs is this ...What is the purpose of prisons in the first place, is it to punish, or provide a rehab institute.....regardless of what anyone thinks Prison is a place where Criminals go to serve their time for breaking the law, to remove them from society and keep the rest of the citizens safe....Like sending your kid to their room... Why can't we use prisoners as a free source of labor, to lower the costs of housing and feeding them, and if our laws have changed to keep us from doing that then perhaps it is time we look at changing them back. Our prison systems should not be a free ride, where convicts go to just serve time....they should be going there to repay their debt to society.... Use that money we spend on re habilitation and spend it else where like dealing with the conditions that put them there in the first place.....spending it on the portions of society that have not broken the law yet....improve the conditions of our nations poor, give the kids in those groups programs that teach them crime does not pay..... Letting convicts out early because of lack of space or funding is not the way to go either....

You and some others seem to think that this is all about dollars and cents, forgetting that sentencing is part of the law and order process, but it is based on a gradient scale... the worse the crime, the longer the sentence. it is that way by design to give reasonable citizens pause, before they go off on some criminal spree....For every action their is a reaction, and you must then pay for your mistake in judgement.....So yes it is a punishment....with out it what would hold the entire law and order process in tact.....if there was no punishment what would deter people from re offending..... And while it does cost money to keep prisoners locked up....but there are plenty of examples of housing prisoners for a lot less, in fact in the US there is one prison in the south that generates a profit. and while its practices may or may not fit into Canadian law, it does prove that there are options that will reduce costs to housing and caring for prisoners..... The idea of letting criminals out of prison early to reduce costs is counter productive.....it undermines the entire sentence practices why sentence a man to a certain length of time only to let him go early because of funding issues......The law and order process does not take any funding issues into account....it has no effect on initial sentences....there fore sentences should not be shorten due to funding..... Other areas should be look at reducing costs.... There are others who posted here that say there is no connection of harsh sentences reducing crime at all, perhaps that has to do with conditions in todays prisons, and what it costs for all the luxuries provided.....wonder how much that prison in the article costs the tax payers....And I doubt you ll find those conditions in that prison in the south US. Maybe we have to look at the past and conditions prisons back then and how many convicted convicts re offended, due to these conditions.....I think there is a dramatic difference....and while we have progressed a few million lite years since then when it comes to human rights.....but maybe , just maybe we have gone to far.....I mean come on, tennis courts, camp fires by the ocean...day passes into the public....do you think perhaps we have gone to far.....why not servants, vale parking, massage centers.....I forgot it is all about dollars and cents ...

You and some others seem to think that this is all about dollars and cents, forgetting that sentencing is part of the law and order process, but it is based on a gradient scale... the worse the crime, the longer the sentence. it is that way by design to give reasonable citizens pause, before they go off on some criminal spree....For every action their is a reaction, and you must then pay for your mistake in judgement.....So yes it is a punishment....with out it what would hold the entire law and order process in tact.....if there was no punishment what would deter people from re offending..... And while it does cost money to keep prisoners locked up....but there are plenty of examples of housing prisoners for a lot less, in fact in the US there is one prison in the south that generates a profit. and while its practices may or may not fit into Canadian law, it does prove that there are options that will reduce costs to housing and caring for prisoners..... The idea of letting criminals out of prison early to reduce costs is counter productive.....it undermines the entire sentence practices why sentence a man to a certain length of time only to let him go early because of funding issues......The law and order process does not take any funding issues into account....it has no effect on initial sentences....there fore sentences should not be shorten due to funding..... Other areas should be look at reducing costs.... There are others who posted here that say there is no connection of harsh sentences reducing crime at all, perhaps that has to do with conditions in todays prisons, and what it costs for all the luxuries provided.....wonder how much that prison in the article costs the tax payers....And I doubt you ll find those conditions in that prison in the south US. Maybe we have to look at the past and conditions prisons back then and how many convicted convicts re offended, due to these conditions.....I think there is a dramatic difference....and while we have progressed a few million lite years since then when it comes to human rights.....but maybe , just maybe we have gone to far.....I mean come on, tennis courts, camp fires by the ocean...day passes into the public....do you think perhaps we have gone to far.....why not servants, vale parking, massage centers.....I forgot it is all about dollars and cents ...

