bush_cheney2004 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) I thought those were humanity's values on display in Rwanda. Good, then it's settled...Canadian values are very important unless they cause a budget deficit...then all bets are off. Is there a saying anywhere that merges the futility of leading horses to water with the point of rubbing a puppy's nose in its own shit? There should be. No. Edited November 17, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) Canada's values are uniquely Canadian. There is no reason for us to force others to adopt them and no reason to believe they will if we try. As for Rwanada it's painfully obvious we'll back down when the going gets really tough, like it would have if we'd taken on a serial interloper like France. I have no doubt the US would have quickly jumped to defend France's right to interfere given that's pretty much what it did anyway. You want to know why Ottawa ordered Canada into Afghanistan? It was politically easier than trying to explain why it ethically shouldn't. Now that we've just about bankrupted the military we'll have an even easier explaination to fall back on. I'm willing to get our nose rubbed in it if that's what it takes to keep it clean. You want to know the real irony? I'd be more than happy to lose the hundreds of billions of dollars it would probably cost our economy to tell your government to clean up its act. Edited November 17, 2008 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 ....You want to know the real irony? I'd be more than happy to lose the hundreds of billions of dollars it would probably cost our economy to tell your government to clean up its act. See your first paragraph.... Canada's values are uniquely Canadian. There is no reason for us to force others to adopt them and no reason to believe they will if we try.... ...this includes the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Yeah, it was funny watching CBC earlier today and they we talking about the manpower crisis that the CF has, and thinking back to a few months ago when M.Dancer--or was it White Doors?--was claiming that the CF was having no problems with recruiting... guess not!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Yeah, it was funny watching CBC earlier today and they we talking about the manpower crisis that the CF has, and thinking back to a few months ago when M.Dancer--or was it White Doors?--was claiming that the CF was having no problems with recruiting... guess not!!!! Its not a problem with recruiting. Its a problem with early retirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Its not a problem with recruiting. Its a problem with early retirements. Yeah, I'd say the inability to maintain a level of recruiting that offsets loses due to "early retirements" is a recruiting problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Unique requirements? What differentiates Canada's needs compared to other nations other than trying to multi-role on the cheap? The need to make anti defence types comfirtabel with weapons platforms. Obviously canada would be better if they could have 2 or 3 different types of craft. One to perform Anti sub warfare, one for SAR and one for picket duty.... Or even two.... But if we had a purely offensive craft people would start to think the Amero is around the corner.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) See my post immediately above yours You mean the one completely contradicted by mine? Or is it that you really don't understand that missions agreed to by one government, and in the planning stage for months, don't get called off one month after a change of governments? Are you really blaming the Tories because they won the election a couple of months before this "new more dangerous" assignment the Liberals had set up began? Edited November 17, 2008 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Are you really blaming the Tories because they won the election a couple of months before this "new more dangerous" assignment the Liberals had set up began? No, I'm blaming them for not doing anything now. They have not provided adequate resources for the new dangerous mission. and they have had time to do so. But it seems they have the money to bail out banks, even before theres a perceived problem. Same old same old Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 "From August 2003 to December 2005, Canada's military commitment was largely Operation Athena, based in the capital, Kabul, as part of the International Assistance Force, which had the aim of providing intelligence and security to allow rebuilding the democratic process. On July 31, 2006, NATO troops assumed command of all military operations in southern Afghanistan." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/canada.html For your info the CPC won the federal election in January 2006. Operation Archer began about one month later. There's genius, and theres mere trolling. Actually your facts are a little screwed up. Yes operation Athena was in and around the Kabul area, from the dates you mentioned, but was moved to Kandahar in Aug 2005, and is still refered to as operation Athena...As you can see well before the election date of the CPC.... Op Athena. Operation Archer is a small tasking see below, consisted of 12 Srn officers. OP Archer The entire Afgan threater and all of it's missions fall under Jiont task force Afgan. joint task force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kengs333 Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Speak of the Devil... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 Actually your facts are a little screwed up. From CBC article: "Lt.