Mitary elements competing again'st each other for funds.

[Topaz]

The way I see it is, that Harper made a mistake by keeping the troops in the war. He should have brought them back and then said to the world, sorry but until we can remake our military we have say no. Then Harper should have looked of what is the most important to protecting Canada. Slowly, he could have helped the navy, army and the air force get new equipment. The military were already hit by the Libs when they had to pay of the Tories last deficit, and now,the deficit is 5x larger than the last and there's no money!

[bush_cheney2004]

The way I see it is, that Harper made a mistake by keeping the troops in the war. He should have brought them back and then said to the world, sorry but until we can remake our military we have say no.....

So it's PM Harpers "mistake" for keeping them there AFTER commitments by the Liberals? Sure......

[Machjo]

One thing I don't understand is why things like civilian SAR are military responsibilities? Would it not make more sense for it to fall under the responsibility of a civilian organization, maybe under the RCMP or some other similar organization?

[Smallc]

The RCMP (or local police) is responsible for ground SAR, the airforce for air SAR (though the coastguard, RCMP and others help depending on the location), and the Coast Guard and RCMP (or local police) for water SAR. It's simply the way it's divided up.

[Machjo]

The RCMP (or local police) is responsible for ground SAR, the airforce for air SAR (though the coastguard, RCMP and others help depending on the location), and the Coast Guard and RCMP (or local police) for water SAR. It's simply the way it's divided up.

The problem when any part of civilian SAR falls under military jurisdiction is that as soon as military cuts occur, SAR suffers immediately too. And sinse many oppose excessive military spending not on economic but rather on ethical grounds, the two become inseparable and entagnled. THi is where I think it would make sense from a political standpoint to ensure that al civilian responsibilities fall under civilian, not military, responsibilities.

As for responsibility for UN operations, though I recognize that the military eeds money, I also believe it could be used more efficiently through the UN itself.

If we take the war in Afghanistan, for example, instead of sending in so many Canadian troops, why could Canada not have asked Iran to go in while Canada would simply help financially to some degree. My reasoning here is that Iran is concerned about the Opium trade in the area too, and would would be interested in going in to clear that up, which would be in our interest too. Additionally, Persian culture is closer to Afghan culture in appearance.

If we don't trust Iran, then why not a UN force under direct UN control but able to hire from anywhere in the world. So when the UN is at war in Afghanistan, it could then favour Pshta and other local language speakers over English or French speakers, but not under the responsibility of any government, but uner direct UN command, thus avoiding suspicions.

Woudl that not be more efficient?

[Smallc]

The problem when any part of civilian SAR falls under military jurisdiction is that as soon as military cuts occur, SAR suffers immediately too.

That doesn't really hold though. Police forces and the Coast Guard are civilian. If they have budget cuts then SAR will still suffer.

[Machjo]

That doesn't really hold though. Police forces and the Coast Guard are civilian. If they have budget cuts then SAR will still suffer.

True. What I was getting at though was that some Canadians oppose the military on either religious, philosophical, or moral gounds, if not totally, then at least in part, or if not in principle, then at least in the details of its officially defined mandate, etc.

This being the case, some might oppose military spenidng but be wiling to increase civilian police spending. By having civial responsibilities under military control, there is always the risk that a more pacifist government cut military spending while forgetting that the military currently has certain civilian responsibilities.

[Borg]

One thing I don't understand is why things like civilian SAR are military responsibilities? Would it not make more sense for it to fall under the responsibility of a civilian organization, maybe under the RCMP or some other similar organization?

They could do it - but they lack the capability.

They cannot reach all parts of this vast country - in fact even the military has difficulty in doing this - shameful really.

To equip civilian agencies as the military is equipped would cost billions - in fact more than it would cost to maintain and upgrade the military - can't have that now - might not be considered proper - budgets you know old boy - budgets.

Borg

Edited June 4, 2009 by Borg

[Borg]

Worthy of respect? Perhaps for what he does, but certainly not for what he says.

Well squirt that has to be the nicest thing anyone has said to me in months

Now go take a break from your sanctimonious life and kill a fish or a deer - and perhaps even enjoy it at the same time

Borg

[Borg]

The problem when any part of civilian SAR falls under military jurisdiction is that as soon as military cuts occur, SAR suffers immediately too. And sinse many oppose excessive military spending not on economic but rather on ethical grounds, the two become inseparable and entagnled. THi is where I think it would make sense from a political standpoint to ensure that al civilian responsibilities fall under civilian, not military, responsibilities.

