Canadian military

[Army Guy]

how does it feel to be used by Harper Conservatives? Just what have they actually delivered/procured... in relative terms to promises that are now being rescinded, delayed or outright ignored? But military 'support the troops' posturing sure sells down on the farm, hey?

Well there is the C-17 purchase, C130J, TAPV, LeoIIA6M, LEOIIA4, new Leo armoured recover and enginering equipment, M777 Arty pieces,LAV III upgrade,C16 Auto grenade,CH-147F, Sats and tones of smaller projects such as Small arms update C7,8,9-A3, new Carl G 84 wpns,new mortars, New NDHQ.

rescinded, or cancelled

CCV ,CH 148, F-35, SAR A/C,AOPS, rest of ship building contract,Truck contract Any more.

purchases

Here is the liberals.

CF-18, LAV III, TUA, New jeeps, Our famous subs, MLVW, LSVW, Frigs, Can anyone add to this.

But i do get what you mean , the military is pretty muched used by every serving government,

[Smallc]

rescinded, or cancelled

CCV ,CH 148, F-35, SAR A/C,AOPS, rest of ship building contract,Truck contract Any more.

No. None of those have been cancelled.

[waldo]

... that Canada is becoming a militarised nation, and you whats funny a lot of people are believing this crap, even the media is pumping this crap out...

there is no denying the efforts being made by Harper Conservatives to raise the visible profile of Canada's military - subtlety and overtly... a rise that, for many, is quite easily and quite readily interpreted as an increase in militarism. The subtleties reflect upon such things as ensuring military personnel are 'front and center' - photo-ops for the masses... to repeated 'support the troops' messages that, in themselves, often cross into the overt when, 'support for the troops', is melded into, 'support for the mission', messaging. Overt examples abound, from political posturing in Afghanistan, purposeful personalization of the troops from Afghanistan, military flyovers, trumped up posturing over sovereignty, political posturing over military procurement, procurement choices, formalized "defence" strategy that includes operations overseas, force projection preparedness, etc. Do I really need to re-quote from my initial post in this thread?

speaking of the article's reference to Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk... and Harper's bent on 'force projection' for Canada's military:

but let's not loose an opportunity to really zero in on the master Harper Conservative strategy in regards those C-17s, hey?

Force projection!

For the past two years, Canada has been quietly working to establish small military outposts in places such as the Caribbean, East Africa, Europe and Southeast Asia.

Now newly released Department of Defence documents show these operational support hubs are centered on a plan to deploy the military on more overseas missions - including combat and projecting Canadian power - than under previous governments.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk authorized the establishment of the operational support hubs in up to seven locations around the world on May 13, 2010.

A directive signed by Natynczyk and obtained by Postmedia News says the initiative was launched to improve the Canadian Forces' "ability to project combat power/security assistance and Canadian influence rapidly and flexibly anywhere in the world."

It adds that the ability to deploy and sustain combat forces is not only contingent on strong logistical networks, but is also "an essential instrument of national power and should continue to be exploited to attain national objectives."

The directive traces the operational support hub initiative directly back to 2007, when the Harper government acquired four massive C-17 Globemaster military transport planes.

"The decision to acquire four C-17s (CC177) for strategic airlift indicates the government's intention to utilize the CF more extensively off continent," it reads.

[waldo]

Actually I read that article about Peter McKay's speech at the French embassy.

And Peter McKay did not error.

This is because the French Canadians 200 years ago still considered themselves as French.

However if he said "France" as opposed to French he would have gaffed!

uhhh... he was speaking at the embassy of France!

in any case, again, there were no "French Canadians" 200 years ago! As has been pointedly highlighted, those persons of French ancestry were generations removed from France... they showed France no loyalty... they were not "French".

again, spoken at the embassy of France:

Harper Conservative Defence Minister Peter MacKay

: Suffice it to say in the 200th commemoration of the War of 1812, had the French not been here fighting side by side, we might be standing here next to each other in a new light

[WWWTT]

uhhh... he was speaking at the embassy of France!

Yes actually I believe that only French Canadians can really clarify if what McKay had said was a mistake.

Since either of us is not then we are not in any position to do so.

WWWTT

[waldo]

Yes actually I believe that only French Canadians can really clarify if what McKay had said was a mistake.

huh! Your comment makes no sense at all. Historical fact is historical fact.

again, spoken at... the embassy of France during a national holiday of France celebration!