I smell another increase at the pumps, maybe even another tax break.....

Thank you SmallC for the link.....

When has the government introduced a new tax without it generating revenue, or for it's own agenda.....You and reefer claim it is revenue neutral, But when I asked you to provide a source so I could take a look ....I heard nothing back.....and I can not find a source that lays it all out in black and white....so I am left to take your word at it.... The bottom line or agenda in this case is nothing more than a shell game.....you pay at the pumps, a tax that is claimed to be environmentally friendly.....but by definition any tax that raises the price of fuel enough will have the same side effect, give pause to users make them take extra efforts to conserve fuel....as mentioned here before by another poster, when crude was demanding top dollar and fuel prices where high could have skewed the results inflating the effect you claim was due to just Carbon taxes.....which would have the same effect..... The shell game comes in when the BC government raises what they call carbon taxes.....under the idea of doing their part in reducing emissions....when really high fuel prices were already doing that.....and it is a side effect of high prices ....they seen that .... so why not ride that wave to the beach....claim you are doing something for the environment scoring votes in BC, and then using that income generated by "you" paying more at the pumps.....to lower taxes.....so the government can say ....see what we did for you we lowered your taxes......they didn't have to do anything at all.....they did not lower your taxes just move the money around....you paid for those lower taxes by putting your own money into the pumps.....All you have to do is have to follow the money......now you claim it is revenue neutral but like I said before when has the government did anything without generating a profit to be used for something else....the next shell game.... back to my original question Why ? Have one tax that only gives you a rebate on another.....why not just leave it the way it was ?.....Because they would not be able to say we are doing something for the environment and wait for it..... lowering your taxes at the same time...and it did not cost them anything....they got you to pay for it all.....and now have you believing it is a good thing.....here you give me 20 dollars in tax and I will give you 20 dollars back off your taxes....cost me nothing, and you gained nothing.....but now you think I did you a favour, "and" you also believe i'm doing something for the environment.....YOU did all the work.....

Is it nonsense.....Perhaps I am a little slow....When has the government ever introduced a tax that did not produce revenue.....And why would they introduce a Carbon tax, and disguise it as an environmental protect tax, when all it does is allows them to decrease income taxes.....it reminds me of the shell game....here is the ball watch it closely.....I am going to raise taxes at the pump all in the name of the environment , and at the same time I am going to lower your taxes .....win win for the government .....who has convinced you your getting a win as well.....it seems like they are protecting the environment, which is a concern for most BC ers , lower taxes every body likes lower taxes...... But in reality the only winner here is the guy that does not have a car, or home....the rest of you guys are paying out of one pocket and getting some thing back in the other....Why even have the tax if it is revenue neutral, because it is all a sham.....under disguise of protecting the environment.....come on even you can see that..... I find that hard to believe, last year my taxes were based on 38 or 39 % of my reported income....and have been based at that percentage for a while atleast as long as I can remember....getting older now so my memory is not as good.....now I don't claim to be a math wizard....but as my wage climbs so does the amount paid in taxes.....but still based on 39 %...... My other taxes such as land taxes, etc etc have been on the rise.....most of that is based on what my home is worth, and in BC homes are not cheap or so the news says.....ca'nt imagine what land taxes are out that way....but here on average for a 350,000 home you can expect to pay 2 to 5000 dollars...depending on where your at....never has the the government said Holly shit it's your birthday we are lowering taxes....

