Stoker Posted August 5, 2004 Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 Sure as soon as you send an E-mail to the 20,000 canadain families that lost a loved one last year due to avoidable error in a hospital. In comparison to our education system, In comparison to are health care system, in comparison to are education system, in comparison to our police force, in comparison to our fire fighters, in comparison to our homeless shelters, and in comparison to our chartible organizations the millitary is not used. Why do I need to send any letters out to victims of our healthcare system? I never said that there wasn't a problem with the bloody thing........... Fixing problems faced in our Armed Forces, Healthcare and any other example you used should not be an either or decision. There are many nations that can fund all of their "institutions"........... Yes the millitary needs fixed, but every thing related to government services needs to be fixed, so go ahead tell a homeless guy we needed 50 helicopters more then he needed addiction counseling, clothes and a safe palce to live, tell a dead guy that we needed 50 helicopters more then he needed a doctor, tell a starving child how we needed 50 helicopters more then he needed food. Yea the millitary needs help, but 50 helicopters isn't the help it needed. By all means, please explain why the 28 helicopters are not the "help that is needed"? What the millitary really needs is another 10,000 troops that we can deploy around the world to help people. 50 helicopters is not what it needed, are army is so overused that it can not be of use. which is the same thing that can be said for any other Canadian service, over used and underfunded. When you compare the millitary to health care it simply does not get the same kind of use. What good is a social safety-net if you can't protect it and the people that use it? Now I urge you, go write the letter to the men and women that are away from home, defending you, and tell them that we don't "use" them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slavik44 Posted August 5, 2004 Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 Sure as soon as you send an E-mail to the 20,000 canadain families that lost a loved one last year due to avoidable error in a hospital. In comparison to our education system, In comparison to are health care system, in comparison to are education system, in comparison to our police force, in comparison to our fire fighters, in comparison to our homeless shelters, and in comparison to our chartible organizations the millitary is not used. Why do I need to send any letters out to victims of our healthcare system? I never said that there wasn't a problem with the bloody thing........... Fixing problems faced in our Armed Forces, Healthcare and any other example you used should not be an either or decision. There are many nations that can fund all of their "institutions"........... Yes the millitary needs fixed, but every thing related to government services needs to be fixed, so go ahead tell a homeless guy we needed 50 helicopters more then he needed addiction counseling, clothes and a safe palce to live, tell a dead guy that we needed 50 helicopters more then he needed a doctor, tell a starving child how we needed 50 helicopters more then he needed food. Yea the millitary needs help, but 50 helicopters isn't the help it needed. By all means, please explain why the 28 helicopters are not the "help that is needed"? What the millitary really needs is another 10,000 troops that we can deploy around the world to help people. 50 helicopters is not what it needed, are army is so overused that it can not be of use. which is the same thing that can be said for any other Canadian service, over used and underfunded. When you compare the millitary to health care it simply does not get the same kind of use. What good is a social safety-net if you can't protect it and the people that use it? Now I urge you, go write the letter to the men and women that are away from home, defending you, and tell them that we don't "use" them. 1. Actually it is an either or decision, if you ahve 5 billion dolalrs and you spend it all in one place you are choicing one thing over another, making it an either or decision. You wanted me to write people that i could ahve affected with my decision, so I am doign the same and aksign you to write people you woudl affect through putting the funds into one seciton over another. That being said, not many countries can afford both Guns and butter. now Canada coudl afford Guns and butter but it would certianly mean cutting funding from other institutions. 2. Well, the Armed forces are over-extended and really have becoem useless in a sense that they have trouble being able to fill a prominant role in peace keeping. Several helicopters does not change the fact we are over extended, nor does it fix it. Our armed forces will not all in a sudden become ready to help the world becuase we got a few more helicopters, better basic equipment and more soldiers would cost less and do more to fix that problem, work your way from the ground up. Start at the bottom and at the bottom we have millitary manpower not to much better then that of belguim. 3. Social saftey net is no godo if you can't protect it, so lets protect it from underfunding. It is unlikely anyone will be invading Canada anytiem soon so that woudl leave terrorists as the only threat. That can't really invade a country but they can hurt a country. But helicopters can't really fix that, more man power could, all I am saying is more man power would be cheaper and more usefull on the home front for national disasters and such. We would not use a bunch of helicopters to the extent that would could use the money in other places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted August 5, 2004 Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 1. Actually it is an either or decision, if you ahve 5 billion dolalrs and you spend it all in one place you are choicing one thing over another, making it an either or decision. You wanted me to write people that i could ahve affected with my decision, so I am doign the same and aksign you to write people you woudl affect through putting the funds into one seciton over another. That being said, not many countries can afford both Guns and butter. now Canada coudl afford Guns and butter but it would certianly mean cutting funding from other institutions. Tell me then, why most other first world nations are able to find money for Healthcare and defence? Whats so different about say, the United kingdom and Canada? 2. Well, the Armed forces are over-extended and really have becoem useless in a sense that they have trouble being able to fill a prominant role in peace keeping. Several helicopters does not change the fact we are over extended, nor does it fix it. Our armed forces will not all in a sudden become ready to help the world becuase we got a few more helicopters, better basic equipment and more soldiers would cost less and do more to fix that problem, work your way from the ground up. Start at the bottom and at the bottom we have millitary manpower not to much better then that of belguim. So if somethings broke, you shouldn't bother to fix it? WRT the choppers, when you write your letter, address it to the people in the Navy and Air Force who deal with the Sea King and under you, would after deal with no helicopter. Tell them we don't need it. 3. Social saftey net is no godo if you can't protect it, so lets protect it from underfunding. It is unlikely anyone will be invading Canada anytiem soon so that woudl leave terrorists as the only threat. That can't really invade a country but they can hurt a country. But helicopters can't really fix that, more man power could, all I am saying is more man power would be cheaper and more usefull on the home front for national disasters and such. We would not use a bunch of helicopters to the extent that would could use the money in other places. Well Canada proper most likely won't get invaded, our intrests abroad have before and most likely will be again. What makes Canada so different from other first world nations that allows us not to fund defence and not to protect ourselves? Oh yeah...........I forgot, the United States will do it for us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay74 Posted August 5, 2004 Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 I must admit, all this moanin and groanin (a true Canadian pastime) about the helicopter issue gets tiresome. Maybe the decision was right, maybe it was wrong. We must look at it as a positive move forward. If we do so maybe, just maybe, the government will be encouraged by the "positive reaction of Canadians" and begin to realize that our military does mean something to us as Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 I wouldn't hold your breath. 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.