As for responsibility for UN operations, though I recognize that the military eeds money, I also believe it could be used more efficiently through the UN itself.

If we take the war in Afghanistan, for example, instead of sending in so many Canadian troops, why could Canada not have asked Iran to go in while Canada would simply help financially to some degree. My reasoning here is that Iran is concerned about the Opium trade in the area too, and would would be interested in going in to clear that up, which would be in our interest too. Additionally, Persian culture is closer to Afghan culture in appearance.

If we don't trust Iran, then why not a UN force under direct UN control but able to hire from anywhere in the world. So when the UN is at war in Afghanistan, it could then favour Pshta and other local language speakers over English or French speakers, but not under the responsibility of any government, but uner direct UN command, thus avoiding suspicions.

Woudl that not be more efficient?

The UN is NOT involved in IRAQ and Afghanistan.

It also is a toothless tiger - big roar and no capability. Also very, very corrupt - the stories I cannot tell are even worse than the stories already published - listen - you get this straight - you and millions of canadians have to start thinking for yourself.

Those bastards called libs and the limp dick left leanig press have people in canada loving the UN - most other countries in the world not only do NOT respect the UN - they DETEST the UN - a large number of countries only use the UN for political and sometimes illegal purpose - hell even that SOB Annan had a son who was enjoying privilige while using the UN to further his personal wealth - think on that for a bit.

Forget the UN and never count on them. NEVER!! They will leave you twisting in the wind with words and NO actions.

Afghanistan is NATO - and we are there because of the liberals - we stay because canada has signed the treaty

Do you want us to honour our word - or do you want us to cut and run? Remember - someday it may be us who needs the assistance of the NATO folk - they might not come. That is why we sign these treaties - when we do we admit there are times when we will be forced to do things that we might not like to do.

Borg

Edited June 4, 2009 by Borg

[waldo]

The UN is NOT involved in IRAQ and Afghanistan.

It also is a toothless tiger - big roar and no capability. Also very, very corrupt - the stories I cannot tell...

The Toothless Roar of Borg's UN

ISAF has been deployed since 2001

under the authority of the UN Security Council (UNSC)

which authorised the establishment of the force to assist the Afghan government “in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment.”

ISAF is a coalition of the willing - not a UN force properly speaking - which has a

peace-enforcement mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter

.

Nine UN Security Council Resolutions relate to ISAF

, namely: 1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563, 1623, 1707, 1776 and 1833 (on 23 September 2008). A detailed Military Technical Agreement agreed between the ISAF Commander and the Afghan Transitional Authority in January 2002 provides additional guidance for ISAF operations.

NATO took command of ISAF in August 2003

upon request of the UN

and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and soon after, the UN gave ISAF a mandate to expand outside of Kabul.

ya, ya... "corrupt stories you cannot tell"... oh my, Borg's an insider with "tales that can't be told". Anonymous pomposity is always the best kind!

[Army Guy]

Here is an interesting report although it is somewhat old it is still used as a ref document as it has not been redone or revisted since 2005.

Here is what some of the generals from all 3 elements had to say about the military's condition and state in 2005. Yes some things have improved somewhat, but those areas that where a problem in 2005 are still problems today...

Army:

What compounds these challenges is the persistent factors plaguing the army caused by chronic under-manning, under-equipping and under-funding. They are:

lack of trained personnel;

high personnel tempo;

outdated equipment;

ineffective recruiting;

inadequate training capacity;

decaying infrastructure; and

a reserve structure that can’t be counted on in the crunch.

COMMITTEE’S TRANSLATION: The Army is facing a triple whammy. We are too underfunded to correct the weaknesses caused by past underfunding, we are too underfunded to meet our current responsibilities, and we are too underfunded to prepare for the massive changes you want that will allow us to serve Canadians in the future.

COMMITTEE’S TRANSLATION: You expect your army to defend Canadians from current threats at home and abroad, while transforming itself into an institution capable of succeeding in theatres of modern warfare in the future, but you are not providing us with the money and resources we need to do that.We simply can’t do what you say you want us to do with the money you’re giving us.