Peter MacKay takes liberties with history in Bastille Day speech

[gunrutz]

as you say, the idea that... you would ignore an earlier reference to, for example, 'force projection' policy/preparations, in favour of continuing the distracting over-emphasis on a particular war celebration expenditure... is, as you say, absolutely ludicrous.

By god you are boring. Maybe you need a hobby, perhaps if you had other interest you wouldn't read so much minutiae into everything. Clearly you have incredibly powerful evidence (in your imagination) that Canada is becoming more militaristic, so much that we need to be concerned about the future of our nation. This kind of anti military, anti nationalistic rhetoric belongs at babble, they really love this trash.

[waldo]

By god you are boring. Maybe you need a hobby, perhaps if you had other interest you wouldn't read so much minutiae into everything. Clearly you have incredibly powerful evidence (in your imagination) that Canada is becoming more militaristic, so much that we need to be concerned about the future of our nation. This kind of anti military, anti nationalistic rhetoric belongs at babble, they really love this trash.

clearly... if you can't argue the point(s)... personalize the hell out of it, hey?

[Wild Bill]

there is no denying the efforts being made by Harper Conservatives to raise the visible profile of Canada's military - subtlety and overtly... a rise that, for many, is quite easily and quite readily interpreted as an increase in militarism.

Maybe you're right, Waldo. Still, some folks would need less of a pretext than others to make the claim that Canada is becoming some kind of a warmonger nation.

Perhaps the true explanation is a bit simpler. There is no denying that there is an upswell in public pride for our troops. For the first time in decades many Canadians are paying more attention to Canada's military and its capabilities.

That being said, anyone who starts to pay attention cannot help but get a bit distressed. We read in the papers how our troops are sent to Afghanistan with Arctic cammo. Worse yet, they have to come up with desert cammo themselves, at their own expense! There were actually little old ladies in church organizations holding bake sales to raise money for cammo supplies.

They hear of rusted out rims collapsing on army trucks. The list goes on and on and on. These things can be argued here in MLW by experts, both real and self-appointed. However, the layman has a simpler perspective. He is appalled by how poorly our troops appear to be being supported and embarrassed that Canada would do so! If a body bag comes back to their town they cannot help but make a connection. Remember, with politics perception trumps reality, every time.

It would make sense for Harper to want to play to that demographic. More than that, he has a vested interest to make increased levels of support seem larger than perhaps they are in reality. What his government has spent may seem absolutely necessary to many voters but again in reality, it will never move Canada UP the list of militarized nations. To use my favourite term, the extra budget is still mice nuts by comparison.

So the situation is, Harper's critics will call even a $10 increase in budget for the military a giant step for making Canada a warmonger nation. At the same time, Harper will try to make every $10 increase look like a $100 one, to cater to those voters who are demanding increased support for our military.

It's all just politics. What else is new?

[login]

Better yet,what happened to the victims?

And not just the victims at the hands of our enemies but the victims of our military?

WWWTT

Yes often one hears only about soldiers killed rather than casualties or civillians killed. The indirect effects such as sanctions on Iraq leading to the death of over 1 million Iraqis, not to mention the equivolent of a medium sized Canadian City being whiped out. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Even Iraq body count neglects quality of life degradation, indirect illness, orphans, and disability. Take for instance DU rounds and other toxic waste left by the military.

While I think war history at a non post secondary level focuses on the battles and major developments, the reality of war is often obscured, and the effects burried for fear of an unwillingness to invade other states with undesired policies or practices.

Edited July 29, 2012 by login

[WWWTT]

Peter MacKay takes liberties with history in Bastille Day speech

Yes I read this before.

And McKay clearly said "French" not "France".

Are you saying the people who lived in Quebec 200 years ago were not French???

This can be a confusing issue so I would just give it up.

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

The poorly selected Cyclone was a political choice……..nothing more, nothing less, in that it wasn’t DND’s first (EH-101) or second (Empty EH-101 with Sea King missions systems installed) choice on Maritime Helicopters and shouldn’t have been selected………This wasn’t a reflection on DND but the Martin Liberal Government.

At this point I don't think it matters, a less than suitable piece of equipment is much better than one that requires a lot of praying to get it off the ground, keep it in the air, and land it all in one piece.

[Argus]

It is in effect war peopaganada. If you were to focus on issues suchas the abuses the Quakers faced at the hands of the British in York or the high cost of the war, it might present the real effects. However a bunch of battle simulations without casualties aside from the odd case of heat stroke, and fireworks is just a dramitization to make the war a specticle and cover over and gloss up the war. There is in my opinion too much focus on war in the classrooms, it is only 10 or so years of well over a century of Canada.

