10 Billion for military equipment

Machjo · July 12, 2009

We don't even have a medium sized military! Do you think you could be the General to defend this nation with what we have now?

We could easily defend Canada with what we have now. Think about it. We have oceans on three sides, an allie in the south. Then we're members of a larger North Atlantic alliance, are members of the Commonwealth, the UN, etc.

So what is this imaginary enemy you think we need to defend against that warrants an expansion of our military?

Machjo · July 12, 2009

If you're referring to the Taliban, the solution to that would not be to expand the Canadian military, but start hiring more troops who know Persian, Pashto, etc. That would likely mean either forming an international force or getting Iran and other neighbouring countries on board as temporary allies, if we could dump our prejudices to the side of course.

bush_cheney2004 · July 12, 2009

What? The Pentagon is US? Canada's equivalent is called NDHQ (National Defence Headquarters). So it was coming from the US, not Canada....

Of course, but I think the larger point went right over your head (tête).

Machjo · July 12, 2009

Of course, but I think the larger point went right over your head (tête).

Perhaps. Hey, I'm not perfect either. So what was your point? I didn't get it, so I might need a more direct pointer. Thanks.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Machjo

bush_cheney2004 · July 12, 2009

Perhaps. Hey, I'm not perfect either. So what was your point? I didn't get it, so I might need a more direct pointer. Thanks.

The larger point is that issues concerning language and translations persist even in the more benign environment of Canadian government and commerce, where no purposeful invasion or occupation are contemplated.

As in wars past, communications will be established one way or another.

Machjo · July 13, 2009

The larger point is that issues concerning language and translations persist even in the more benign environment of Canadian government and commerce, where no purposeful invasion or occupation are contemplated.
As in wars past, communications will be established one way or another.

Thanks. Indeed, even in the more benign environments, communication is essential to accomplish anything. But in a war environment, where hearts and minds campaigns may be cruicial, communicaiton can mean the difference between success and failure.

Smallc · July 13, 2009

Yes I know you think you are doing okay, but I think you underestimate you province.

Manitoba was just said to be the most investment friendly province. If we were doing badly I'd say so, but We're growing as fast or nearly as fast as Saskatchewan. They're simply ahead of the curve, because they have more readily accessible resources.

bush_cheney2004 · July 13, 2009

Thanks. Indeed, even in the more benign environments, communication is essential to accomplish anything. But in a war environment, where hearts and minds campaigns may be cruicial, communicaiton can mean the difference between success and failure.

Not always....most of the Allied Forces didn't speak German, and certainly not the air crews bombing the crap out of The Fatherland. Ditto Japan.

Remiel · July 13, 2009

And how are Canadian troops supposed to do it through fumbling interpretors?

When I made the reply, I was operating under the assumption that Afghanistan and Iran hated each other, but after taking a look at Wikipedia, I guess I may have been messing up my international relations. Though things were rocky when the Taliban was in power, because Iran supported the Northern Alliance.

That being said, I am not that big on paying a potential enemy to do the job for me. Not only does it smack of mercenaries, which I highly disapprove of our government employing, but gives the regime in Iran it would have to make you wonder what exactly who exactly was winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.

And where do you get the impression that translators are fumbling? If you cannot trust a translator in the field between troops and people, how do you trust one between diplomats for different countries?

Machjo · July 13, 2009

Not always....most of the Allied Forces didn't speak German, and certainly not the air crews bombing the crap out of The Fatherland. Ditto Japan.

That was also a technical war on both sides. Large organized armies fighting each other along clearly defined battle lines.

In Vietnam, The Anglo-Afghan war, the Soviet-Afghan war, we are dealing with guerilla wars, where the battle lines are not so clearly deliniated, where even the enemy is not always clearly defined, etc. In such cases, there is constant interaction on the ground, requiring constant communication to figure out what's going on and who's who. That's very different from WWII's mechanized wars.

Machjo · July 13, 2009

When I made the reply, I was operating under the assumption that Afghanistan and Iran hated each other, but after taking a look at Wikipedia, I guess I may have been messing up my international relations. Though things were rocky when the Taliban was in power, because Iran supported the Northern Alliance.
That being said, I am not that big on paying a potential enemy to do the job for me. Not only does it smack of mercenaries, which I highly disapprove of our government employing, but gives the regime in Iran it would have to make you wonder what exactly who exactly was winning the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.