A 20 per cent “missing” rate essentially means that this institution – already drastically short of the personnel it needs to fulfill its many mandates – is only running on three good wheels.

Lack of Qualified Technicians and Spare Parts

NAVY:

Three inter-twined deficiencies increase the difficulty of the challenges faced by the Navy. The Navy is short of:

1. Trained personnel to crew the fleet;

2. The funds necessary to supply its fleet with all the parts it needs;

3. The capacity – either its own or in industry – to maintain its fleet in accordance with its maintenance policy The funds necessary to supply its fleet properly or do all the repairs that should be done to ships and infrastructure.

Committees Translation: Were falling apart and we think that Canadians will start to notice when the ships start to sink...

Our Overtasked Navy

COMMITTEE’S TRANSLATION: “We cannot do our job.”

COMMITTEE’S TRANSLATION: “Instead of instituting a rational process of purchasing and repairing according to what we anticipate we will need to do our job, we are forced to keep patching our equipment after things go wrong. That’s not only a stupid way to maintain capital equipment, it endangers sailors’ lives.”

Airforce:

Old aircraft. A shortage of pilots. A shortage of trained technicians. A lack of airlift to move personnel and equipment quickly in emergencies. Fast track replacement programs switched to the slow track. Helicopters older than the parents of the pilots who fly them.

COMMITTEE’S TRANSLATION: “We’re barely keeping up appearances here.”

Largest Underfunding of Any Environment

The Air Force’s Impact Statement for fiscal year 2005-2006 shows that it is being underfunded by $608 million this year alone, which simply adds an exclamation mark to more than a decade of underfunding.[79]

The report is filled with ref's and many other sites all commenting on the state of our military....all i ask is you read it ...it paints a totally different picture than what the media has painted and it's not even close to what our governments have put together....now or in the past...

2005 report

Government

2009 report

goverment

Edited June 4, 2009 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

That was the Conservative government that changed the specs...after they were already late. As for the tail rotors on the other Helicpoters, last I heard there was a world shortage...because everyone is having the same problem.

Sorry, but the mony has to come from somewhere, and right now we don't have it.

I'm not pionting fingers smallc, trust me every government since i've joined has not done our defence dept any large favours, they all promised lots but none have produced much....

And your right the money has to come from somewhere, but here is the catch it's crunch time, and major decissions need to be made, either fix it or decide what portions of defence or elements we could do with out....

[Borg]

The Toothless Roar of Borg's UN

ISAF has been deployed since 2001

under the authority of the UN Security Council (UNSC)

which authorised the establishment of the force to assist the Afghan government “in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment.”

ISAF is a coalition of the willing - not a UN force properly speaking - which has a

peace-enforcement mandate under Chapter VII of the UN Charter

.

Nine UN Security Council Resolutions relate to ISAF

, namely: 1386, 1413, 1444, 1510, 1563, 1623, 1707, 1776 and 1833 (on 23 September 2008). A detailed Military Technical Agreement agreed between the ISAF Commander and the Afghan Transitional Authority in January 2002 provides additional guidance for ISAF operations.

NATO took command of ISAF in August 2003

upon request of the UN

and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and soon after, the UN gave ISAF a mandate to expand outside of Kabul.

ya, ya... "corrupt stories you cannot tell"... oh my, Borg's an insider with "tales that can't be told". Anonymous pomposity is always the best kind!

Those soldier are NOT wearing blue helmets my friend - as per the line you posted "ISAF is a coalition of the willing - not a UN force properly speaking"

Mock me if you wish my tiny socialist friend - what I speak is the truth - they have long washed their hands of this one - blue is very rare there now.

Borg

Edited June 4, 2009 by Borg

[Army Guy]

I realize that thye situation isn't ideal, but the budget has been increased by huge amounts....maybe the military should trim some fat (as they have been doing to some extent in some areas, we seem to have a much less equipment than we did and the equipment that we have is better) in personnel? That's where $8.4B goes after all.

Yes the militaries budget has gone up, but what you failed to mention is how long have they run in the red, what has the military cut in order to just operate....and how much of those lost or cut abilities have been replaced now with this new money....