When was the last time you were in a classroom? As far as I know there's pretty much ZERO focus on war in the classrooms. Much of Canadian history is glossed over or completely ignored.

The War of 1812 was a pivotal point in Canadian history. It aroused the thought in much of the populace that we were not simply a British colony but something more. And it drove home the belief that whatever we were, we were not Americans and did not wish to become Americans.

Arguably, without it, there'd not have been a confederation in 1867. It's good that the government reminds us somewhat of our history, a history the Liberals did their best to ignore.

Nobody gives a shit about Quakers or costs at this distance in time except nitpicking whiners who want to decry militarism.

[Argus]

Don't worry,come 2015 the NDP will be giving a handful of generals their pink slips,because their jobs will no longer be required.

WWWTT

I suppose they'll need to find the money for their massive ramp-up in welfare spending. When everyone on welfare gets a fully furnished 4 bedroom house with a pool and a car.

[Argus]

clearly... if you can't argue the point(s)... personalize the hell out of it, hey?

Since you personalize the hell out of every single post its pretty bloody hypocritical of you to whine about it.

[Argus]

Yes often one hears only about soldiers killed rather than casualties or civillians killed.

You find it shocking that when Canadians think back on wars they remember their own dead rather than other peoples?

[Army Guy]

how does it feel to be used by Harper Conservatives? Just what have they actually delivered/procured... in relative terms to promises that are now being rescinded, delayed or outright ignored? But military 'support the troops' posturing sure sells down on the farm, hey?

there is no denying the efforts being made by Harper Conservatives to raise the visible profile of Canada's military - subtlety and overtly... a rise that, for many, is quite easily and quite readily interpreted as an increase in militarism.

So how does thaat reflect on your orginal statement that our military members were being used by Harper, or are you agreeing that this current government is taking action to re equip our military ? and would you agree they are doing more than say any other government in the last 25 years ?

Would you not agree that by raising our military profile to one that is front and center, that it would also bring the issues the military face on a day to day basis to the people. By creating more interest in the military we get more exposure, and maybe more support.

It is this rise in status is making "some" not "most" a little nervous in my opinion....but when you look at the numbers i gave you these MASSIVE INCREASES are actually only 1100 additional soliders a year....When it has been agreed by parliment DND needs to increase to 70,000, those numbers were just so we could sustain a Battle group overseas, in this case 3300 soldiers....can you really tell me that is militarism, to the piont we as a nation should stand up and take notice...I think you really have to make a leap to get that far don't you ?

The subtleties reflect upon such things as ensuring military personnel are 'front and center' - photo-ops for the masses... to repeated 'support the troops' messages that, in themselves, often cross into the overt when, 'support for the troops', is melded into, 'support for the mission', messaging. Overt examples abound, from political posturing in Afghanistan, purposeful personalization of the troops from Afghanistan, military flyovers, trumped up posturing over sovereignty, political posturing over military procurement procurement choices, formalized "defence" strategy that includes operations overseas, force projection preparedness, etc. Do I really need to re-quote from my initial post in this thread?

But if you were sitting on this side of the bench, what would you be thinking, with out a doubt this whole Support the troops thing is over blown, to the piont everyone well almost everyone, will automatically shout out i support the troops....just so they are not labeled as something else. and i get that, but now the true colors are coming to the top, now people are saying our country is being militarised, which is it...DND told the government these are the numbers we need to sustain operations overseas...and 10 years later we are still 4000 short, but now the people are waving banners and saying slow down we are looking to much like the US.....

I think Canadians don't give Sovereignity much thought, in my personal opinion they don't care , they shrug their shoulders and say we are not threaten...Uncle sam will look after us. Procurement chioces need to be agressivily persued because the state the equipment we have is in. as for force projection i think these 4 tiny outposts we are creating will be used for so much more, we are after all talking about Canada here. they will allow troops to have a footprint in those countries, to prepostion some equipment and supplies. We are talking maybe 40 to 50 pers at each outpost, these places will allow us to respond any where in the world alittle more quickly, not just for places like Lybia but DART missions, training missions, but also act as hubs for UN missions, the list goes on...40 50 guys does not mean Harper is placing his armies around the world to take it over...

Remember we are the nation that struggles to maintain 3600 troops in Afghan can't be part of some world domination plan with 3600 troops. The military is looking for ways to cut costs and saving response time.

[Army Guy]

No. None of those have been cancelled.

Yes SmallC poor chioce of words, they have not been cancelled they've been put on hold or have not been actioned yet.