And where do you get the impression that translators are fumbling? If you cannot trust a translator in the field between troops and people, how do you trust one between diplomats for different countries?

Just Google it. Or look at the video. There are plenty of articles on the issue. The interpretors are fumbling.

Now, as for co-operation between Iran and us, what about the alliance between the USSR and us in WWII? What was the difference there?

Iran thought the Taliban too extreme! :huh:

Iran is sick and tired of Opium entering its borders. Rehab is expensive and the governemnt has to foot the bill.

Most Iranians and about half of Afghans speak Persian (Farsi and Dari are about as different as British Englsih from American English, so we might as well call them one language).

They share the same religion (sect, maybe not, but same religion anyway).

As for trusting diplomats, they are also chosen in part for their language skills, so we can be sure we know what we're agreeing to.

And we wouldn't be talking of some long-term alliance, but just a marriage of convenience like the USSR in WWII. And an alliance is not the same as mercenaries. The Soviets were not mercenaries. They were there for their own intersts too.

As for Iran's interests, no, they are different formours, but compatible in many ways. They still found the Taliban too extreme, and so would still bring Afghanistan in the right direction at much lower cost (they're next door, similar culture, etc.). And besides, let's face it, just last month a democratically elected governemnt was talking about taking away women's rights, and yet our governmetns could do nothing because it was a democratically elected government.

Iran would not change Afghanistan much, but would still bring about the objectives of the mission (to remove the Taliban to then search for Bin Laden, whom the Iranians dislike too by the way, as did Saddam Hussain, oddly enough).

Politics and prejudices aside, a co-alition with Iran would have been a briliant idea. No, Iran's got problems without adoubt. And after the war, certainly we'd be back each on our side of the fence, but who knows, maybe some goodwill could come out of it.

bush_cheney2004 · July 13, 2009

....In Vietnam, The Anglo-Afghan war, the Soviet-Afghan war, we are dealing with guerilla wars, where the battle lines are not so clearly deliniated, where even the enemy is not always clearly defined, etc. In such cases, there is constant interaction on the ground, requiring constant communication to figure out what's going on and who's who. That's very different from WWII's mechanized wars.

Yes and no.....the bread and butter of a western army remains the same, regardless of language barriers....inside or outside of a perimeter. Language resources are available, but so is deception and misinformation.

"Mistakes" were also made during WWII.

DogOnPorch · July 13, 2009

Here's a good look at Canada's original Leopards when they were sent to Afghanistan back in 2006. Still green as you can see...no air conditioners.

Smallc · July 14, 2009

It didn't really matter what colour they were though, because the Taliban couldn't touch them anyway.

DogOnPorch · July 14, 2009

It didn't really matter what colour they were though, because the Taliban couldn't touch them anyway.

Well...some of those IEDs are huge. But, generally...yes.

I believe these could be a problem though...the RPG-32 (and like weapons)...this one is ideal for remote use.

And then there's these unholy l'il sweethearts...the RKG-3 antitank grenade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iT7LZnou9U

I'd imagine the the tanks would have been given a different colour by now. Let's hope...

Here's some of our artillery @ work...M-777s which are pretty high-tech stuff.

DogOnPorch · July 14, 2009

bc-2004: "Mistakes" were also made during WWII.

Singapore comes to mind...now there was an Allied train wreck. Yamashita more or less bluffed the Brits/etc into surrendering (after a brilliant campaign down the Malay Peninsula) with 1-2 odds against him! Percival didn't know the Japanese ammo situation was nearly as dire as his. Water supplies were critical, though...plus the city was full of civilians. Churchill issued an almost NKVD-like proclamation re: fighting to the last man...he was under a lot of stress...lol.

M.Dancer · July 14, 2009

Singapore comes to mind...now there was an Allied train wreck. Yamashita more or less bluffed the Brits/etc into surrendering (after a brilliant campaign down the Malay Peninsula) with 1-2 odds against him! Percival didn't know the Japanese ammo situation was nearly as dire as his. Water supplies were critical, though...plus the city was full of civilians. Churchill issued an almost NKVD-like proclamation re: fighting to the last man...he was under a lot of stress...lol.