-Gen. David Richards, was put in charge of the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. He announced the deployment of 8,000 NATO soldiers - including 2,200 Canadians - and Afghan units to six southern provinces by mid-September 2006. That deployment was increased to 2,500 in early September." Sounds to me like this was the major step in combat operations. What I've been saying for the past 3 posts now is, we can blame previous governments all we want, but the government we have now is not doing anything either, despite the fact that they have the power and money to do so. As a soldier I fail to see why you would argue to defend the current situation. I certainly don't. Nor will I defend Liberals but to say, hindsight always has 20/20 vision. We must deal with things here and now. Seems to me this government likes to talk tough but they won't put the money where their mouth is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 No, I'm blaming them for not doing anything now. They have not provided adequate resources for the new dangerous mission. and they have had time to do so. But it seems they have the money to bail out banks, even before theres a perceived problem. Same old same old Letsput aside that the only folks who are calling the buying of secured mortgages bailouts are the one who don't know what they are talking about.... Since the Conservatives became the government it seems that they have done nothing but enhance the resources our troops have at their disposal. 1) They replaced the Iltis with the G-Wagon. 2) Brought to the field the Leopard 2, arguably the best front line tank in the world. 3) Acquired long distance heavy lift capability with the C-177 Globemaster 3) Brought the advanced mark2 and the M777 howitzers to the field replacing the C-2 howitzer 4) Acquired the Mine resistant Nyala and mamba recce vehicles. 5) Acquired the Aardvark Flail road clearing monster... 6) Brought back the Chinook And I believe they have one more thing that was invery short supply when I was in the reserves....real bullets to train with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) No, I'm blaming them for not doing anything now. They have not provided adequate resources for the new dangerous mission. and they have had time to do so. But it seems they have the money to bail out banks, even before theres a perceived problem. Same old same old I would agree the Tories have not acted quickly enough and put enough money into the military. It has not been a high enough priority. On the other hand, you don't decide on what helicopters you want, order them, and have them delivered in 2 years. Such things have a very long lead-time, and they've been quite a bit faster than their predecessors. Speaking of whom - as they are the ony alternative to the Tories - the Liberals have shown ZERO interest in requipping the military. In fact, their defence critic suggested - quietly - during the last election, that they intended to cut the military budget in order to spend more money on arts and culture. Edited November 17, 2008 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 but the government we have now is not doing anything either, despite the fact that they have the power and money to do so. Actually they're doing a hell of a lot more now than previous governments have done. they're actually increasing the budget, buying new equipment and trying to raise recruitment levels as opposed to cutting them. Of course this is accompanied by the usual strident cries of the government is wasting or blowing money on the Forces. Sometimes I wonder what it is. Are they sqandering money on the Forces or are they not doing anything for the Forces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 1) They replaced the Iltis with the G-Wagon. That was the Liberals. The Liberals also replaced the Sea King....the replacement just keeps getting delayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted November 17, 2008 Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) Good lord... "Until they get their own helicopters next year, Canadian troops in Afghanistan will have access to six civilian choppers to lessen the risk of coming under insurgent attack while moving along the country's notoriously dangerous roads. The Mi-8 helicopters are being contracted from Toronto-based Sky Link as a stopgap measure. The first flight of the aircraft took place at Kandahar Airfield on Monday." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...81117?hub=World Not helicopter warfare, it's helicopter "welfare". I just hope the Americans don't shoot them down. Edited November 17, 2008 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted November 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) Not helicopter warfare, it's helicopter "welfare". I just hope the Americans don't shoot them down. Say what? the Americans wouldn't make a mistake like that.... would they.........lol?? Edited November 18, 2008 by wulf42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Say what? the Americans wouldn't make a mistake like they would they.........lol?? What makes you think it would be a "mistake"...lol?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiger Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 What makes you think it would be a "mistake"...lol?? 1812 all over again friend we just fooling you guys with a few junk choppers we are waiting our time and you gonna suffer the knock out punch from the come back kid! wait fukk! thats American ...you gonna suffer scotty Olsen syles bitch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 As a former member it is really sad to see our forces reduced to this!http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1090520.html The CF has become the laughing stock of the world. The Polish Forces are much more advanced than the CF and that is just sad. No wonder no one listens to us on the Int'l stage, why should they when we've allowed our forces to become a non factor. Like it or not the world respects armed power and military might, the US wouldn't be a superpower were it not fort their strong military. It started going downhill after PM Def'nbaker disallowed nuclear missile silos in North Bay and his defense minister resigned. After that Trudeau and 50 years of Liberal PM's did everything in their power to dismantle the CF. Now everyone blames PM Harper? Yeah he did it in 2.5 years in power...riiiiggghhttt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 "Lt.