Wilber Posted April 9, 2016 Report Posted April 9, 2016 Hillier was asked just after he was given change of our military. He was supposed to know what was going on. if he did not, then he should have said so. Hillier was not a war monger, just a guy with an inflated ego and inadequate information. Again, conveniently side stepping the question of why he was asked in the first place. Kabul to Kandahar. Wasn't that Frederick Roberts in the Second Anglo Afghan War? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Big Guy Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 (edited) I tend to agree that you're not "making things up", for that I'm sorry, is now clear that your opinions are from a book...... If you do not have a serious question then please do not ask it of me. I should have known better than to respond to you. My opinions are formed from more than "a book". I will take your comment in the sincerity and spirit in which it was given. If you want to find the sources of the information in the book, then read it and check the index. All statements are accredited. I would suggest that perhaps if you read and researched more and posted less then your posts would be a bit more credible. Edited April 10, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Wilber Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 Did your book tell you that Canadian involvement in Afghanistan started in 2001? That Ottawa was considering moving our commitment to Kandahar as early as 2003 but Hillier didn't become CDS till 2005? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Big Guy Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 Again, conveniently side stepping the question of why he was asked in the first place. Kabul to Kandahar. Wasn't that Frederick Roberts in the Second Anglo Afghan War? Hillier had just been promoted to CDS. PM Martin was planning to send support to Darfur, Haiti and the growing problem in the Middle East between the Palestinians and Israeli's. Afghanistan was his fourth priority. He had to get an idea of what kind of military force and/or troop support was available. Who else is he going to ask? "Hillier made a concise and persuasive presentation on why Afghanistan should be Canada's principal focus for the next two years, and why all the elements in the package supported supported one another and would bring significant political and military benefits." You are free to check the credentials of Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang as authors and "experts". I am doing nothing convenient in communicating with you and/or sidestepping the question. I do not sidestep questions which I choose to not answer - I ignore them. In fact I find it inconvenient especially when your tone indicates that what you read from me - you do not like. Well, too bad. I was sharing an opinion because you asked and I assumed you wanted to hear it. "Kabul to Kandahar. Wasn't that Frederick Roberts in the Second Anglo Afghan War?" - Yes. But that was in 1880 More information can be found on Fred at: http://www.historyinanhour.com/2013/09/30/frederick-roberts-summary/ I would be happy to any additional serious questions to the best of my ability. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Wilber Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 Defence Minister Bill Graham and General Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, have repeatedly warned Canadians to expect casualties in the combat mission, which represents a significant break from the usual peacekeeping assignments. Canada.com January 2006 Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Big Guy Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 Did your book tell you that Canadian involvement in Afghanistan started in 2001? That Ottawa was considering moving our commitment to Kandahar as early as 2003 but Hillier didn't become CDS till 2005? I am very familiar with the time lines regarding Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. If/when you discover what the difference is between a PRT commitment and combat mission and how Canada slipped form one to the other then we may again communicate. I never use "a book" for my only reference when studing an issue. There are a number of good presentations including many by Eric Margolis whom I consider one of the most knowledgeable experts on the Middle East. I sense that you want to argue. I do not. Nor do I have the time or patience for it. You obviously have a low regard for my opinion and references so I would suggest that you ignore my posts on this issue. This discussion is getting neither of us anywhere. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Derek 2.0 Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 If you do not have a serious question then please do not ask it of me. I should have known better than to respond to you. My opinions are formed from more than "a book". I will take your comment in the sincerity and spirit in which it was given. If you want to find the sources of the information in the book, then read it and check the index. All statements are accredited. I would suggest that perhaps if you read and researched more and posted less then your posts would be a bit more credible. First, my questions are as serious as a heart attack........Second, you speak to sincerity....I apologized for suggesting you were making things up, you've since stated you have read a book......... ........A book written by the chief of staff of former Liberal Minister of National Defence John McCallum and then his replacement, Bill Graham (Graham was the one that recommended Hillier)........perhaps if you want a measure of credibility, you'd refrain from passing off a self-serving Liberal diatribe, published in the run-up to an election, as a historic document.........your cited book is as credible and unbiased as one of the panelists on CBC's Power and Politics. I would suggest in future you refrain from passing off the partisan words of others as your own.....well claiming to be gathered from a verified source(s).......in good company, that could get you labeled a fraud or a charlatan. I will say this, despite your passive aggressive barbs, I'm still grateful that you elected to forgo your self imposed rule of not responding to parsed quotes......you're actually a very malleable person when it suits you. -------------------------- In regards to the review, your responses go further to proving my point...... intellectually dishonest people, professing an agenda (or passing off another's agenda as their own) would be far more damaging to this nations defense then even an ignorant person's opinion. Simply put, an ignorant person just doesn't know any better, those with hidden agendas have zero qualms distorting the truth to suite their purposes........ My question of course is why certain people, or political parties, feel the need to obscure their agendas from the unwashed masses........could it be they know if the truth came out, those they were attempting to hoodwink would be none too pleased? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 Did your book tell you that Canadian involvement in Afghanistan started in 2001? That Ottawa was considering moving our commitment to Kandahar as early as 2003 but Hillier didn't become CDS till 2005? His book was an attempt by the Liberals to play Pontius Pilate with the Afghan war they started.......its nothing more than trash. Quote
Wilber Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 I am very familiar with the time lines regarding Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. If/when you discover what the difference is between a PRT commitment and combat mission and how Canada slipped form one to the other then we may again communicate. I never use "a book" for my only reference when studing an issue. There are a number of good presentations including many by Eric Margolis whom I consider one of the most knowledgeable experts on the Middle East. I sense that you want to argue. I do not. Nor do I have the time or patience for it. You obviously have a low regard for my opinion and references so I would suggest that you ignore my posts on this issue. This discussion is getting neither of us anywhere. The move to Kandahar was change from PRT to a combat mission. It was never presented as anything else, certainly not by Hillier. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Army Guy Posted April 10, 2016 Author Report Posted April 10, 2016 What Big guy is failing to do is provide an answer that stays within the time lines.Gen Hillier Was selected as Chief of land staff from May 30 2003 until Feb 2004.And from there assume Command of ISAF Afghanistan from Feb 2004 until Aug 2004Then was given back the role of Chief of Land staff from Aug 2004 until promoted and handed the CDS appoint in Feb 4, 2005....But here is the catch Gen Hiller suggests in His book A soldier First that Planning to move NATO operations into southern Afghanistan was in the works as early as 2003, BY NATO commanders , and our Government at the time.....As early as 2003, But Gen Hillier was only the Chief of land staff at the time....This fact is not only presented by Gen Hillier in his book, but is confirmed by CDS Gen Henault , at that time period, and then again by Gen Henualt who had moved onto Chair of the NATO Military Committee in Brusels.....at a later date while Gen Hillier is CDS. But also by this article below, dated Sept 27 2004, One month after Gen Hilliers return from Afghanistan from being ISAF commander.....he returned to be the Chief of land staff....and posted to the time line of Afghanistan: A Canadian Story available through the link below....or the National post. Which is more proof that planning was going on.....before Gen Hillier was CDS..... Sept. 27 2004 National Post editorial board: It is not yet clear just how or when Canada’s military role in Afghanistan will expand. A new mission statement and rules of engagement are not likely before November, and a redeployment of our troops into the so-called Afghan badlands before 2005 is unlikely. Oct. 9 The first democratic election takes place in Afghanistan, and Hamid Karzai is elected president. Published by the national post editorial board on Sept 27. 2004..... http://www.afghanistanacanadianstory.ca/whats-new/afghan-mission-timelines-news/NATO had been pushing Hard for a PRT team to be sent into the Heret province in western Afghanistan, However the Government of Canada which included Department of foreign affairs, CIDA and National defense team at the time.......all where looking at Kanadar region during the 2004 time period....who was CDS at the time...Gen Henault .....NOT gen Hiller he was already up to his ass in Afghanistan commanding the ISAF mission....Not only are these facts proven by Gen Hiller, and Gen Henualt , but also verified by several reports who ran those stories which where run after Big guys source book came out.....and of course before the book came out....funny how history works. But that's not all, Big guy and his book wants us to believe that in the very short period of time Gen Hillier is CDS, He must not only develop the political contacts in Ottawa to "As BIG Guy's" book describes bully not only the PM staff, and ministers but the very PM himself.....He must plan and set in motion a vigorous 6 month long training cycle for military pers before deploying, but also plan and move soldiers and equipment from Kabul, to Kandahar ....one would need just 6 months of planning to plan either......this would have to be down in 2004....which it was....amazing.... Big guys book is written by one author that had a dislike for Gen Hillier after he had set her straight on the Myth of Canada's military role as UN peace keepers, in front of her peers, In Gen Hillier style he laid it out to her so their was no mistakes the truth ....she was embrassed and held a grudge....so she does not paint a very faltering