Yes alot of funding goes into personnel, it was not all that long ago, my local garbage man was making more picking up my trash, than i was in a combat operation recieving danger bonues... and you'll have to admit having our nations soldiers collecting welfare and going to food banks was kind of shameful....

And that has since been corrected, and i'm sure there is not many soldiers today that could complain about any of our pay rates.....

[waldo]

Mock me if you wish... - what I speak is the truth

mock you, yes - only the delusional with suspect agendas would negate/ignore the UN role/positioning... as you've done in the past, as you continue in this thread.

as for your earlier reference to "cut and run"... why has/does your favoured son Harper so adamantly advocate to, uhhh... as you reference, "cut and run" (in 2011)? Can ya, "speak some of your truth" on that little ditty?

[waldo]

And your right the money has to come from somewhere, but here is the catch it's crunch time, and major decissions need to be made, either fix it or decide what portions of defence or elements we could do with out....

when defense... actually becomes offense... does the (same) money need to come... from somewhere? Perhaps that makes the decision on what "portions or elements" could be done without - easier.

[Borg]

ya, ya... "corrupt stories you cannot tell"... oh my, Borg's an insider with "tales that can't be told". Anonymous pomposity is always the best kind!

Actually sorry I mentioned this because I am deadly serious - something I try not to be on this board.

I will bow from this as I could not speak here anyway - be aware - there are many things behind the scenes that are not good - all political and all based upon certain politics that would be found quite distasteful in your world and mine.

The UN is not a good organiztion - it once may have been - but in my time with them - and that is only three tours in some hot spots - policy has been at times quite frightening.

Borg

Edited June 4, 2009 by Borg

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The measure of a man is not what he says, but what he does.

The UN is not what it should be. It is not what it can be. It is not what it once was.

The UN needs to change, and it needs to change quickly. It cannot be a place of politics, it must be a place of communication and a place of help. The nations of the world must make it apolitical instead of immoral. That is not to say that it is immoral now, but that it needs to change in a specific direction.

[waldo]

I will bow from this as I could not speak here anyway - be aware - there are many things behind the scenes that are not good - all political and all based upon certain politics that would be found quite distasteful in your world and mine.

The UN is not a good organiztion - it once may have been - but in my time with them - and that is only three tours in some hot spots - policy has been at times quite frightening.

and in a like seriousness... one should never presume on the naivety or experiences of anyone. Equally, given the high-level ambiguity offered, interpreting and separating and distinguishing described (logistical ?) "policy" from the stated aims of the UN organization is difficult. Have there been and are there problems with the UN? - of course. However, is your unsubstantiated innuendo beyond anything that's been previously documented/detailed? Really?

[Army Guy]

when defense... actually becomes offense... does the (same) money need to come... from somewhere? Perhaps that makes the decision on what "portions or elements" could be done without - easier.

Unfortunitly you can not separate the two, when your talking about setting up a military to defend your nation, as offensive operations go hand in hand with defensive ones....

You can however separate the two when it comes down to the governments decision to send it's troops away.... But both require the same type of equipment.

[Army Guy]

and in a like seriousness... one should never presume on the naivety or experiences of anyone. Equally, given the high-level ambiguity offered, interpreting and separating and distinguishing described (logistical ?) "policy" from the stated aims of the UN organization is difficult. Have there been and are there problems with the UN? - of course. However, is your unsubstantiated innuendo beyond anything that's been previously documented/detailed? Really?

No your right one should never take for granted someones experiances, however ever historical fact was once started out as someones experiences or accusations. That being said the UN historical facts work again'st it here. There have not been that many sucessful UN military peace keeping mission, or for that matter other UN missions be it humanitarian, peace keeping, diplomatic, etc etc....Given the fact that it really does not have the means to enforce anything.... It has plenty of recorded facts about coruption, enabilities to get the job done, corporate failings etc etc ...

[Machjo]

One thing I've noticed in this thread and elsewhere is to refer to anything less than increasing funding to the military to be socialism. Isn't socialism about bigger government, not smaller government?

At least I'm consistent when I promote government spending cuts acros the board, no socialist sacred cows allowed.

[Smallc]

Exactly. Conservatives always want smaller government...except when it comes to growing the size of DND and Correctional Services of Canada.

[Smallc]

The measure of a man is not what he says, but what he does.

I disagree on many levels with that. Doing good deeds does not change the fact that someone utters bad words.