It had its comical moments too....the was a concern that the ammunition for the big guns would fall into japanese hands and they wanted to know what to do with it....churchill advised they explode it....by firing it at the enemy

ToadBrother · July 14, 2009

Singapore comes to mind...now there was an Allied train wreck. Yamashita more or less bluffed the Brits/etc into surrendering (after a brilliant campaign down the Malay Peninsula) with 1-2 odds against him! Percival didn't know the Japanese ammo situation was nearly as dire as his. Water supplies were critical, though...plus the city was full of civilians. Churchill issued an almost NKVD-like proclamation re: fighting to the last man...he was under a lot of stress...lol.

One of the rare times that Churchill ever attempted to directly intervene in the actions of commanders on the ground. It was a horrible humiliation for the Brits, and a very severe loss.

Mr.Canada · July 14, 2009

I have no problem with our PM Stephan Harper spending money on our military. After all he's fixing it after Chretien and Martin destroyed it in the 13 years the Grits were in power. This is a fact and cannot be argued.

M.Dancer · July 14, 2009

I have no problem with our PM Stephan Harper spending money on our military. After all he's fixing it after Chretien and Martin destroyed it in the 13 years the Grits were in power. This is a fact and cannot be argued.

Niether can the cuts that Mulruney made. You knew that ofd course because you have been schooled on here before...

Remiel · July 14, 2009

I have no problem with our PM Stephan Harper spending money on our military. After all he's fixing it after Chretien and Martin destroyed it in the 13 years the Grits were in power. This is a fact and cannot be argued.

Unless you have access to some form of ESP that allows you to ascertain the "fixedness" of the military post-Harper, there is no firm basis for ascertaining a fact there.

Mr.Canada · July 14, 2009

Unless you have access to some form of ESP that allows you to ascertain the "fixedness" of the military post-Harper, there is no firm basis for ascertaining a fact there.

Any investment in our military will be better than the wide sweeping cuts that Chretien and Martin lopped from the budget. Martin balanced the books by gutting the EI surplus and by gutting our military possibly costing lives...sad. Anyone who was involved in gutting of our military should be charged with treason.

Jerry J. Fortin · July 14, 2009

Any investment in our military will be better than the wide sweeping cuts that Chretien and Martin lopped from the budget. Martin balanced the books by gutting the EI surplus and by gutting our military possibly costing lives...sad. Anyone who was involved in gutting of our military should be charged with treason.

Martin understood fiscal responsibility. He took funds sitting around not allocated and utilized them. Please keep in mind these were surplus funds realized through excess contributions from EI. He cut the deficit, payed down the debt and balanced the books. Harper walked in the door with a hefty surplus. The man spent his way into deficit and is adding debt. Granted the economy and revenues impacted the bottom line, but the reality must be accepted anyway.

With all due respect folks, military spending has no relationship to partisan government. It is what it is, and with the citizens screaming for the nanny state to spend on social programs it is a foregone conclusion where the money goes. In addition, we need to define roles and mission capabilities before we go off spending big bucks on our military. Besides the knee jerk reaction is to simple procure equipment from foreign suppliers, and that costs more in the long run than simply doing things in house.

Mr.Canada · July 14, 2009

Martin understood fiscal responsibility. He took funds sitting around not allocated and utilized them. Please keep in mind these were surplus funds realized through excess contributions from EI. He cut the deficit, payed down the debt and balanced the books. Harper walked in the door with a hefty surplus. The man spent his way into deficit and is adding debt. Granted the economy and revenues impacted the bottom line, but the reality must be accepted anyway.
With all due respect folks, military spending has no relationship to partisan government. It is what it is, and with the citizens screaming for the nanny state to spend on social programs it is a foregone conclusion where the money goes. In addition, we need to define roles and mission capabilities before we go off spending big bucks on our military. Besides the knee jerk reaction is to simple procure equipment from foreign suppliers, and that costs more in the long run than simply doing things in house.

No. It's the loud minority of Toronto who scream for the nanny programs and get them constantly. Leaving the rest of us who work for a living to pick up the tab. Paying for services the majority of us don't use....really sad.

I do agree with your point about defined roles etc...of coarse that makes perfect sense. I would prefer we made all our weapons and armaments thus providing more jobs to Canadians, I've said this here before. Good points though JJF.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Mr.Canada

Bonam · July 14, 2009

No. It's the loud minority of Toronto who scream for the nanny programs and get them constantly. Leaving the rest of us who work for a living to pick up the tab. Paying for services the majority of us don't use....really sad.

Unfortunately that minority isn't really a minority but a majority, and seems to be prevalent not just in Toronto but in each of Canada's urban centres.