picture of Gen Hillier.....in fact she spends page after page on the same topic painting him as a bully.....And Gen Hillier's book it rates barely a couple of pages.... the other co author was one of the PM 's bag boys and was interested in cleaning up his bosses reputation.....but feel free to read both books and judge for your self......Big guy has a man crush on both of them, because if it is written it must be true.....Later in 2005 Gen Hilliers recommends 2 options a rest and recoup time for the troops and equipment, he also advocates for remaining at the Inter National Airport to clean it up and perhaps rebuild most of it which was damaged in the fighting.....But those idea did not get any traction.....So once the government has told him Kandahar it is, he does what he is told, and starts preparing.....So when Kandahar was chosen, by Foreign affairs and CIDA, and DND back in 2004, Canada's commitment was for a PRT or province reconstruction team made up of a couple hundred troops....Gen Hillier took a look at the plan and Advised changes to be made......He insisted on a full Battle group accompany the PRT for security reason....Kandahar after all was the Taliban home town, and although US operations had pushed them out to the fringes , Canada would later engage them in force Operation Medusa.....So the Taliban was there in force.....Lets not forget Gen Hiller had just left Afghanistan as the Commander of ISAF, so he knew most of the country and the security threat levels.....Kandahar would prove to be a major threat area....... So lets recap, I have already explained this to Big guy but he does not read posts longer than 300 words, or so says his monogram at the bottom of his posts....We have established the time line for Afghanistan, who was where and when, we have established that more than one person agrees with Gen Hilliers part of the story, the previous CDS, and the media all confirm planning was being done, and they were looking at other areas of Afghanistan to increase or roll in the nation... WE also establish as part of those plans NATO was pushing for the Heret area, in western Afghanistan....that Foreign affairs also recced the Heret area in the west and the Kandahar in the south....and had recommended Kandahar area....which was approved.... Once Gen Hillier was read into the plan he agreed , providing we could send in a full Battle group for PRT protection, or 2200 soldiers in total..... I also want to point out that all of these final choices where made by the PM, and it is him that bears the full responsibility for those decisions.....Some how Big guy and his source document or book tries to hang or pin the Afghan conflict on the top soldier is beyond me..... 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.
Big Guy Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 (edited) ... My question of course is why certain people, or political parties, feel the need to obscure their agendas from the unwashed masses........could it be they know if the truth came out, those they were attempting to hoodwink would be none too pleased? You appear to continue to see only through the tunnel vision you have backed yourself into. Professor Stein is considered internationally to be an expert on the Middle East. I suggest that you spend a little more time reading. I find your comments to be confrontational and to answer to them is a waste of time. I suggest that you limit yourself to arguing with those of the same ilk and attitude. I am not one of them. Edited April 10, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted April 10, 2016 Report Posted April 10, 2016 (edited) .. how Big guy and his source document or book tries to hang or pin the Afghan conflict on the top soldier is beyond me..... OK you have convinced me. Hillier is a war hero and his autobiography (written by him about his view of his wonderful exploits) is far more accurate than anything written ABOUT him or objectively about his actions. I am awaiting the first biography of Hillier but he was already writing his autobiography when he was still employed by DND and managed to publish just after retiring. He jumped the gun (sic) on that one. When you screw up you better be the first one to try to shape your legacy. You are right, he is a "Soldiers soldier" - The "He" man who walks with a swagger, knocks back straight rum all while sucking on a big stogie. The only flaw that he may have is that he led Canadian troops into that fiasco in Afghanistan - a mission that he had convinced the civilian politicians was easily attainable. I have no interest in trying to re-fight that stupid war in Afghanistan. From the military standpoint and viewpoint, I can see why you and Derek might try to find excuses for that beating we took in Afghanistan and that absolute "waste of blood and treasure" that mission represents. BTW - Just saw on the news that Kerry is in Afghanistan trying to get the Afghan "provisional" government leaders from each other throats and requesting that "The Taliban come back to the negotiating table". So Hilliers "scumbags and murderers" are being requested by the USA to be part of the Afghanistan government. Boy did we ever show them !!! Eh? Feel free to try to revise history and glorify the guy most responsible for Canada getting into that quagmire. Of course the government of the time has to accept the responsibility for decisions - but decisions they made on the recommendation of the chief of our armed forces. Hillier was either absolutely wrong or ... I believe that this attempt by our government to get as wide as possible input into what our foreign policy should be. Perhaps it will discourage the military leadership from trying to create their own foreign policy. As to anyone out there who is bothering to read this thread and is looking for materials I would recommend: "The Unexpected War - Canada in Kandahar" Stein, Lang. "War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet (ISBN 0-415-93062-6) Routledge 1999" Margolis "American Raj: The West and the Muslim World (ISBN 1-554-70087-6) Key Porter September, 2008 - Margolis And make up you own minds on what happened that got us there. I have said all I intend to about this issue. Next issue. Edit - I have just realized that I have gone about 150 words over my self appointed limit - I apologize and will try not to repeat that mistake. Edited April 10, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
