Stoker Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 Thing is, we can't just say "we need to spend more money on defense!" without knowing why and on what. That's like saying "we need to spend more money on home repair!" and then buying a new dishwasher while the ceiling caves in. But we know already where the money needs to go.........I'm sure Armyguy would agree, it would likley be an easier exercise to point out where money is not needed. Conservatives are always fond of saying you can't just throw money at a problem. Well, we can't just throw money at the military either. I agree with that principle, but vast sums of money are needed to fix the Armed Forces reguardless. The DND needs a clear focus. In my opinion, that focus should be domestic defense, including divorcing ourselves from foreign influences. I agree with your first point, but your second point is not supported by the majority of Canadians and the two real federal parties. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Army Guy Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 NATO was formed to counter the Soviet Bloc in Europe. There is no Soviet threat anymore You talk as if you know this for certain...and yet i as a military member with access to low level intel can not make that statement with 100 % certainity. Today, the greatest threat to security is in the form of extranational terrorism, which is countered best with good intelligence and old-fashioned police work, not military force. What about the armies contribution to afgan, or the Navy's contribution to the war on terror....you are right it is all about intel and old fassion research and investagation by CSIS...then given to the military for action... Realistically speaking, what countries currently threaten Canadian doemstic interests? There are many levels of threats to Canada's security....only a few deal with military matters. Me as a military member i'm getting into that grey area in regards to things that are classified on that question and would like to pass. The differecne is that there's plenty of Candians who want Canada to be a big bad boy on the world stage. I'm less concerned with our national self-image and more concerned with practical solutions to actual problems. I would like it for Canada just to be on stage, next to the other mid world powers. ...But like i said before Canadian soldiers do make a difference and if given the resources can find the practical solutions... 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.
Stoker Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 I'd like to see soem real facts that show just how much the U.S. "props up" Canada. How much of the U.S. defense budget is directed into tasks that Canada *should* be doing? Without some kind of quantification, it's easy to see "Canada's alleged overreliance on the 'mericans as a empty canard Off the top of my head: The Americans airlifted our forces around our country during the Quebec ice storm and the manitoba floods. They are currently supporting us in Afghanistain...via heavy lift helicopters, Theater airlift (I'll never forget seeing the pics of dead Canadains coming home on an American aircraft) and I'm sure a host of other things, which I'm sure Armyguy could point out. Their navy provided intelligence and support during the "boat people invasion" out here on the west coast years back. IIRC, the Americans gave us intelligence support during the turbot crisis with Spain. I'll add some more when I have the time. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Black Dog Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 ut we know already where the money needs to go.........I'm sure Armyguy would agree, it would likley be an easier exercise to point out where money is not needed. Okay: where? I agree with your first point, but your second point is not supported by the majority of Canadians and the two real federal parties. The CPC doesn't seem to have a defense policy or a plan (at least not on their web site). And given his initial enthusiasm for the Iraq debacle and his continued support of the white elephant BMD program, I wouldn't trust Harper with the keys to the coffers. On the other hand, the NDP as a failry well articulated platform for national defence which includes: • Placing priority on peacekeeping operationsconducted under the auspices of the United Nations. •Purchasing safe search-and-rescue helicopters for the Canadian Armed Forces; and respect members of our Armed Forces with fair salaries, decent housing and safe equipment. •Establishing a public commission to conduct a full review of Canada’s role as a middle, humanitarian power in a post-Cold War world. •Working with our American allies to ensure effective border security that enables the movement of people and goods, while maintaining firm policies against ethnic and racial profiling. •Working with other countries to create a rapid deployment capacity at the United Nations to respond to crises such as those in Rwanda and Kosovo. Quote
Black Dog Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 The Americans airlifted our forces around our country during the Quebec ice storm and the manitoba floods.They are currently supporting us in Afghanistain...via heavy lift helicopters, Theater airlift (I'll never forget seeing the pics of dead Canadains coming home on an American aircraft) and I'm sure a host of other things, which I'm sure Armyguy could point out. Their navy provided intelligence and support during the "boat people invasion" out here on the west coast years back. IIRC, the Americans gave us intelligence support during the turbot crisis with Spain. So under my plan, we boost our domestic capabilities and cut our inolvement in foreign operations. Voila! No need for the U.S.! Quote
Army Guy Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 The military has done this exericise a billion times...the put in a huge list the gov't gives them a few items back and says choose.... Unless the people of Canada are serious about rebuilding thier military what would be the piont. I'm not talking about a few bil more over 5 years...i'm talking 100's of bils over 20 years... Sorry I'm a grunt and my typing is not as fast as your's 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 February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 Sorry NDP and military do not mix....Oil and water... Boosting domestic capabilities is good it is great ...still going to cost more than we can afford...but i hope you still do not want a voice on the world stage...for that the country needs to be able to project military power.... 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.
