kuzadd Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 It is now a "state secret"? Wow! How taxpayers dollars are spent for warfare is national security? Hmm. Makes one wonder, why the secrecy? From a government that stood for accountability. Cost of Afghan war now a state secret, Tories say Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Goat Boy© Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Woof, what in the hell are you doing Stephen? Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Woof, what in the hell are you doing Stephen? Ms. Jansen also invoked a Section 21 exemption, which gives a government department the discretionary power to disclose records that include negotiationplans, deliberations or consultations, or "administrative plans that have not yet been put into operation. Not giving the enemy intellegence. While most of the Taleban are barely able to count their number of goats, I would not put that to the test. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Not giving the enemy intellegence. While most of the Taleban are barely able to count their number of goats, I would not put that to the test. I don't think it is that big of a deal to let the Canadian population the real costs of war. We are so disconnected from it in the first place, we don't know and understand the real cost of it all. Giving out this information will not change the mission in anyway shape or form. And it won't help the terrorsts out at all. If anything we should be letting them know we are spending MORE money on the war. The US has gone to congress/senate to approriate hundreds of millions of dollars for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was also public knowledge. It has not seem to hurt them at all. We taxpayers are paying for this war, we have a right to know where the money and how much is being spent. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Not giving the enemy intellegence. While most of the Taleban are barely able to count their number of goats, I would not put that to the test. please.... Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
DogOnPorch Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Headline from May 1944? Canadian citizens demand to know the cost of the upcoming invasion of France. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 please.... Okay, they may know how many female goats... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 This also brings me to the point of failing support for the war at home. If we are not informed much about it, how can we make a decision to support the war or not? We have people over there like Army Guy, who I have come to respect quite a bit through his posts. And I want him to come back in one piece with all his parts. How are we to properly support our troops and the mission if we know squat about it? Or we get one set of answers only to see the actions go in the opposite direction. Of course we don't need to know every little detail, like we don't need to know troop movements or specific strategies, because that could potentially be very dangerous for our boys and girls out there. I don't mind supporting the troops, because they are the ones doing the work. I do not support the mission, because it is a waste of time money and resources. And in the end does not make us anymore secure than 10 years ago. I get cussed at because people say I should be supporting the misison because I support the troops. This also presents future problems with not letting us know the true cost of this war. When all of a sudden we have a higher deficit or debt, or we find out we don't have enough money for some other civilian project, we are left scratching our heads and wondering how did we ever get to this stage. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Of course we don't need to know every little detail, like we don't need to know troop movements or specific strategies, because that could potentially be very dangerous for our boys and girls out there. Do we need to know what has been allocated for fuel? The value of the artillery shells used?How often the tanks can patrol? What knew material will be allocated? How much cargo will be dleivered and how often? How often the transports fly in and out? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Goat Boy© Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 This also brings me to the point of failing support for the war at home. If we are not informed much about it, how can we make a decision to support the war or not? We have people over there like Army Guy, who I have come to respect quite a bit through his posts. And I want him to come back in one piece with all his parts. How are we to properly support our troops and the mission if we know squat about it? Or we get one set of answers only to see the actions go in the opposite direction.Of course we don't need to know every little detail, like we don't need to know troop movements or specific strategies, because that could potentially be very dangerous for our boys and girls out there. I don't mind supporting the troops, because they are the ones doing the work. I do not support the mission, because it is a waste of time money and resources. And in the end does not make us anymore secure than 10 years ago. I get cussed at because people say I should be supporting the misison because I support the troops. This also presents future problems with not letting us know the true cost of this war. When all of a sudden we have a higher deficit or debt, or we find out we don't have enough money for some other civilian project, we are left scratching our heads and wondering how did we ever get to this stage. NATO in Afghanistan NATO’s operation in Afghanistan currently constitutes the Alliance’s most significant operational commitment to date. Established by UN mandate in 2001, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has been under NATO leadership since August 2003. ISAF comprises some 64,500 troops from 42 different countries deployed throughout Afghanistan. Its mission is to extend the authority of the Afghan central government in order to create an environment conducive to the functioning of democratic institutions and the establishment of the rule of law. A major component of this mission is the establishment of professional Afghan National Security Forces that would enable Afghans to assume more and more responsibility for the security of their country. Much progress has already been made. From a non-existent force in 2003, the Afghan army currently comprises approximately 92,000 soldiers, and has begun taking the lead in most operations. In addition to conducting security operations and building up the Afghan army and police, ISAF is also directly involved in facilitating the development and reconstruction of Afghanistan through 26 Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) which are engaged in identifying reconstruction needs and supporting humanitarian assistance activities throughout the country. Quote