Carbon Taxes could be a tool, but that is not how they are being used, you've said as much in your post. Currently they are just another tax which has the side effect of lowering consumption.....and disguised as an environmental policy....World leaders around the globe are preaching the same things, feigning concerns over our current environmental condition...And environmentalists are lapping it up because it has shown a spot light in their corner....adding their 2 cents to the issue, adding to the confusion...of the tax payers....who will be the driving force behind every action this nation takes....if it is not popular then it won't happen.....and right now we are concerned, but really if placed in priority in lifes daily struggle what position does it take..... The current condition of our environment did not happen this morning, it has been happening for decades, one could ask why now, why not yesterday, yesteryear.....that has got to be telling.... on how far down on the priority list our environment really is....We as a nation have seen this miles away, and have failed to jump on board any major project that would see us less reliant on fossil fuels.. Our economy is over 40 % based on fossil fuels, could that be why..... our laws on the environments protection are laughable really another telling story about how much we care about our environment..... The pipeline story is also laughable.....not only did the Montreal mayor and now one of Quebec's environmental ministers state the pipe line would not be in their best interests....for environmental reasons.....the same two people who pumped billions of liters of untreated Human waste sewage into a national waterway and told the public there is nothing to worry about.....which kind of points us to come to our own conclusion, this is not about the environment, it is about positioning Quebec to get a slice of the pie.....show me the money baby.....In the west it has always been show me the money.....never about save the whales....or our environment....

My entire point here has been that the Carbon tax is nothing more than protecting the bottom dollar, the governments bottom dollar, while it may have some benefit to the environment it is nothing more than a scheme...... The pipeline has environment groups and miss may in a tither, because they don't like fossil fuels, end of story.....Canadians don't give a rat ass about the environment, we have proven that over and over again.....here in the west it is about the almighty dollar.....the pipe line is about getting Canadian product, to a Canadian refinery , providing Canadian jobs.....Time we stopped pretending we care about mother nature, when our real concern is how much money can I make off this.....

So are you implying that we don't need the entire global warming /Carbon tax scheme , all we really need to do is increase existing taxes on all fuel products , pricing them to the point it forces users to reduce their usage. which translate into more money into government coffers, more services, that might have the side effect of lowering our green house gas emissions which would be good for the environment.....That would be easy to sell in Canada, I mean it has already been done, Canada has some of the highest fuel taxes in North America.....we should have the lowest emissions right....

Could you please provide a source, thank you in advance. I'm sorry but I am not a climate denier, in fact I said so many times in the last couple of posts... But we are talking about Carbon taxes and what they are meant for. my understanding was the main purpose is to reduce green house gases, to improve our environment.....and yet you continue to bases your argument on economics.....showing the readers that BC has the lowest income tax and corporate taxes in the country....How does this translate into saving the environment.....now if you had said those taxes were used to improve BC environment id say you would have a case...... Reducing fuel usage by 16 % is an impressive figure, that does translate in helping the environment but your contributing that to an increase at the fuel pumps through another tax......Call it what ever you want but that's what it is just another tax, and the reaction to that in BC is people are using their cars less.....the fact is im sure the rest of the country could show reductions as well when fuel prices were at their highest....and most of us did reduce driving them when we did not have to....was that good for the environment yes it was.....but it was not because we all wanted to save the environment.....it was to save a few bucks..... which brings me back to the general consensus within Canada, are we willing to do anything about the current climate issues.....and im say sure we will talk a good game.....as long as we don't have to give up anything ....So if we are not willing to give up anything, why do we have to listen to all this environmental talk about pipelines , spills.....when the issue at hand is jobs....and using a Canadian product...

