Oleg Bach Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Anyway, I was perhaps a little off-topic. Now that I've actually read the article (ha), I think I actually agree. This is what I tend to believe (not that I'm a military expert): If the only wars we ever participate in are ones where we tag along with the US, it seems that our combat capabilities are always going to seem insignificant compared to theirs, fighters or no fighters. These other roles seem like more useful and appropriate ones for Canada to fill. Yah why play with big brother and feel equal when we go out hunting with a fancey sling shot - while he carries the shot gun. I guess buying these jets is not about security but about insecurity - a real man does not need a weapon - he needs a fine mind and the ability to make friends and negotiate his needs. Harper should attempt to be more truely cerebral and not follow in the foot prints of our brutish brother to the south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 I believe the NDP policy is to pull out of NATO and use the military for Canadas defence. French did pull out of signed defence treaty, so it was that much easier for Hitler to take over France. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 a real man does not need a weapon - he needs a fine mind Jews always had a fine minds. Nearly ended up totally exterminated. "There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy. - - George Washington to Elbridge Gerry January 29, 1780 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eximo Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Jews always had a fine minds. Nearly ended up totally exterminated. Jews were not a country but an unorganized and thinly spread out people which made them easy pickings ~ not the best analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouterjim Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Former Chief of Defense Rich Hillier called Chretien's time in office the "decade of darkness" when spending cuts and neglect drove the military to the verge of obsolescence. Now it's looking very much like Michael Ignatieff wants to imitate Chretien - and Trudeau before him. Many have noted the Liberals' abrupt shift leftwards into heavy social spending and higher taxation, but aside from his opposition to the new fighter aircraft few have noted what this means for the military. It is evident from the platform released on Sunday that Michael Ignatieff favours a return to the decades of Liberal practice under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, which oversaw the slow but persistent erosion of Canada’s military, to the point of international embarrassment. We lacked troops, we lacked equipment, we lacked influence. Canadian soldiers heading overseas had to hitch rides on foreign aircraft. We couldn’t deliver our own equipment on aid missions. Liberals' Hidden Agenda on Military What a surprise. Those wishy-washy losers have always hated the military. They are like the NDP: "We should talk to our enemies over tea. Then they won't attack us." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Are we really getting into a "support the troops" theme as part of the election debates? Because whenever somebody accuses parties of "not supporting the troops," I refuse to take that seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 These other roles seem like more useful and appropriate ones for Canada to fill. Sadly, other countries took this position when our soldiers could've used their help in Afghanistan. I guess it's okay, because they were being 'more useful' staying out of harms way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Hm? I'm saying we should have taken that position wrt Afghanistan and avoided that situation altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) The only sollution is for the military to fund raise from all those people who want to pay for an expanded canadian military. You know hit those corporations for donations and the public. Or to actually make money from CF sales of goods and services. This is the Social Plan - aside from a freestanding grant the military gets to determine its own spending for members and veterans from the grant and the DND would effectively be scrapped aside from the CF, and a few political posts. Meanwhile the militia would be recalled and a number of public liberties allowed for creation of private militias such as unrestricted ownership of non restricted firearms Federally, and the establishment of Federal Shooting ranges free to the public (in concert with military bases) The military would be the only authorized seller of restricted and prohibited weapons without a licenses for individual sales (restricted) but private sales of restricted weapons would require a license. Arizona is an example of a model firearms state. The CF would then be able to raise funds through sale of weapons to the public (might raise of few million) Likewise military vehicles would be salable to any interested parties, but "major equipment" would be required to be secured at a military base and require authorization for taking it outside the base if it had weapon systems. The CF itself would be encouraged to find ways to generate legal revenue, and given access to all crown lands for the purpose on a basis of primogeniture - in mind of claim for use - overarching any restriction that may exist in the way of clearance - (but still bound to the same enviornmental restrictions) If for instance they wanted to develope a mine it would be approved outright if it were on crown lands, no royalties would be required to be paid or a kickback on royalties in that any paid would be applied to the CF grant. http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_az.htm The one flip on this is point of sale should register the owner and biometrics should be used to verify identity. The registeration at point of sale would be kept for purpose, but at no cost. basic Biometric systems would be rolled out with a new retail option for "Secure payments" via the 2nd Bank of Canada's ID card that everyone would have. (doubles as a substitute National Identity Card - For Citizens, Residents, and Visitors) Where it is a private sale it would have to be done at a police station or other federal place such as a CFO. But a police officer with a mobile scanner could just come to the point of sale, - or days for registration could be given each month like the second saturday of a month as a free police registration day for private firearms sales not from a professional gun resale agent. One of the issues that needs to be overcome is the ability to forge documentation. The wrong people should not have guns. So the registration is more or less a form of identity verification to know only Canadian Citizens (both Tier I (Citizens who meet full citizenship requirements) and Tier II People who have paid the citizenship attianment fee but have not completed stay length requirements - and thus do not have a vote and are subject to more scruitiny for revokation if serious law is contravened (example indictment/felony) have firearms.. visitors and residents would require special persmission as already is inplace in Canada. Edited April 6, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Hm? I'm saying we should have taken that position wrt Afghanistan and avoided that situation altogether. Depends on what you mean by "avoiding the situation". Canada certainly did not avoid Vietnam or Iraq when