PIK Posted April 11, 2016 Report Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) The same general that said Canada should get rid of it's tanks. Tanks that were a very important part of out forces protection in Afghanistan. Edited April 11, 2016 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Army Guy Posted April 11, 2016 Author Report Posted April 11, 2016 He wasn't trying to get rid of tanks, The government would not fund new tanks, it was trying to keep that capability with the MGS veh....which were much cheaper..... 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.
jacee Posted April 11, 2016 Report Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) What data? When did unfounded opinions become "data"? For example, how does the opinion of a barista in Toronto or a pig farmer from Manitoba lend guidance to our Government on 21st century Peacekeeping/Peacemaking operations? Are a grade 3 teacher from Halifax and a bus driver from Victoria going to lend a measure of expertise to Government on the subject of shared continental defense with the Americans via NORAD? Let me guess, a long haul truck driver and a visual arts graduate would be your go-to option for seeking advice on recapitalization of modern and near term military equipment? Or do you think an unemployed rig-pig and a single mother on welfare are the best equipped to determine our future role in NATO and the implication of collective defense?I'm sure the pimply faced kid at the McDonalds running the deep fryer has an opinion on the importance of the Arctic in the 21st century.....just as the immigrant cab driver is best suited to help set cyber-defense policy for the DnD......... ........So again, what data? If they are not bound by it, and its of little to no value, why bother collecting it? Oh good grief!You mean us ordinary Canadians get to speak freely our opinions on Canada's military, defense and foreign policy ... that are all paid for by us ordinary Canadians? Well ... I can see why you're hissy Derek! The gall eh? To actually express an opinion on how we spend our own money!! (Do you even hear yourself?) ? . Edited April 11, 2016 by jacee Quote
Army Guy Posted April 11, 2016 Author Report Posted April 11, 2016 The point is NOT the giving Canadians opinion on any matter.....The point is what value would the info be, if the general public is not educated on the topic.... It is a waste of time if the government is not going to take 5 mins and explain or educate the public so they can make an informed opinion. Why is that such a hard idea to wrap your mind around..... If NASA based it's space program on the public opinion we would never made it into space...... Instead you and everyone else is pissed because someone has called a spade a spade....the General public are not educated on the topic to make any valuable input.....And if that is the case why bother with the Survey, if anything it will prove that fact Canadians are not prepared or educated enough on the topic to answer...... we will find out in the future on how much weight the current government puts on this survey. 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.
Peter F Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 .....The point is what value would the info be, if the general public is not educated on the topic.... Very very valuable. The goverment will then have an idea of what the voting public wants/expects. That in itself justifies the entire exercise. From that information they will then know what they can/cannot/should/shouldnot do to keep voters voting for them. Cut back on Healthcare so's we can get Amphibious support vessels? We'll be crucified by the voters next election. Pulic supports building new Supply ships for the Navy? Then we shall make it so and bask in the glory of doing what the voters want. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Big Guy Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 ....the General public are not educated on the topic to make any valuable input.... But that is the nature of democracy. None of us are experts on everything. Be careful, in all of the examples in the world where the military took control of the government was that "the general public was not educated and could not be trusted to govern." I submit that the general public is far more informed and sophisticated then you think. The fact that it may not agree with the military does not mean it is wrong, it means that Canadians see the challenge from a different direction. After all, it is their right. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Army Guy Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Posted April 12, 2016 Sure if that's your idea of good governance, have at it.....Why even have a government, why not just a couple of guys that make up surveys.....cut back on all those wages..... Have you read the survey ?, can you answer all the questions, and provide response that could be turned into policy ? 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 April 12, 2016 Author Report Posted April 12, 2016 That's right big guy because that has been Canada's military secret all along to take over the country and run peaceniks up trees..... Then put your money where your month is, Answer the survey , with informed answers that could or might be policy, and publish it here.....Also if you may add the consequences for each action or comment...Or just take some of the harder questions to start..... 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.