You say it has been Quite effective, so if I may ask how effective is it. has it reduced emissions by 10 %, 20 %, 30 % is there any stats out there that give a reduction of any emissions. Why I ask is what you have explained to me is a increased in fuel prices, or added taxes , something this country, not just BC has done for years, in some provinces gas or fuel prices have as much 40 % taxes added on to them, by either provincial or federal governments......and yet we are to believe that the Carbon taxes will reduce usage.....reduce emissions How has this worked for us so far.....what it has shown is the consumers will pay what ever it takes to use fuel driven machinery, be it your car, furnace, lawn mower etc etc....Sure the whole country is sharing rides, thinking before driving, but when they need a liter of milk they go and get it.....If this is what you call getting serious about the environment then hey what ever floats your boat.....to me it is just another government scheme to enrich itself.....and to pay for the many services we enjoy today....and very little to do with saving the environment...it may look like that, because it was disguised to do that...... How much of those taxes are being used to improve environment conditions, going into a fossil fuel alternatives, that is the goal right , not putting money back into tax payers pockets or corporate pockets.....how is that saving the environment may I ask.......like I said here in the west money talks , we don't give a rats ass about the environment.....yes we are concerned when the right people ask.....but what have we really done to improve the environment.... besides dump trillions of liters of waste into our water ways each year.....not just human waste , but toxic chemicals as well.....sure we fine the companies that do it, but according to them it is the price of doing business.. and we are ok with it.....and we wonder why there is no salmon, in our rivers, or you can't eat them due to toxic chemicals levels are to high..... our oceans are over fished, the climate has changed..... and Carbon taxes are going to change all that...... Don't get me wrong I am no tree hugger, but I am an outdoorsmen, and the change has been slapping us in the face for decades now.....and it is not going to change without some major programs......carbon taxes is a sham.....Until then we should not pretend we are on the bus of good stewardship of our environment .....But do what is best for the economy.....getting Canadian product to Canadian markets , creating Canadian jobs.....

Is Carbon tax an attempt to protect the environment, or is it cleverly disguised that way to bring environmentalists on board. I mean if we as a nation were going to get serious about protecting our environment , why we not just legislate changes into law.....with fines and charges that fit the crime...Today fines are nothing more than a small tax paid by companies that destroy our environment wholesale.....the City of Montreal dumped billions of liters of raw sewage into the a national water way and it was in the media for 2 weeks and faded into nothing.....Canadians said or did nothing.....Then the mayor has the balls to decline the pipeline because it is not environmentally friendly......but pumping billions of liters of human waste into a national water way is.....we had no choice was the excuse.... Carbon tax is nothing more than a new commodity, it can be sold if you have a surplus or purchased if you need more....How does this protect the environment, when all I have to do is purchase more credits if I have exceeded the goals laided out in some agreement...As I understand the agreement carbon tax credits can be sold or traded between companies, or provinces or nations....When you boil it all down it is nothing more than the existing small fine companies pay WHEN or IF they are caught.....Why even bother....if we as a nation wanted to get serious about climate change then legislate tough new laws with tough new fines or penalties. And yet everyone is pointing towards how much danger pipelines are to the environment....do we really care, if we did why do we put up with the current laws and level of fines imposed on faulty equipment or spills.....The bottom line is what built this country.....it is who we are, in the west Money makes the world go round.....we have never put any real value on protecting our environment....we use it and throw it out.... The pipeline represents growth , jobs, it represents taking a Canadian product, oil for the tar sands project, Processing it in Canada, for Canadians and exports....today that same product is shipped state side and then resold back to us for a profit.....that profit could be staying in Canada, those jobs could be Canadian jobs.....Jobs in a region that really needs them..... But we are just as happy bringing in Saudi oil, trucking , training it all over the country being held hostage by their prices , by a nation that we don't even like....But when a Canadian company decides to do it....now we need a debate....With provinces like Quebec wanting to know what is in it for them.....that is not about the environment.....it is about the bottom dollar......like it always was been about.....

I think over all Canadians are tired of politicians, all their fake unrealistic promises which are broken once they meet with the reality of things.....I think Keven OLeary like Donald trump represent that choice.....