-Gen. David Richards, was put in charge of the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. He announced the deployment of 8,000 NATO soldiers - including 2,200 Canadians - and Afghan units to six southern provinces by mid-September 2006. That deployment was increased to 2,500 in early September." I Know it's a minor piont, but i just want to make sure we are clear, Candian forces in Kabul where redeployed to Kanadar starting in 2005, there for it was clearly a liberal decision to move our commitment south, to a more aggresive mission.... Sounds to me like this was the major step in combat operations. What I've been saying for the past 3 posts now is, we can blame previous governments all we want, but the government we have now is not doing anything either, despite the fact that they have the power and money to do so. As a soldier I fail to see why you would argue to defend the current situation. I certainly don't. Nor will I defend Liberals but to say, hindsight always has 20/20 vision. We must deal with things here and now. Seems to me this government likes to talk tough but they won't put the money where their mouth is. I don't want to sound ungreatful for what we have already received, but you do have a piont, alot more could be done, i think all thats holding them back is funding, and with the mission being so unpopular does anyone think that will happen....in our todays recesion what would Canadians sacrafice in order to give the forces what it needs to suvive on the battle field....and what would they sacrifice to equip our forces , to allow us to defend the nation...i think you'll find theres not much they are willing to do without... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Good lord..."Until they get their own helicopters next year, Canadian troops in Afghanistan will have access to six civilian choppers to lessen the risk of coming under insurgent attack while moving along the country's notoriously dangerous roads. The Mi-8 helicopters are being contracted from Toronto-based Sky Link as a stopgap measure. The first flight of the aircraft took place at Kandahar Airfield on Monday." while it is true that there are helo's there , they are not available for all types of missions.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donaill Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Part of ths problem is Canadians unwillingness to serve our country. With the educational benefits, health benefits and other benefits I would see it as an opportunity. The army not your thing? Try the Navey, or airforce. Yes teh Canadian Forces has been underfundedbut you can't put the blame completely on goverments when it is teh population that elects them. If enough pressure was placed on the goverment than more money would be spent. We have limited coffers. Our role in Nato, the UN and NORAD must be clear and concise. We are not the only country in the world with manning issues or equipment issues. Yes goverments have erred, re : helicopters, and AVRO being two issues. However they have also made a few great choices. The frigates were amongst the most advanced vessels when they were built. The system ob the Araura was the best system on the market. Ask the Ausies, having bought the American aircraft they scrapped the system and installed ours. People moan and graon about costs and then when it is almost too late they moan and groan about the state of what ever it is that the money was cut from. Examples are health care, education, and the military. Keeping a system up to date is expensive. Out ships are due for a midlife refit but I would bet a pay cheque that there will be complaints if there are cost over runs. Historically, Canada has always done more with less when it comes to the military. That is a testament to the training of our men and women in uniform and all the support personell. Ask any American ship commander what he thinks of Canada. If he has been in the scope of a Canadian sub during an exercise than he will speak with alot of respect. Canadians have often been the first in when it comes to keeping people from killing one another. Canadians often play down our roles in WW1and WW2. More the pitty because they were brave and succeeded at many tasks. They became feared by Germans, in both wars. They were so respected by the Boers in S.A. that they erected a monument to the Canadians that died there. The MacKenzie - Papineau proved themselves in the Spanish war preceeding WW2. signed a VERY proud Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 18, 2008 Report Share Posted November 18, 2008 Part of ths problem is Canadians unwillingness to serve our country. Indeed; the past three or so decades seem to have seen a steady shift away from the idea of "I am here to serve" towards the notion of "I am here to be served"; rights and entitlement trump duty and sacrifice. Couple this with the ongoing dismissal of the concept of an actually militarised military (imagine!) in favour of the feel-good idealism of the gentle peacekeeper, and is it any wonder there's less and less support for the Armed Forces? Oh, wait... that's right, the "armed" part was dropped already. Sorry, less and less support for our forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.