[Smallc]

Yes SmallC poor chioce of words, they have not been cancelled they've been put on hold or have not been actioned yet.

CH-148 is non compliant...the others have been delayed or restarted, or weren't supposed to happen yet.

[waldo]

there is no denying the efforts being made by Harper Conservatives to raise the visible profile of Canada's military - subtlety and overtly... a rise that, for many, is quite easily and quite readily interpreted as an increase in militarism. The subtleties reflect upon such things as ensuring military personnel are 'front and center' - photo-ops for the masses... to repeated 'support the troops' messages that, in themselves, often cross into the overt when, 'support for the troops', is melded into, 'support for the mission', messaging. Overt examples abound, from political posturing in Afghanistan, purposeful personalization of the troops from Afghanistan, military flyovers, trumped up posturing over sovereignty, political posturing over military procurement, procurement choices, formalized "defence" strategy that includes operations overseas, force projection preparedness, etc. Do I really need to re-quote from my initial post in this thread?

It is this rise in status is making "some" not "most" a little nervous in my opinion....but when you look at the numbers i gave you these MASSIVE INCREASES are actually only 1100 additional soliders a year....When it has been agreed by parliment DND needs to increase to 70,000, those numbers were just so we could sustain a Battle group overseas, in this case 3300 soldiers....can you really tell me that is militarism, to the piont we as a nation should stand up and take notice...I think you really have to make a leap to get that far don't you ?

in the face of the undeniable overt increased militarism by Harper Conservatives, you continue to draw reference to 'soldier numbers'... without including reservists... without including civilian related numbers within DND. If you have updated numbers on those, great - all I could find were numbers from 2008 => ~120,000 persons on the payroll, inclusive of ~25,000 civilians within DND... combined to represent Canada’s second largest employer and the single largest public service employer. We see regular yearly budgets of 20+ billion a year... these are the numbers and costs (few) Canadians have an understanding of... a recognition of. It takes something like the JSFail F-35 emphasis on 'life-cycle' costing to bring forward just how much actual monies are involved. (Few) Canadians realize the purposeful budget manipulations that push actual military costs forward for later governments to deal with.

and in the face of the increased 'status' you speak of... comes degrees of increased awareness on the aforementioned numbers and the true costs... and, yes, the abysmal state of certain types of equipment. However, in the face of stark ideological driven Harper Conservative spending cuts, many Canadians are beginning to question a perceived skewed imbalance between increased militarism at the expense of these ideological driven spending cuts; cuts which pale in comparison to military expenditures. That increased 'status' you speak of also brings notice on the inabilities of Canada's military to simply deal with needs relative to domestic, humanitarian and peace-keeping... let alone managing costs/requirements associated with "force projection preparedness". As for your reference to Afghanistan, (some) Canadians look at the overall failure in Afghanistan... the related Canadian cost estimates, some approaching $30 billion... and seriously question just what role Canada's military should play when contrasted with inabilities to properly manage domestic/humanitarian/peace-keeping/etc.

Remember we are the nation that struggles to maintain 3600 troops in Afghan can't be part of some world domination plan with 3600 troops. The military is looking for ways to cut costs and saving response time.

[waldo]

Since you personalize the hell out of every single post its pretty bloody hypocritical of you to whine about it.

nice drive-by, hey? Still smarting?

[Shady]

Harper's responsible for increased overt militarism? Come'on man.

[waldo]

Harper's responsible for increased overt militarism? Come'on man.

you could stick with one of your standard rolleye responses (on par with your, complete nonsense™, replies)... or you could attempt to respond to the many examples of increased overt militarism provided. Your choice.

[Shady]

you could stick with one of your standard rolleye responses (on par with your, complete nonsense™, replies)... or you could attempt to respond to the many examples of increased overt militarism provided. Your choice.

I guess it depends on what one considers overt militarism. I consider that to be things like North Korea constantly firing missiles into the sea of Japan. Or Syria shooting down a Turkish jet. What you stare as overt militarism could be applied to anyone with a Swiss army knife!

[g_bambino]

by that rationale, you'd like to sully the genuine remembrance of war dead over a pompous War of 1812 history recall, particularly one done while hundreds of civil servants are losing their jobs and Harper Conservatives are touting (self-serving) fiscal austerity. Let's not forget some of the actual spending cuts going on, and the kinds of ideological driven priorities Harper Conservatives are making... while spending that $28 million dollars. You sure you want to stick with that?

To put your glib and sarcastic deflection away from the point another way: "I don't know how to rationally defend my claim against analysis."