Just for a second, I would like you to put yourself in my boots, Ive been posting on this forum for almost 10 years now, most of my posts have been on this topic. From my side of the fence it does not seem you have put much time or research into your responses. you find any source that confirms your beliefs and post it....and when challenged on these sources you end the conversation or debate with you have your beliefs and I have mine..... Don't get me wrong, It was not always like this, I used to enjoy responding to your posts they were well thought out and you articulated you point very well. Im not sure what changed, but someone once told me you get what you sow.........which might explain my interest or lack of in my replies back you....Ive been slowly trying to change that, im hoping you follow my lead..... I value you opinion, or I would not waste my time in responding, I enjoy doing the research to prove or back up my statements, this you ve helped me get a better grasp on the topics we do happen to discuss....for that I am grateful . But sometimes debating with you can be frustrating and this tends to come out in my posts......for that I offer my apologies... It was not my intention to suggest anything else.....But you must admit, volunteering to spend upto 8 months at a time, in a war zone is above and beyond, and to do that on multi occasions, is beyond that.... Your statement is once again confusing, if you have no intention of convincing me of anything. What is your intention of posting the things you do, if it is nothing more than to keep me busy, or to see how I will react please stop....and I will do the same.....As I am very comfortable with my position and my actions over there. I once heard you were a teacher, I hope you do not respond to your students with I have no intention of explaining my sources , it is up to you to do that......until then what ever I say must be true.... Fair enough..... so I did my own research, goggle is a wonderful thing.....your figures are wrong...your numbers inflated..... from day one, until 2014 here are the total figures of Afghan civilians that where killed because of actions of NATO troops 7509 killed they did not keep records for the wounded, but normally it is twice that number......, It should be noted that Accurate numbers of Civilians were not kept by Human rights watch, or UN assistance mission Afghanistan (UNAMA) or Afghan Independent Human rights commission (AIHRC) However I did find for those missing years and used Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire, numbers...for the remaining years I used UNAMA, or AIHRC numbers what ever number was the highest...I also rounded up the list for easier math, the exact numbers of course are available through the link....if you care to do the math.... That 7509 includes all NATO nations, the link also in most cases breaks it down by which nation is reasonable....and Canada while not innocent in taking civilian lives, there numbers might add up to little over 50....of course you can add them up your self it is all in the links.... and while even one life that is lost is tragic, a lot of these can be explained as accidents, misunderstandings on both sides...and not to sound cold, but these things do happen in war.... While you quickly point to the damage we did to the Afghan people, there are no mention on how many lives we saved, yes Afghan civilians were treated regularly in Canadas role 3 hospital, not only from wounds received by Canadian soldiers, but from IEDs, Taliban, other terrorist groups, who killed or wounded on average 75 % of all Afghan civilians, in some years past 85%....of course we do not count those injured in traffic accidents, other accidents that were treated by either Canadian soldiers or Medical staff....How many IEDs our Engineers dismantled in towns, how many classes did we give the kids on how to recognize an IED and who to phone....how many medical staff vists did we make to towns and villagers, to provide medical attention to anyone who needed it.... How many wells did Canadians drill, I know not a big deal, unless you have no clean drinking water, how many Kms of highways did we build, and then the Dam ....not to mention projects that the soldiers paid for out of their own pockets, the purchase of 4 ambulances, a fire truck, the building of schools, providing school supplies, books that list goes on and on.... All those feel good stories are long forgotten, but to say we did not make a difference, a good difference in Afghanistan would be just a lie.....told to discredit all the hard work the men and women did in Afghanistan....And im sorry I can not let that happen. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