Black Dog Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 Sorry NDP and military do not mix....Oil and water... Why? Boosting domestic capabilities is good it is great ...still going to cost more than we can afford...but i hope you still do not want a voice on the world stage...for that the country needs to be able to project military power.... As I said, I don't care about "the world stage". Far too much of the disccussion around military issues reflects the view that the military is a status symbol and that we have to have the shiniest toys to be taken seriously. I take a more pragmatic approach. Worry about what we need, not how we look. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 I'd like to see soem real facts that show just how much the U.S. "props up" Canada. How much of the U.S. defense budget is directed into tasks that Canada *should* be doing? Without some kind of quantification, it's easy to see "Canada's alleged overreliance on the 'mericans as a empty canard. Let me ask you this...would you say a country with well over 30 mil people, a mid power, a wealthy country should be able to deploy a armed force of over 2500 persons...do you still think we are doing enough.... 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 February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 NDP have never been military friendly most of thier platform is a peacekeeping one...The primary miliatry mission is defense of Canada and all her interest at home and abroad....to do that you must have an army capable of high intensity warfare....as it is this skill that makes soldiers able to peacekeep...the biggest kid on the block keeps the peace....NDP will not support this.. • Placing priority on peacekeeping operationsconducted under the auspices of the United Nations. •Purchasing safe search-and-rescue helicopters for the Canadian Armed Forces; and respect members of our Armed Forces with fair salaries, decent housing and safe equipment. •Establishing a public commission to conduct a full review of Canada’s role as a middle, humanitarian power in a post-Cold War world. •Working with our American allies to ensure effective border security that enables the movement of people and goods, while maintaining firm policies against ethnic and racial profiling. •Working with other countries to create a rapid deployment capacity at the United Nations to respond to crises such as those in Rwanda and Kosovo. 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 February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 As I said, I don't care about "the world stage". Far too much of the disccussion around military issues reflects the view that the military is a status symbol and that we have to have the shiniest toys to be taken seriously. I take a more pragmatic approach. Worry about what we need, not how we look. So we will forget about foriegn policy, and the world stage and we will concentrate on domestic defense. you are still going to need some of those shinny toys...as they are the ones that provide the best protection, offensive and defensive suits, overall best chances our soldiers will survive an engagement. All to often gov't purchases equipment because the price was right... not because it gives our soldiers the best chances of survival. it has become cheaper to pay off the widower... than to spend our tax dollars... 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 February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 Black dog anyways got to go...enjoyed the debate...hope to continue it tommorrow. Stoker: As in Navy stoker. are you currently serving or retired.east or west coast. got some family in halifax dock yard something to do with the sub program. Thanks for the help with that Brain dude. 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.
Black Dog Posted February 15, 2005 Report Posted February 15, 2005 Let me ask you this...would you say a country with well over 30 mil people, a mid power, a wealthy country should be able to deploy a armed force of over 2500 persons...do you still think we are doing enough.... Well, can you tell me where that figure came from? NDP have never been military friendly most of thier platform is a peacekeeping one...The primary miliatry mission is defense of Canada and all her interest at home and abroad....to do that you must have an army capable of high intensity warfare....as it is this skill that makes soldiers able to peacekeep...the biggest kid on the block keeps the peace....NDP will not support this.. I'm not a big fan of peacekeeping, but I don't think one needs to be the biggest. If peackeeping were to be a Canadian priority, I think a small, well trained, rapid deployment force would do the job. Quote
Stoker Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Stoker:As in Navy stoker. are you currently serving or retired.east or west coast. got some family in halifax dock yard something to do with the sub program. Thanks for the help with that Brain dude. nah, as in "stoking the Conservative fire" NP, and welcome to the site. Well, can you tell me where that figure came from? The current troop deployments we have. I'm not a big fan of peacekeeping, but I don't think one needs to be the biggest. If peackeeping were to be a Canadian priority, I think a small, well trained, rapid deployment force would do the job. Who's saying we need to be the biggest? The Conservatives would be happy with the NATO average, minus the American average, which is not a huge figure. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Army Guy Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Canada has already tried to deploy 2 battle groups(1200 to 1500 troops ea ) at the same time, Bosina and Afgan. and it nearly burn't everything out ... soldiers, equipment, and resources.....this year we will be at that number again ....we will have 2 battlegroups in Afgan.... I'm not a big fan of peacekeeping, but I don't think one needs to be the biggest. If peackeeping were to be a Canadian priority, I think a small, well trained, rapid deployment force would do the job. It takes everything we have right now to sustain what little deploments we have.... 1 Brigade group is on operations (deployed) (x6 months) 1 Brigade group is training for (x6 months while the above are on ops) and our last Brigade group is resting (x 6 months...) That means that every fit army guy in the forces will start an operation once every year.... 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.
