Sir Bandelot Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 In the blunt autobiography Hillier denies he was responsible for getting Canadian soldiers involved in volatile southern Afghanistan, where the highest number of casualties have occured. And he sheds light on his strained relationship with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor and what he paints as businesslike relations with Harper. Hillier also gives his side of what was a tense standoff over the repatriation of Canada's first female casualty in Afghanistan. He writes that he was ordered by the PMO to hide the return of the body of Capt. Nichola Goddard, because the PMO didn't want the event covered extensively by the media. In the book, the charismatic military leader also says he argued to keep Canadian troops in Kabul working on a reconstruction project -- a much safer region than Kandahar province. Hillier also has tough criticism for NATO in his book, saying it was "embarassing" that the secretary general of the powerful military alliance had to beg for troop and equipment commitments from individual countries. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ub=TopStoriesV2 It's always good to get the inside story, so people will know more about whats really going on, instead of just believing the sunny propaganda coming from our mealy mouthed politicos. Not only did they have to beg and plead for proper equipment to engage the enemy, they were asked to hide the dead bodies. Come on people, I mean wtf. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 I don't think there is anything new there. The Generals are always unhappy with the way politicians want to fight wars. Quote
Wild Bill Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 I don't think there is anything new there. The Generals are always unhappy with the way politicians want to fight wars. Well, perhaps the degree has changed. The politicians seem to be much better at being slimy! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Argus Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 I don't think there is anything new there. The Generals are always unhappy with the way politicians want to fight wars. He echoes a point made by Lewis MacKenzie some time ago. MacKenzie pointed out there were some 3,000 transport helicopters in NATO's inventory sitting on the ground throughout NATO countries. Canada virtually begged NATO countries to supply just six of them and we couldn't get any. MacKenzie says NATO is finished and we should just pull out as there's little point in having a military treaty with cowards. 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
madmax Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 MacKenzie says NATO is finished and we should just pull out as there's little point in having a military treaty with cowards. MacKenzie has caught up with the Tommy Douglas NDP position on withdrawing from NATO. Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 MacKenzie has caught up with the Tommy Douglas NDP position on withdrawing from NATO. I can't find any quotes of MacKenize suggesting we withdraw from NATO and I seriously doubt there are any to find. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 He echoes a point made by Lewis MacKenzie some time ago. MacKenzie pointed out there were some 3,000 transport helicopters in NATO's inventory sitting on the ground throughout NATO countries..... That doesn't mean they were all NATO assets.....out of the 3,000.....how many did Canada have ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Army Guy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 Hillier was one of a kind, the kind that only comes along once or twice in a life time....imagine a CDS with large enough balls that actually fit the postion he was in. As for NATO, Canada needs this defence alliance more than the alliance needs Canada, we are not ready to pay for our own defence, not yet, perhaps not for another generation....to bad our kids will have to pay for our mistakes, or lack of action. Afghan mission was said to be the make it or break it time for NATO, and it is failing...overall , there are still afew nations that have stepped up to the plate, ours being one of them, atleast to the piont where what ever the next alliance may be or we sign on to we will atleast get looked at as a nation that has something to contribute but it is not going to be cheap. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 That doesn't mean they were all NATO assets.....out of the 3,000.....how many did Canada have ? Piont well taken , Canada should be the last nation to be throwing rocks, about other nations commitments or abilities....What i don't understand is how hard we work at not meeting those commitments.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted October 20, 2009 Report Posted October 20, 2009 MacKenzie says NATO is finished and we should just pull out as there's little point in having a military treaty with cowards. That's a first step, now if we could only pull out of our alliances with morons. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Alex Moore Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 Hillier was one of a kind, the kind that only comes along once or twice in a life time....imagine a CDS with large enough balls that actually fit the postion he was in. As for NATO, Canada needs this defence alliance more than the alliance needs Canada, we are not ready to pay for our own defence, not yet, perhaps not for another generation....to bad our kids will have to pay for our mistakes, or lack of action. Afghan mission was said to be the make it or break it time for NATO, and it is failing...overall , there are still afew nations that have stepped up to the plate, ours being one of them, atleast to the piont where what ever the next alliance may be or we sign on to we will atleast get looked at as a nation that has something to contribute but it is not going to be cheap. Hillier did exactly what generals are not supposed to do and that is to use the military for political purposes. I know your thinking that yes the military is political our men and women act out the political will of our country. Which is both questioned and appraised in our political sphere. But that job is for scum bag politicians, not for esteemed generals. the military has no role in influencing our countries national policy. The are not elected officials. they must not be. They are publics servants and as such are required to preform their job aptly and with out hesitation regardless of policy. Or else our military would decay into mutiny. While Hillier struck a chord that resonated with us - the failings of our military/NATO. It needed to heard. but by stepping outside of the military and into politics he betrayed his position he betrayed our soldiers. Hillier is not a great general or a man with esteemed balls. he is a coward. He is someone who was not getting his way, so he betrayed the position he was given. Quote "I am a sick man, I am a spiteful man... My liver hurts" - Dostoevsky