No but they do provide excellent examples on just how fast Modern warfare can chew through massive war stocks, things as simple as 5.56 rifle Ammo. During OP Mudusa in Afghanistan Canadian forces had burned through the entire Ammo build up for the entire Afghan mission in just 48 hours, of fighting...Fighting an insurgent war not a high intensity with a nation of serious weight....it had been forced to fly over most of Canadas war stocks from Canada, leaving behind a critical shortage within Canada, that took years to resolve completely.... plus the fact that Canada purchased massive loads from US military in Afghanistan throughout the rest of the operation..... It would take many months to reconfigure a manufacturer plant to produce war materials, let alone train the staff on how to build, to spec, complicated war materials....let alone something as simple as a 5.56 round.....Derek is right, the next major conflict is come as you are, there is simply not enough time to convert civilian plants into military ones, the war would be over by then, with one side forced to surrender because it has nothing left to fight with.... I remember when I first arrived in Germany, posted to 3 RCR late 80s part of my incoming brief was an explanation of what our mission was, to delay the Warsaw pact forces for 48 hours, until reinforcements could be flown over from North America....sounded simple enough....then they told us what our life expectancy was for an infantry soldier.... it was measured in seconds, 7 seconds to be exact.... from the time we engaged the enemy or entered the battle space we were given seconds to survive....Granted this was the worse case scenario high intensity warfare at its worse, the use of chemical agents and tactical nukes were a foregone conclusion, and that was 80s tech, today wpns are much more efficient at killing........My point is this even if you could rapidly convert civilian manufacture sector to produce complicated wpns and equipment , in a timely manner .... the current Military of 64,000 troops would have been used up, deemed combat ineffective, with no replacements due in for months.....There is no longer such a thing as long and extended high intensive combat such as WWII, those days are over......the next one will be over in weeks, if that long.....take a look at the wars in Israel....

Not sure where you picked up the figure of 20,000 Afghans killed and 30,000 wounded, That can be directly attributed to the Canadian military or their actions. perhaps you can provide a source .... Another reason I ask, it was your source, Retired Gen Fraser opinions your bases your post on, and it was his words that said Afghanistan is a better place for our nations commitment....and now your calling his opinion into question.....I getting confused on this round and round conversation.....If you dont trust his comments why use them in the first place.....now you want to cherry pick from his statements.....sorry it does not work for me ... Our Military does not decides decide on what is a successful or what is a failure, Those conditions are set out by the government and according to our government our military meet or exceeded all of what it was asked to do....Why do you find the need to place the responsibility for the entire mission at the militaries feet.... The entire Military mission expenditure was not 20 bil dollars, That number includes all the humanitarian assistance given, all the construction projects, such as new highways, Dam projects, not to mention all the diplomatic expenditures and programs they created....So ill recap once again, those numbers are for everything that all depts. were responsible for, foreign affairs, RCMP, Diplomatic measures everything.....While I get it it all comes out of the tax payers wallet, but your twisting facts to suit your argument..... Not sure why you continue to use the deaths of 159 soldiers as part of the price Canadians paid or why you use those numbers as if they point towards a failure. Canadians were never asked to contribute to those numbers, like you have said over and over (It was their choice and they were paid for it...) It was the price our soldiers...and one Diplomat paid.....no one else...Not once where Average Canadians Citizens asked to step forward and sign up to fight in a foreign conflict, .......you make it sound like these soldiers were well compensated for their efforts, like they sacrificed everything for money...Had nothing to due with money, but their dedication to their comrads that was the main driving force to get these soldiers to go back not a couple of times as you suggest but rather 3 to 6 times on average....just a couple times more than a couple times..... You talk about an enemy now controlling half of Afghanistan, today now being 2016, and we left in 2012 (4 years after the fact) as I have said before our responsibility for the Afghanistan mission ended in 2012....when the last of the combat troops came home....The military warned of leaving early that the mission was not yet finished, once again our government masters where going to chase where ever the votes were going not what was best for the situation or the nation, but what ever the general population had decided.....So when we left the enemy was not in control of half the Afghanistan.....There returning ( the enemy) is the fault of the absence of NATO Combat troops....which is the direct result of the demands that the general population made....So if you were one of those guys (big guy) that demanded our soldiers return....then that smoking bag of dog shit belongs to you and those involved in that decision....but you are trying to pin that on the mission itself.....how is that possible.. When the Canadian Combat mission was done and could no longer influence current conditions in Afghanistan..... Al Qaeda was not a major influence in Afghanistan when we exited the battle field....How long are you going to continue with blaming todays conditions with our past mission in Afghanistan.....

