Topaz Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 The Tories keep spending the money and I now the military needs equipment but most of the 10 Bil. won't be in the military's hands until after Afghanistan so why spend the money now? OH yeah, for the next war the US will enter into? I rather see the Tories spend money on the coast guard and give the Navy some of its needs than keep giving to one branch of the military. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 All wars are come as your are parties....why on earth would you suggest we always be under equipped, under armed and under manned. Does you hate of Canada go that far? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Argus Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 The Tories keep spending the money and I now the military needs equipment but most of the 10 Bil. won't be in the military's hands until after Afghanistan so why spend the money now? OH yeah, for the next war the US will enter into? I rather see the Tories spend money on the coast guard and give the Navy some of its needs than keep giving to one branch of the military. When you are rolling these trucks and armored vehicles across Afghanistan - mostly keeping off the roads, they tend to take a beating. We've been doing that for years. Small wonder the vehicles need replacing. And it will take years to replace them. You want to wait until we are in some kind of desperate need of military equipment and then place an order - for three or four years down the line? I would love to see the navy get some new, fast coastal patrol boats, but they haven't, to my knowledge, even asked for them, and there's no question of the need for new armored vehicles, regardless of whether the main mission ends in 2011 Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bonam Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 The Tories keep spending the money and I now the military needs equipment but most of the 10 Bil. won't be in the military's hands until after Afghanistan so why spend the money now? OH yeah, for the next war the US will enter into? I rather see the Tories spend money on the coast guard and give the Navy some of its needs than keep giving to one branch of the military. 10 bil is a pittance for military equipment. We need much more than that to modernize and properly equip our military. The money needs to be spent in times of peace as well as in times of war, so that our forces are kept viable and up to date. Quote
Shady Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 The Tories keep spending the money and I now the military needs equipment but most of the 10 Bil. won't be in the military's hands until after Afghanistan so why spend the money now? OH yeah, for the next war the US will enter into? I rather see the Tories spend money on the coast guard and give the Navy some of its needs than keep giving to one branch of the military. You're the same kind of person that led to the military using ancient, dilapidated helicopters, which caused the deaths of several Canadian servicemen. How about you roll the dice with your own life, instead of somebody elses. Quote
Topaz Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Posted July 7, 2009 You're the same kind of person that led to the military using ancient, dilapidated helicopters, which caused the deaths of several Canadian servicemen. How about you roll the dice with your own life, instead of somebody elses. One, Afg, wasn't our war, BUT Harper could have taken us out of it and saved ALL those lives since he`s been PM! What kind of a leader of a country send soldiers to war when they aren`t equipped to do so? When the countries deficit goes to 400-500 Billion, make sure YOU are not one who is doing to*itch about it when your taxes go up or the service are cut! Quote
Shady Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 One, Afg, wasn't our war Yes it was. America is part of NATO. An attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. It's article 5 of the NATO charter. I'm sorry you're completely unaware of it. Perhaps you shouldn't bloviate on subjects you're ill-informed of. When the countries deficit goes to 400-500 Billion What country are you speaking of, cause it certainly can't be Canada. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 What kind of a leader of a country send soldiers to war when they aren`t equipped to do so? Paul Martin and the Federal Liberals. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Smallc Posted July 7, 2009 Report Posted July 7, 2009 You're the same kind of person that led to the military using ancient, dilapidated helicopters, which caused the deaths of several Canadian servicemen. I hope you're talking about the Sea King, since the one that crashed yesterday isn't old at all. Quote
Topaz Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Posted July 7, 2009 I hope you're talking about the Sea King, since the one that crashed yesterday isn't old at all. BTW, it was reported on the news that Hiller told the Tories, that the copters we have wouldn`t stand up to the heat and the dust! Quote
Topaz Posted July 7, 2009 Author Report Posted July 7, 2009 Paul Martin and the Federal Liberals. Yes ,you are right, Martin did send them and he shouldn`t have and he had plans on bring them home but Harper happened. For your info. I belong to NO party. I will support the party that I see service Canada FIRST and not vote on party lines. Quote
Topaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Posted July 8, 2009 Yes it was. America is part of NATO. An attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. It's article 5 of the NATO charter. I'm sorry you're completely unaware of it. Perhaps you shouldn't bloviate on subjects you're ill-informed of.What country are you speaking of, cause it certainly can't be Canada. We all know the US has a membership to NATO but I also know that the US tells NATO what to do and will not take a backseat to any nation whose military is smaller than theirs! The whole `war on Terror` is just a scam, for the elite to gain power in the Middle-East. Why are military personnel REALLY dying for?? Perhaps, oil, revenge, military power in the region and its NOT to help those civilians of Afg. and Iraq as all western leaders keeping telling us! Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 We all know the US has a membership to NATO but I also know that the US tells NATO what to do and will not take a backseat to any nation whose military is smaller than theirs! The whole `war on Terror` is just a scam, for the elite to gain power in the Middle-East. Why are military personnel REALLY dying for?? Perhaps, oil, revenge, military power in the region and its NOT to help those civilians of Afg. and Iraq as all western leaders keeping telling us! How do you know you know that? Given that you spout off on all kinds of things like Roseanne Roseannadanna barely getting one thing right out of ten. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 Yes ,you are right, Martin did send them and he shouldn`t have and he had plans on bring them home but Harper happened. Do you make things up as you go or what? Only one government has ever tabled plans to bring them home.....and it is HArper's Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 I belong to NO party. I will support the party that I see service Canada FIRST and not vote on party lines. I pity the party that would have you as a member....but may I sugest the greens? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
capricorn Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 Do you make things up as you go or what?Only one government has ever tabled plans to bring them home.....and it is HArper's Dancer, would you please stop bringing facts into the picture. You're interfering with my entertainment. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Topaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Posted July 8, 2009 Do you make things up as you go or what? Only one government has ever tabled plans to bring them home.....and it is HArper's [/quote Well, of course its Harper's, he's in the PMO, he's the one that is keeping them there. The reasons for the soldiers being there and the reasons the government is keeping them there are two different reasons. Quote
Topaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Report Posted July 8, 2009 All wars are come as your are parties....why on earth would you suggest we always be under equipped, under armed and under manned. Does you hate of Canada go that far? Why does the west ALWAYS have to go to war? It was a welcoming peace in the world after Nam but the world, especially the US just can't take the quiet and peace. My view for Canada is to have the personnel and the equipment to protect ourselves but NOT to go off on "seek and kill" missions because the US says we should. As far as NATO, the US runnings it. The news always says the US AND NATO, not NATO. Quote
Bonam Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 My view for Canada is to have the personnel and the equipment to protect ourselves but NOT to go off on "seek and kill" missions because the US says we should. As far as NATO, the US runnings it. The news always says the US AND NATO, not NATO. Heh you want Canada to be able to protect itself? Canada wouldn't be able to protect itself against anything with the personnel and equipment we have. We are 100% reliant on the US to defend us should anyone actually try to attack us. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 The price of freedom is high. In our case that price is financial debt and political debt. Canada is unable to defend itself, but that is because we are unable to arm ourselves. If we had the latter we could accomplish the former. This nation instead chooses to buy arms from other nations to fulfill our needs. This creates both debt and dependency, two evils which detract from sovereignty. The only thing that can change this is a political will and financial skill. Neither of these things rate very high in this nation. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 My view for Canada is to have the personnel and the equipment to protect ourselves but NOT to go off on "seek and kill" missions because the US says we should. So instead of increasing the military budget a reasonable 25% you would want it increased to 300%..... What is now you are complaining about? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Bonam Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 The price of freedom is high. In our case that price is financial debt and political debt. Canada is unable to defend itself, but that is because we are unable to arm ourselves. If we had the latter we could accomplish the former. This nation instead chooses to buy arms from other nations to fulfill our needs. This creates both debt and dependency, two evils which detract from sovereignty. The only thing that can change this is a political will and financial skill. Neither of these things rate very high in this nation. Canada would need to multiply its military spending at least fivefold to be able to build, over the course of a decade or so, a military force capable of at least pretending to be able to defend the country. We need to re-establish our own military-industrial complex, and establish the university programs and research laboratories that would allow us to develop our own military technology on par with other nations. And of course, the ultimate taboo in Canada, we would need to develop our own nuclear weapons program, as such weapons are of course the ultimate deterrent and thus make the necessity for actual defense much less likely. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 I am not sure that is the right way to go at all. First of all we cannot afford to do this with cash flow, so we would have to go into more debt under the current system in order to do it. Secondly, I question whether or not we actually need to do so. Can we actually stand up and say it is not okay for Iran or any other nation to have nuclear weapons and then actively pursue the acquisition of these weapons for ourselves? Should we not be addressing internal problems within our own society before we even attempt to head of the reservation on some quest for military power? Why should we pursue an arms buildup while citizens both starve and freeze in the dark living on the streets and grand parents cannot afford or cannot access medical treatment? These are pressing issues within our society that need to be considered before we try and take on anything else. Face it, we would be adding to the problems we already have without cause. We are not at war, and are not in danger of getting into one. Afgan is little more than a small engagement and of little consequence to most citizens. While our soldiers are indeed fighting and giving their lives for this nation on foreign soil, this nation of ours is simply not involved in a war. Quote
Bonam Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 I am not sure that is the right way to go at all. First of all we cannot afford to do this with cash flow, so we would have to go into more debt under the current system in order to do it. Secondly, I question whether or not we actually need to do so. The need is clearly not there, which is why we do not do it. We are perfectly happy being unable to defend ourselves and instead relying on the US for our defense. Can we actually stand up and say it is not okay for Iran or any other nation to have nuclear weapons and then actively pursue the acquisition of these weapons for ourselves? The reason the Western world opposes Iran acquiring nuclear weapons isn't because of some piece of paper like the Non-proliferation Treaty, that is just a convenient excuse. We don't want Iran or North Korea to have nuclear weapons because there is a high risk that such weapons could then fall into the hands of terrorists, or perhaps even be used by Iran itself if its leaders were crazy enough. In contrast, the West did relatively little to prevent nations like India, Israel, or Pakistan from obtaining nuclear weapons, because they are (or were) relatively more stable, and more sane, and more aligned with us. It is an issue of reality and of politics, not of adhering to some treaty, that leads us to oppose the development of nuclear weapons by some nations and not by others. Were Japan to decide to develop nuclear weapons, no one would say a word. Were Germany to do it, no one would say a word. Were Canada to do it, no one would say a word either. Should we not be addressing internal problems within our own society before we even attempt to head of the reservation on some quest for military power?Why should we pursue an arms buildup while citizens both starve and freeze in the dark living on the streets and grand parents cannot afford or cannot access medical treatment? Spending money on social programs is, in my view, counterproductive. Feeding the poor and housing the homeless can never fix the issue. Meanwhile, creating more jobs can. The development of our own military industrial complex and expansion of the military would be a far more effective use of stimulus money than just about any other investment. It would stimulate our high tech sector, our universities, stop the brain drain, develop entire new fields of industry. It would provide jobs both for the less educated and the most educated of our nation. Face it, we would be adding to the problems we already have without cause. We are not at war, and are not in danger of getting into one. Because we are under the shadow of US protection, which, at least within the continent of North America, is, for now, pretty much an absolute guarantee of safety. But is it fair to expect the US to shoulder the burden of protecting us while we contribute so little to said protection? Can we even rely on the US always being willing and able to provide such protection? Quote
Argus Posted July 8, 2009 Report Posted July 8, 2009 One, Afg, wasn't our war, BUT Harper could have taken us out of it and saved ALL those lives since he`s been PM! What kind of a leader of a country send soldiers to war when they aren`t equipped to do so? I don't know, why dont you ask jdobbin. It was his leader who did so. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.