Stoker Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 It takes everything we have right now to sustain what little deploments we have....1 Brigade group is on operations (deployed) (x6 months) 1 Brigade group is training for (x6 months while the above are on ops) and our last Brigade group is resting (x 6 months...) That means that every fit army guy in the forces will start an operation once every year.... Would you consider it a necessity to add a fourth brigade to the Army (thats not including Paul's promise of an extra 5k troops to flush out the ranks), or IOW go back to our late 80s cold war levels in which we had four Brigades? Thats what I believe both the Senate commity on defence and the CPC proposed (amongest other things). Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Army Guy Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Stoker Having a 4 th brigade would be a short term solution...a welcome solution for the troops , but short term...only because it would give the Gov't more troops to deploy on more deployments.... I think a 4 th Brigade should be a Quick reaction force,able to deploy by air,sea, and land....similar to the CAR or SSF Brigade (with the same skill set)but on a larger scale....which could deploy on very short notice and have all brigade assets in any given location within the world 10 to 14 days.....This type of force would fit in line with the current CDS Gen Hiller direction , and be simlar to what Retired Gen Mackenize had proposed. But to round everything off i would add a 4 th Mech Inf brigade or even a Hvy Armour Brigade. Our gov'ts promise for an additional 5000 troops is a hollow one. His intent was to create a peacekeeping brigade...until he found out how much it would cost....and decided that flushing out 3 undermanned brigades would be better and cost nothing but wages.... 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.
Black Dog Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Four brigades would be sufficient if we scaled back the number of deployments, yes? Quote
Army Guy Posted February 16, 2005 Report Posted February 16, 2005 Yes, but thats not going to happen ...It gives our gov't to many brownie points when sitting at the grown -up's table in Nato or the UN.... If the people of Canada rise up and say no ...then maybe... but thats not going to happen We are doing 2 battle groups now today....with another battle group getting ready to go into AFGAN....with out dropping one operation we will burn everything out in a short period of time .... 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.
brianw Posted February 20, 2005 Report Posted February 20, 2005 How many Canadians are being "thrown out of their homes" and forced to live in homeless shelters? Actually quite a few. A couple of years ago it was so bad on the east coast it made national news, Did you miss that one in your selective viewing? IOW how many Canadians lives have been or could be affected by these men and women? So if it is only one it is OK? If it is less than 100 it is OK? If it doesn't directly affect you it is OK? IMO, the lives of all Canadians should come before a select few. You can't be talking about all Canadians if you are willing to exclude some from your definition of all Canadians. Would you be OK if it were blacks who were being excluded? What about women? Chinese? How few is OK? Would you say the same thing about rapes? If one woman is being raped it is OK until the number gets a little higher? You are probably right...........but can't the same be said of those that lost their lives on 9/11 or the recent Asian disaster? So it is OK to take things from people by force if someone else, who has a tragedy, needs it? Why are you opposed to put our limited resources into an area that can protect all Canadians and their intrests? Again it does not protect all Canadians when some Canadians are having their rights violated to pay for it. Don't get me wrong, after the important issues are taking care of (ie Healthcare, Defence, education, debt reduction, tax relief, the Enviroment), I'd have no problem throwing some money at the poor........let's focus on the majority of Canadians first. So shelter is not an important issue? Who is asking you to "throw some money" at the poor? Homes are being taken from people by force. You are being asked to let people keep what is already theirs not to give something to anyone. Would you want your local Police/Fire/Ambualance service to have sub-standard equipment? If you are forced from your home why would you really care what the police/fire/ambulance have? Where are all these people being forced from their homes?Who's forcing them to leave? Pay attention! Right here in Canada. Local governments using the police as their tools to do the forcing. It isn't that hard to understand. Who says money spent on defence is coming out the mouths of the poor in homeless shelters? Anyone who advocates throwing people from their home for failing to be able to pay a shelter tax. When someone must pay first and put food on the table second or give up their home to end up in a shelter because their home has been sold by someone who does not own it. I'll place the blame on inadequate funding to shelters If people aren't thrown out of their home in the first place they wouldn't need programs to put money into shelters to get them off the street. This is not a hard concept. People in their homes is a good thing. People out in the cold is a bad thing. Throwing people from their homes so that they require money to be put into a shelter stupid! Is it a human right to be sponge? No it is not. It is a human right not to have your property taken from you by force. It is a human right to have your shelter (you don't get one for free but your's can't be taken from you by force without violating your rights). Any tax on shelter, directly or indirectly, violates your human rights. Simple concept. Can you provide a quote that suggests Armyguy advocates throwing people out of their homes?If not, I'd suggest that you read over the forum rules...... Not being able to pay your taxes, is unfortunate,That being said Canada does have programs and services to ensure that these people do not end up in the street As you see here Army Guy does agree that people should be thrown from their homes and advocates this by stating that there should be a program to handle them after they are. So please don't try to deflect the issue by making it look like I violated a rule. Talk about trolls Quote