GostHacked Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Do we need to know what has been allocated for fuel? The value of the artillery shells used?How often the tanks can patrol? What knew material will be allocated? How much cargo will be dleivered and how often? How often the transports fly in and out? We would like to know the total cost and some kind of breakdown. Then we know if our money is being put to good use. We have heard so much fraud and money/weapons going missing, it would be nice to know. But like I said, we don't need to know movements or specific strategies, because that would compromise the troops. Talking about where all the money is going should not be an issue/problem. Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 We would like to know the total cost and some kind of breakdown. Then we know if our money is being put to good use. We have heard so much fraud and money/weapons going missing, it would be nice to know.But like I said, we don't need to know movements or specific strategies, because that would compromise the troops. Talking about where all the money is going should not be an issue/problem. I think you need to realize that forward budgets can be extrapolated into real world objectives. If someone (nasty) knows the how much they can make educated guess about where the money is going. Thiskind of intelligence is what they would have given an arm or a leg or a brigade for during the second world war. I think it is enough to know what we spent last year rather than what we may be spending next year. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 I get cussed at because people say I should be supporting the misison because I support the troops. It was supposed to be kosher to support the troops without supporting the mission. I wonder what happened there? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 I can't fathom why knowing how much this fiasco costs really matters, whatever answer they gave us would be pretty suspect. Just like the reasons for going/staying have been. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Muddy Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 When you get into a good old fashioned dust up ,you don`t worry the cost of skinning your knuckles on the other guys gob.You win then count the cost. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) It was supposed to be kosher to support the troops without supporting the mission. I wonder what happened there? Support our troops but not their mission? What BS is that? Supporting our troops is supporting the mission. Or are you one of those who would see Canadian soldiers do without proper equipment in the name of not "supporting the mission"? No helicopters for you guys...it might offend the enemy. Edited September 16, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 It is now a "state secret"?Wow! How taxpayers dollars are spent for warfare is national security? Hmm. Makes one wonder, why the secrecy? From a government that stood for accountability. Cost of Afghan war now a state secret, Tories say it's political, we have a huge deficit and the cons don't want to raise taxes(I'll bet they regret cutting the GST now) so they have to slash things out of the budget and they don't want to slash from the defence budget because the cons get hard wood just thinking about guns...if Canadians have a choice between slashing from our healthcare and the miltary which do you think they'll choose?..which one would Harper like to slash, it won't be the one that gives him wood... not only can the Taliban not be defeated we're going to pay billions for the privilege of not doing so and giving up some of our social benefits which the cons wanted to remove anyways...... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Who's Doing What? Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Support our troops but not their mission? What BS is that? Supporting our troops is supporting the mission. Or are you one of those who would see Canadian soldiers do without proper equipment in the name of not "supporting the mission"?No helicopters for you guys...it might offend the enemy. Ofcourse there is no point in even trying to explain to you how the two can be seperate. It is the blanket "all or nothing" attitude that seems prevelant with the CPC. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
DogOnPorch Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 (edited) Ofcourse there is no point in even trying to explain to you how the two can be seperate. It is the blanket "all or nothing" attitude that seems prevelant with the CPC. #1. I'm not conservative nor do I vote for the CPC. #2. Apparently you can't explain the difference, either. So perhaps you're right in that there's no use in trying. #3. Those that 'support our troops but not the mission' often view the Army as glorified snow shovelers. That is...their true mission is actually pushing your car out of a snowbank when you're dumb enough to get it stuck. Edited September 16, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 blank cheque - trust us... we know what we're doing and it's good for you - don't worry, you'll like it! Harper Conservatives - our transparency needs no accountability! Quote
Topaz Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 I went searching for the answers to this and I did find the following on a US military website about what Canada's military plan is. This site was of Sept. of 08 but it does gives some info. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3736503 Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 I went searching for the answers to this and I did find the following on a US military website about what Canada's military plan is. This site was of Sept. of 08 but it does gives some info. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3736503 Defense news is not a US military website any more than Mapleleaf web is a canadian government site. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
GostHacked Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 #2. Apparently you can't explain the difference, either. So perhaps you're right in that there's no use in trying. There is a difference. I'll give it a shot explaining what I think is the difference. Supporting the troops : it might be something simple like, wishing them well, and hoping they come back in one piece. Also providing them with the proper equipment for the job, which was a huge problem in the first couple years of the war. Our troops went in without proper equipment (not exactlyt the avearage cnadians fault and we know that military budgets were reduced some years ago to get into this situation. Not to mention the money wasted on craptastic helicopters that need 3hs on the ground for repairs for every hour in the air, and even then they had issues. Support is also caring for these individuals when they get home. Some are going to be hurt, missing limbs, and mentaly messed up. So they signed up to go, and that means we are obligated to support them on their return to Canada. Supporting the mission : To me is political. Always has been. And that is making sure the mission and political goals are met. Making sure the mission is won. I don't support the mission because to me it was the wrong move that will not result in a gain in our overall security. Again ,this is the way I personally see it. #3. Those that 'support our troops but not the mission' often view the Army as glorified snow shovelers. That is...their true mission is actually pushing your car out of a snowbank when you're dumb enough to get it stuck. This is the view if you happen to live in the Toronto area. I recall Sault St Marie was buried in snow one year, and they did not need the military, they just broke out the snowmobiles!!! Took them a week to dig out of it. Quote
Topaz Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Defense news is not a US military website any more than Mapleleaf web is a canadian government site. Dancer, what's your problem? Of course, its not an Official military website but its closer to being a military website than Mapleleaf being a government site. There's no need to answer back, ok? Quote
M.Dancer Posted September 16, 2009 Report Posted September 16, 2009 Dancer, what's your problem? Of course, its not an Official military website but its closer to being a military website than Mapleleaf being a government site. There's no need to answer back, ok? I don't have a problem, you simply misrepresented what the site is and I corrected it for you. You are welcome. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
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.