Peter F Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 Sure if that's your idea of good governance, have at it.....Why even have a government, why not just a couple of guys that make up surveys.....cut back on all those wages.....Its not governance. Its information gathering. Its nothiing more than a survey of public opion...actually a survey of those-who-give-a-shit opinion. Most Canadians aren't even going to bother with it. But the Liberals will be able to hold this up as consulting with Canadians on what Canadians want. Not that you or Derek 2.0 are going to get what you want. Nor is NDHQ going to get what they want. Nor is the Conservative party - except they won't be able to say that Canadians want something else. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Army Guy Posted April 12, 2016 Author Report Posted April 12, 2016 Perhaps I misunderstood your orginal post then..... "Then we shall make it so and bask in the glory of doing what the voters want." which sounds like hey if we want to stay in power let the voters make the hard choices....like national security, and let them live with it, if the complain we'll hold up the survey..... My question is do we solve complicated issues by what is popular....and what issues in this country are off limits....how about how much politicians are paid, and when do they get raises.....wait a minute, that would not go over very well would it...cancel last....because they would not leave their fate to public opinion would they.....just our national security....or what ever is next on the survey list.... 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.
Peter F Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Oh absolutly. There is no need for the Liberal party - or any other party - to come up with an actual rational defense policy. The last 40 years have shown that. We can have ridiculous defense policies and it doesn't matter one whit. Edit to add: I should add that it doesnt matter one whit until such time as the public starts to give a hoot. Then the government of the day will pander to that and announce some new acquisition or other. Its all domestic politics and has been since the end of the Korean war. Canada has no crucial foriegn interests. We have no need of a military that can go anywhere in the world and no allies who's soveriegnty depends upon Canada having that ability. So we can and have kept Centurion tanks around until they were falling apart - then bought Leopards and kept them around until they were pretty much useless - then bought second hand Leopard II's that were on thier way to the scrap heap. We kept Restigouche class and St. Laurent class ships around until they were good for nothing at all. Built new Halifax's to replace some of them and we are going to keep them around until they are good for nothing but diving wrecks. Oberons the same - when they were no good for nuthin we bought 2nd hand subs destined for the scrap yards.. F18's same thing. We'll keep flying them until the politicians see an opportunity for a fine Speach from the Throne. The fact is There is no need for this country to do anything different. Edited April 12, 2016 by Peter F Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
dre Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 Sure if that's your idea of good governance, have at it.....Why even have a government, why not just a couple of guys that make up surveys..... Truly amazing... At first it just seemed like you had basic reading comprehension issues. But now youre putting your own honesty at question You know full well that is not how this data is used. Policy is not directly formulated based on this data alone, its just one small piece. And your comment about "your idea of good governance" is a blatant strawman which is also dishonest. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Big Guy Posted April 12, 2016 Report Posted April 12, 2016 That's right big guy because that has been Canada's military secret all along to take over the country and run peaceniks up trees..... Then put your money where your month is, Answer the survey , with informed answers that could or might be policy, and publish it here.....Also if you may add the consequences for each action or comment...Or just take some of the harder questions to start..... I have full intention of participating in this survey as I have in other government requests for my opinion. That is my responsibility and pride in being a citizen of this wonderful country. Why would I want to publish it here? Those who follow these threads already know my views and they are quite different from yours. I do not negate you views but accept them as coming from someone looking through the prism and glasses of someone who had dedicated a large part of their lives to the military. I do not view your opinion as wrong - I view it as your opinion and thank you for your very candid and passionate. I have mine based on my experiences and knowledge. That is why I have full intention of filling out a survey which requests points of view for ALL Canadians. I qualify. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
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.