Stoker Posted February 20, 2005 Report Posted February 20, 2005 Actually quite a few. A couple of years ago it was so bad on the east coast it made national news, Did you miss that one in your selective viewing? Let's see some numbers......... I'll throw out thirty two and half million. (as in Canadians) So if it is only one it is OK? If it is less than 100 it is OK? If it doesn't directly affect you it is OK? Where did I say it was "OK"? Any nation needs to "triage" it's nations wealth. The Defence of Canada (as a whole) takes priority over the homeless. You can't be talking about all Canadians if you are willing to exclude some from your definition of all Canadians. Who did I exclude? When I said Canadians, I was refering to all thirty two and a half million ~ of them. Would you be OK if it were blacks who were being excluded? What about women? Chinese? How few is OK? Would you say the same thing about rapes? If one woman is being raped it is OK until the number gets a little higher? Where did I imply any such thing? So it is OK to take things from people by force if someone else, who has a tragedy, needs it? I don't understand the question.......are you implying that, with force, the government (?) took all the homeless peoples pop bottles, squeegees and cardboard signs to give to the people of the recent Asian disaster? I thought the homeless had little to nothing to take? Again it does not protect all Canadians when some Canadians are having their rights violated to pay for it. What rights are being violated? The right to have a healthy welfare check perhaps? So shelter is not an important issue?Who is asking you to "throw some money" at the poor? Homes are being taken from people by force. You are being asked to let people keep what is already theirs not to give something to anyone. No, shelter is a very important issue to an individual, but that individual should provide it for themselves. This is not societies responsablity. With that being said, a fair and just society can choose to help ease the burden of the poor with taxpayers money, but that should only be done once more pressing maters are takin care off. I've no problem with it. If you are forced from your home why would you really care what the police/fire/ambulance have? Who's forcing these people out? What are their reasons? Pay attention! Right here in Canada.Local governments using the police as their tools to do the forcing. It isn't that hard to understand. Can you name an instance or two? QUOTE Who says money spent on defence is coming out the mouths of the poor in homeless shelters? Anyone who advocates throwing people from their home for failing to be able to pay a shelter tax. When someone must pay first and put food on the table second or give up their home to end up in a shelter because their home has been sold by someone who does not own it. You didn't answer the question. If people aren't thrown out of their home in the first place they wouldn't need programs to put money into shelters to get them off the street. This is not a hard concept. People in their homes is a good thing. People out in the cold is a bad thing. Throwing people from their homes so that they require money to be put into a shelter stupid! If people learned accountability, they wouldn't be thrown out of their homes, onto the street, then their wouldn't be a need for the government dole. No it is not. It is a human right not to have your property taken from you by force. It is a human right to have your shelter (you don't get one for free but your's can't be taken from you by force without violating your rights). Any tax on shelter, directly or indirectly, violates your human rights. Simple concept. So it's not a human right for banks and/or landlords to recieve their monthly payments from their tenats and customers? So taxes are violation of human rights? My God, we agree..........but how are we going to pay for all the soup kitchens and shelters of yours? I've come to the conclusion that after you respond, you should go and give your computer to a homeless bum. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Army Guy Posted February 20, 2005 Report Posted February 20, 2005 BrainW. you are obviously twisted about alot of things.and you do have a right to vent...not to attack ...but to vent... QUOTE Not being able to pay your taxes, is unfortunate,That being said Canada does have programs and services to ensure that these people do not end up in the street As you see here Army Guy does agree that people should be thrown from their homes and advocates this by stating that there should be a program to handle them after they are. So please don't try to deflect the issue by making it look like I violated a rule. Actually your twisting the intent of my words...I did said it was unfortunate...i also said that Canada has many programs to assit you "before "you get thrown out and after you get thrown out..... Not paying your taxes is again'st the law....not your law, not my law but the law of Canada....don't like it then do something to change it...Trashing me or the department of National Defense will get you no where.... we have a saying in DND "suck it up princess, life is a *itch and she waits for no one" 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.
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.