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 Hillier did exactly what generals are not supposed to do and that is to use the military for political purposes. I know your thinking that yes the military is political our men and women act out the political will of our country. Which is both questioned and appraised in our political sphere. But that job is for scum bag politicians, not for esteemed generals. the military has no role in influencing our countries national policy. The are not elected officials. they must not be. They are publics servants and as such are required to preform their job aptly and with out hesitation regardless of policy. Or else our military would decay into mutiny.While Hillier struck a chord that resonated with us - the failings of our military/NATO. It needed to heard. but by stepping outside of the military and into politics he betrayed his position he betrayed our soldiers. Hillier is not a great general or a man with esteemed balls. he is a coward. He is someone who was not getting his way, so he betrayed the position he was given. we need more people like him...people in the public service who don't fear for their jobs from political overlords... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Sir Bandelot Posted October 21, 2009 Author Report Posted October 21, 2009 he is a coward. He is someone who was not getting his way, so he betrayed the position he was given. That sounds like skewed logic to me. Only a Fool would stay silent while fat assed politicos sit in their cushy chairs, ordering troops to jump off a cliff without proper equipment, and only half a chance for success. The one who dares to speak out against the administration is not a coward. While Hillier struck a chord that resonated with us - the failings of our military/NATO. Our military itself did not "fail". But staying silent and allowing the problem to continue would assure failure of the mission. If they have failed in some way it is only because of a lack of proper political support, and all that must come with it. So it is the top commanders job to make sure that the minister knows what the problem is. And if the minister refuses to listen, we Canadians want to know about this. All such jobs involve politics to some degree. Else without this kind of vigilance the minister himself would run the army. Quote
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 Hillier was one of a kind, the kind that only comes along once or twice in a life time....imagine a CDS with large enough balls that actually fit the postion he was in. As for NATO, Canada needs this defence alliance more than the alliance needs Canada, we are not ready to pay for our own defence, not yet, perhaps not for another generation....to bad our kids will have to pay for our mistakes, or lack of action. Afghan mission was said to be the make it or break it time for NATO, and it is failing...overall , there are still afew nations that have stepped up to the plate, ours being one of them, atleast to the piont where what ever the next alliance may be or we sign on to we will atleast get looked at as a nation that has something to contribute but it is not going to be cheap. we no more need NATO than Sweden and Switzwerland do... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 That sounds like skewed logic to me. Only a Fool would stay silent while fat assed politicos sit in their cushy chairs, ordering troops to jump off a cliff without proper equipment, and only half a chance for success. The one who dares to speak out against the administration is not a coward. Our military itself did not "fail". But staying silent and allowing the problem to continue would assure failure of the mission. If they have failed in some way it is only because of a lack of proper political support, and all that must come with it. So it is the top commanders job to make sure that the minister knows what the problem is. And if the minister refuses to listen, we Canadians want to know about this. All such jobs involve politics to some degree. Else without this kind of vigilance the minister himself would run the army. yes agreed, as voters we pick the politicians that give the direction we wish to go...but the military has the expertise in how to achieve that goal if it is achievable and what they need to accomplish their mission...and if we give the military a task then we must give them the means to accomplish the task, if we can't do that we shouldn't be asking them to do it...if the military thinks that the politicians are not giving them the right tools then we as taxpyers have a right to know about it... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Army Guy Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Hillier did exactly what generals are not supposed to do and that is to use the military for political purposes. I know your thinking that yes the military is political our men and women act out the political will of our country. Which is both questioned and appraised in our political sphere. But that job is for scum bag politicians, not for esteemed generals. the military has no role in influencing our countries national policy. The are not elected officials. they must not be. They are publics servants and as such are required to preform their job aptly and with out hesitation regardless of policy. Or else our military would decay into mutiny.While Hillier struck a chord that resonated with us - the failings of our military/NATO. It needed to heard. but by stepping outside of the military and into politics he betrayed his position he betrayed our soldiers. Hillier is not a great general or a man with esteemed balls. he is a coward. He is someone who was not getting his way, so he betrayed the position he was given. I'd be curious to know just how Gen Hillier used the military for polictical purposes that where not within his job discription...That being said Any dept head ie RCMP, Military, etc is more politician than cop, or soldier, that is how things get done in ottawa, in the case of Gen Hillier, as our military history will show, if your not extremely good at both, well your military looks the way ours does today....Yes men never built anything great... What sets Gen Hillier and the military apart from the other Dept heads , is that he is responsiable for very lives for which he commands, he makes the tough decisions about life and death, he plans, he puts into action any defense , or offensive operation this nation takes part in... In speaking out in regards to his troops, equipment, or the military overall that is his job, his first responsiablity is to his troops thier safety, well being etc etc ....that is drilled into every military member, from Pte to gen....and in my opinion he did that in spades....regardless of the forum he did it in... As for influencing our countries national policy, Calling the Taliban names is hardly influencing anything....Remember it was our government that task our soldiers to close with and destroy the enemy....the Scumbags that Hillier refers to ... were being vaporized by every wpn sys in our inventory ....all well and good, just don't tell the population how we do it....and what ever you do don't call them names on TV....give me a break.... They are publics servants and as such are