Quote from Gen Fraser, I'm proud of Canada's commitment to Afghanistan, Afghanistan is a better place because of it......He may of pointed to some tactical errors....to which I added were made by our government.....not her soldiers..... But let us also not forget everyone of those soldiers volunteered to serve, everyone of them put his hand up and said I will serve in Afghanistan.....even after 10 years of sacrifice.....and knowing what all that meant , nothing was a secret we all knew what we were getting into ....most of those soldiers served in Afghanistan on average 3 or more times.....but that means nothing to the average Canadian.....That fact gets swept aside as government puppets, or it was their job, or what do they know.....Well they knew enough to keep coming back for multi tours..... The billions you talk about came out of the defense budget.....not foreign affairs, not any other Dept.....all of it was carved out of the Defense budget, meaning DND had to make major cuts in order to pay for "Canada's contribution" I get it , it is mostly made up of tax payers taxes.....but that tax payers money was meant to purchase equipment, training , instead it was funneled into paying for our government s decision....And what extra funding that was preyed out of tax payers wallets , was paid for in soldiers blood......Hell of way to support OUR military.....

60 bil is a lot of funding , but what are we getting for it....Have we solved any major issues with it....health care, education, does it touch any of the programs harper left swinging in the air....Ship building program that was not funded properly....or the F-18 replacement program.....where is all that funding coming from, it is not included in your 60 bil.....what I want to know what is the final number, and how do we pay for it.....and when....

I think , we are purchasing more than just 65 Plain jane F-35, there was talk of wpns, spare parts, sims, and a lot more...when you translate all that that comes with this contract the F-18's at 100 mil a copy, plus all the extras plus adjust for our dollars value and now we are way over 9 bil.....which means what exactly....i'm just guessing here but I think when they redefine Canada's new role or Canada's commitments we are going to see a number smaller than 65.....Which most have thought was short to start with.... Not to mention the under funded Navy program, which was going to be saved with excess airforce dollars .....So not only have they not kept the "any thing but f 35 promise, but sank the navy only saving grace to that program....I guess we stay tuned to later when they announce decreased naval numbers as well....or an readjustment to the entire shipbuilding project.....

Thank you for taking the time to read it, I had to cut it down so it is just the highlights. There are more insiders memoirs out there Paul martin mentions the mission in his book, along with other comments in the media from different agencies involved, that were displeased at the location chosen for the new mission, or the scope of the new mission...but you really have to dig through it all... There are always 2 sides to every story, some where in the middle lies the truth... I think you'll enjoy Hilliers books, I have a biases opinion of course, as I see him in a good light.....but it will give you a better grasp on the issues that faced the forces, and the struggle to fix them....

Big guy: I have already expressed to you that I do agree internally with in all government depts. there are issues with sexual harassment. but as I also pointed out you are painting an entire organization of 20,000 plus people both men and women with the same brush on the actions of a few employees..... Do I agree that firm action should be taken , yes, do I think that sexual harassment should tolerated, NO I do not, hard displinary action should be taken as a first step, followed up with dismissal of further incidents.....I think we are on the same page on that.... But to suggest that the RCMP are not capable of investigating civil cases of Sexual harassment is unfounded...instead you suggest the creation of a civil organization one that would have to have powers of arrest, investigation etc etc.....effectively replacing the RCMP role.....in this whole process....There needs to be a role in this process for police action, as well as informing the chain of command within any organization to explain the million things that the victim is going through.