it came to its economic interests, directly supplying war materials and seeking lucrative government and private sector contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Liberals should not slash any military spending - they should slash their own wrists and do us all a favour....what will they do with this slashed spending money they hope to inherit? Probably more slashing of true human rights - I hate jerks that read Leon Trotskies garbage and want to save the world by attempting to save us from our selves - I don't want liberal salvation - I am capable of saving myself - if these liberals get out of the f**king way and stop people from excelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Depends on what you mean by "avoiding the situation". Canada certainly did not avoid Vietnam or Iraq when it came to its economic interests, directly supplying war materials and seeking lucrative government and private sector contracts. I meant avoiding the situation of being in a combat role. Thought that was clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouterjim Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Liberals should not slash any military spending - they should slash their own wrists and do us all a favour....what will they do with this slashed spending money they hope to inherit? Probably more slashing of true human rights - I hate jerks that read Leon Trotskies garbage and want to save the world by attempting to save us from our selves - I don't want liberal salvation - I am capable of saving myself - if these liberals get out of the f**king way and stop people from excelling. I guess all that training in numerous fields that the military offers young people means nothing to the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 I meant avoiding the situation of being in a combat role. Thought that was clear. OK....but still kinda fuzzy, as Canada bombed Iraq in 1991 and directly supported a US carrier battle group during the Iraq invasion of 2003 with a frigate IIRC. So called "responsibilty to protect" led directly to Canadian CF-18's bombing missions in the Kosovo War. Haiti's democratically elected president was removed from office with direct Canadian military force. So is it only the blood and guts "combat role" with air cargo casualty containers that counts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 I meant avoiding the situation of being in a combat role. Thought that was clear. My old sister had an associate - named Ernie...He was the Canadian connection during that whole Iran - and Iraqi thing..He was an arms dealer - He liked to arm both sides including the IRA - Canada knew who he was - and what he was doing - but no one interferred in his buisness - the old bastard is dead now...It did not serve him well when he said "I saved lives by arming both sides" - He died a miserable drunk..with long toe nails and hair like Howard frinking Hughes...His second set of kids were to busy being rapists and crack heads to notice poor dad might need a bowl of soup. Canada is NOT innocent when it comes to this type of intrigue...Look at one of our former Prime Ministers....taking envelopes of cash from an arms dealer...Then when insulted for being called corrupt - basically sues the public and collects...what the hell is that all about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 I guess all that training in numerous fields that the military offers young people means nothing to the Liberals. I'm not even sure I support the Liberals' stance but it is possible to invest in education and training in other ways. That really doesn't seem to me like a justification for military spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 OK....but still kinda fuzzy, as Canada bombed Iraq in 1991 and directly supported a US carrier battle group during the Iraq invasion of 2003 with a frigate IIRC. So called "responsibilty to protect" led directly to Canadian CF-18's bombing missions in the Kosovo War. Haiti's democratically elected president was removed from office with direct Canadian military force. So is it only the blood and guts "combat role" with air cargo casualty containers that counts? When did I say I supported those actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 When did I say I supported those actions? Neither here nor there...Canada has funded a military capability and deployed military resources in pursuit of stated interests, regardless of a "combat role". I understand that many Canadians like to make this distinction, but General Hillier attempted to set that record straight years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Neither here nor there...Canada has funded a military capability and deployed military resources in pursuit of stated interests, regardless of a "combat role". I understand that many Canadians like to make this distinction, but General Hillier attempted to set that record straight years ago. It is still possible to question what our role should be in allocation and deployment of those resources. (Tbh, it does get tricky because I can see a little more justification for combat in cases like Bosnia or the first Iraq War...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 It is still possible to question what our role should be in allocation and deployment of those resources. (Tbh, it does get tricky because I can see a little more justification for combat in cases like Bosnia or the first Iraq War...) That's all well and good, but Canada has real military commitments that don't necessarily sway in the wind of questioning voters. NATO and NORAD are real obligations and totally consistent with Canada's stated need for a collective defense (and offense). Worse still, Canadian Forces get squeezed really hard with multiple tours abroad whether it be "peacekeeping" or not. I can easily guess which party they will be voting for most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouterjim Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 I'm not even sure I support the Liberals' stance but it is possible to invest in education and training in other ways. That really doesn't seem to me like a justification for military spending. The Liberals won't invest anything into education. Neither will the NDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 An OPINION piece in The National Post does not a Liberal policy make... As a matter of FACT it's not even particularily close to being truthful either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 An OPINION piece in The National Post does not a Liberal policy make... As a matter of FACT it's not even particularily close to being truthful either... How dare you!!! Bryan has told us in another thread that the National Post is the only reliable newspaper for news... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 How dare you!!! Bryan has told us in another thread that the National Post is the only reliable newspaper for news... Right along with Jon Stewart and the Daily Show being the most reliable "source" for news in the US? Or more like the "fair and balanced" Faux News Network? Tough call, eh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Right along with Jon Stewart and the Daily Show being the most reliable "source" for news in the US? Or more like the "fair and balanced" Faux News Network? Tough call, eh... At least Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are'nt trying to be serious.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.