required to preform their job aptly and with out hesitation regardless of policy. Or else our military would decay into mutiny. Public servents that serve no public, but rather the nation, and the Queen interests, unless they place the nation at risk or thier commands are unlawful.... Yes there is a safety net there.... I guess it is a matter of opinion, of what the Gen Betrayed, As a military member that served under him on serveral occasions i'd follow him to the gates of hell any day....In fact most troops would, not only did he influence our policticians into getting some of the equipment and making some changes we desparately needed...but in doing so he saved lives....our lives....and in doing so he kept the faith, to us, his postion, and to this nation....and if he hurt a few feelings along the way, to bad.... Edited October 21, 2009 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 we no more need NATO than Sweden and Switzwerland do Really, perhaps that is because they have a military that reflexs there needs and GDP. Something that Canada refuses to do...there is nothing in it for the avg citizen or politician except more taxes.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 Really, perhaps that is because they have a military that reflexs there needs and GDP. Something that Canada refuses to do...there is nothing in it for the avg citizen or politician except more taxes.... I'm ok with that, if you're going to do something do it right...and if your going to ask someone to lay down their lives give them the best you can... where we may differ is what mission or goals need to be met... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Army Guy Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 wyly: where we may differ is what mission or goals need to be met... Hey, i know were on the same side, and your right in every way, the government which we elected, did pick the mission....I know Afghan would not have been my chioce,some place with white beaches and very small swim suits would have been mine.......however, we are there now, and the Canadian people lack the will to change that, so until 2011 our soldiers will suck it up, and no doubt beyond 2011.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Oleg Bach Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 wyly:Hey, i know were on the same side, and your right in every way, the government which we elected, did pick the mission....I know Afghan would not have been my chioce,some place with white beaches and very small swim suits would have been mine.......however, we are there now, and the Canadian people lack the will to change that, so until 2011 our soldiers will suck it up, and no doubt beyond 2011.... IF .....This general was in control..he would not waste one more good man or woman on a mission controled by some profit taking rich adventures that jerk governments' chains. Hillier finally figured out the sytem in full...and it was not a pretty picture...Lunitics with to much power are behind this - on both sides. Quote
Machjo Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 we no more need NATO than Sweden and Switzwerland do... Yeah right So you honestly think that just maintaining friendly relations through such organizations as the UN and such will keep Sweden and Switzerland safe? Just look at how many times they've been invaded in their history, and how many attacks they've had on their soil compared to NATO countries. Do you really want to risk the safety and security of our country and go that route? Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Oleg Bach Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah right So you honestly think that just maintaining friendly relations through such organizations as the UN and such will keep Sweden and Switzerland safe? Just look at how many times they've been invaded in their history, and how many attacks they've had on their soil compared to NATO countries. Do you really want to risk the safety and security of our country and go that route? If the friends in the old relationship of NATO are still acting as loyal friends then it is good to keep them. If it appears that the purpose of NATO has wained and there is no longer a real friendship to nuture in the hope of mutual protection - then dump it...If it works keep it...I really don't thing that NATO exists for the same reason it was originally created. Quote
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah right So you honestly think that just maintaining friendly relations through such organizations as the UN and such will keep Sweden and Switzerland safe? Just look at how many times they've been invaded in their history, and how many attacks they've had on their soil compared to NATO countries. Do you really want to risk the safety and security of our country and go that route? how many times have they been invaded?... Sweden just once in the 15 century that I know of and they drove the Danes out..if you know of more let me know... Switzerland..last that invasion of Switzerland I'm aware of was 1798 by France, invasions of Switzerland are infrequent...Canada since 1798 has been attacked by forces from the USA 3 times...and compared to NATO countries? it's not even close Sweden and Switzerland are the safest places in europe... both countries have been in many wars, and the Swiss never had a problem renting themselves out as mercenaries...but being in a war is not the same as being invaded... Sweden and Switzerland demonstrate you do not need to belong to an alliance to avoid war, alliances continually drag countries into unwanted wars...both the Swedes and the Swiss arm and prepare themselves well and make very unattractive targets... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Oleg Bach Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 War is when about 10 clever and wicked people decide they want to have some fun and make a hord of cash..next step is to convince the mass though lieing that the war is for a noble cause. I have noticed that our usual military types that reply to this type of thread seem to be holding back. I guess the illusion has worn thin. Quote
wyly Posted October 21, 2009 Report Posted October 21, 2009 wyly:Hey, i know were on the same side, and your right in every way, the government which we elected, did pick the mission....I know Afghan would not have been my chioce,some place with white beaches and very small swim suits would have been mine.......however, we are there now, and the Canadian people lack the will to change that, so until 2011 our soldiers will suck it up, and no doubt beyond 2011.... our treaty obligation to NATO made it mandatory to go to Afghanistan, it's not somewhere I thought we should go ...but if we have to go then it's the governments job to make sure the troops they send have the best equipment possible war is not a game there are lives at stake...I would like to see us out of there but now another issue has come up, supporting the Afghan government until it can take care of itself, I'm somewhat torn two ways over that ... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
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.