I have re read your previous references including read of the book you used as a source to back up a lot of your argument. In that book the authors have made some serious claims such as the Gen was a very influential figure, who used that power to bully the government and the office of the PM to get his way. They also pin the a large portion of blame on the Afghan mission on the shoulders of the Gen. But lets look at some of the facts, If the General did wield such power and influence why did it take so long to acquire the equipment necessary to wage war. things as simple as proper uniforms, ballistic plates, proper armoured wheeled vehs, proper armoured infantry vehs....Why was it left until the death toll demanded action ? other questions such as helo's, arty assets, even enough troops to accomplish the task, all went unanswered until the death toll mounted and Canadians demanded answers..... Lets not even mention the General , newly promoted to CDS, is the new guy on the block, he has not had the time to develop contacts, establish himself within the position yet....To become this Bully with all wielding power he is claimed to have ...He was appointed CDS around Jan, Government announced it would double it's Kabul commitment from 600 to 1200 troops.....(remember this fact it comes in later) then in march the Government announces Canada will deploy to Kandahar....Just 3 months after the CDS takes office, the planning of a mission of this size takes a lot more than 3 months....nothing in government moves that fast, nor does it move that fast at NATO HQ's or the Coalition HQ which would have to find the mission a place to operate, Canadians would have to Recce the areas to find them suitable....this whole process takes a lot longer than 3 months....not to mention being brand new in the position , developing the power to Bully the government , well your asking us to swallow a lot....But wait there is more.... Lets introduce some other books written by other insiders shall we....How about Gen Hilliers books....I say books because he has written atleast 2 on this topic.... both mention some of the same comments on the mission.... www.ctvnews.ca/hillier-says-pmo-was-one-of-his-toughest-foes-1.445490 (sorry my link thing is not working properly you'll have to cut and paste the link).... there are many media reports on his books, from many different media companies just pick one.... SO basically Hiller is saying he recommended that DND increase it's effort to secure the Kabul airport a vital inter national airport, he also says that he did not recommend the move to Kandahar but instead recommended against it....This is now becoming a he said she said thing....and yet we have heard the Gen clearly say these things over and over again things such as: or ://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/books/rick-hillier-stands-up-for-the-army-he-loves-65930627.html Not comments that are made by a General trying to sell the mission, or it's expansion....but rather a general speaking his mind http://www.macleans.ca/general/gen-rick-hillier-on-his-biggest-strategic-error-the-talibans-comeback-and-whether-canada-should-stay-in-afghanistan-past-2011/ Are these comments from a general who has the ability to bully government into what it needs, to get his own way....they are full of doubt if you ask me....I am starting to think that your source was an attempt to paint the general as a scape goat....some of this liberal members are still in government now....and don't want the part image tarnished..... I like you don't think a government could be bullied by one man, the info available to them would allow them to discount any bad advice given....I think that if you were going to point any fingers on the Afghan issue, the man in charge should own it , that was the PM and his cabinet...... I commend you for having a lot more confidence in your fellow citizens decision making process than I do, but using the afghan example was a poor choice on your part to prove that civilians make better informed choices than the military does....I also firmly believe that it is those bad choices by citizens that are reflected in governmental decisions and their time honored practice of chasing votes and acting on what is popular and not what is in the best interest of the nation.... I Think the responsibility rest entirely on the governments shoulders for this mission, and while in my opinion it was a worth while mission for our nation to under take...it was mishandled by most involved....with one exception the men and women who were on the ground trying to make it all work....

You seem to be flip floppy here Big guy, was it not you just a week ago, selling the theory of a book, written by some University prof, that the Afghanistan conflict was being run by the military, that Gen Hillier was bulling the government into getting his way.....your above statement kind of flies in the face of that argument does it not.... So which one is it, civilians running the show, or the military..... What you mean is when it is no longer popular with the people , because the collection of votes is what takes priority here is it not......I say that because most Canadians still can not find Afghanistan on a map, nor are the fully aware of what is best for the nation, or how to solve complex issues around the globe......

Has it been discredited.....what are the facts, well we know what the security situation was before we came, we know what is when we where there, and now we know what it is after we left.....what we can only speculate is what would it be like if we had stayed...... Funny you bring up all the conflicts that were ended by public influence.....maybe if we ever finished something we started it might have a different outcome.....but that's just guessing....oh wait....there are examples in history WWI, WWII , the cold war.....something is not right here....can it be....