CPC Jeopardized Canadian Security At Home

[Catchme]

Peter Stoffer is one of the more rational NDP MP's, as compared to Jack Layton who seem's very radical. If Stoffer was leader I'd consider voting for him, but I doubt it'll ever happen, and I doubt the NDP will ever adopt "third way" policies.

Oh please, do tell us who you feel is is NOT rational amongst the NDP MP's? When one watches QP, the only rational people one sees is the NDP, the rest are screaming and throwing slurs and lies around.

Further, Jack is quite the opposite from radical, or he would not have been President of the Federation of Municipalities for as long as he was.

In fact, one could say Harper is more radical than Jack, because of his history with the NCC, and his "global warming is just a myth" philosophy.

And just what 3rd way are you speaking of/

[tml12]

Peter Stoffer is one of the more rational NDP MP's, as compared to Jack Layton who seem's very radical. If Stoffer was leader I'd consider voting for him, but I doubt it'll ever happen, and I doubt the NDP will ever adopt "third way" policies.

Oh please, do tell us who you feel is is NOT rational amongst the NDP MP's? When one watches QP, the only rational people one sees is the NDP, the rest are screaming and throwing slurs and lies around.

Further, Jack is quite the opposite from radical, or he would not have been President of the Federation of Municipalities for as long as he was.

In fact, one could say Harper is more radical than Jack, because of his history with the NCC, and his "global warming is just a myth" philosophy.

And just what 3rd way are you speaking of/

Layton is the biggest BS politician out there. He can talk rationally and promise everything to everyone because he will never have to be in a position to deliver. I'm all for third parties, but the reality is the NDP will not form a government anytime soon. All of what CanadianBlue says is correct.

In terms of the third way, this is a political science term used to describe the "moderate" left who abandon hard left socialist economic policies in favour of more centrist ones (a la Tony Blair and New Labour). It, of course, is more realistic politically. CanadianBlue's point is the NDP won't go third-way because they're too far left and I think that is absolutely correct.

[Argus]

So Harper gets a pass for now doing the same thing?

As I said - this was clearly a mistaken priority issue within the military, taken without political guidance, and has now been corrected. I don't expect it to happen again. The Conservatives have been far more generous - though not as generous as I would have liked - to the military. I understand they are moving ahead with plans to buy more patrol planes and construct a base in the Northwest Territories in furtherance of Harper's claim that we needed to stake more of a claim on our northern islands. But I would very much like to hear about new patrol boats for coastal monitoring, and those icebreakers he talked about.

So no, he doesn't get a buy. But compared to his accusers, he's been great, and when I look at the people here who cheer on the Liberals and then yelp about something they clearly never cared about before, It just pushes my "hypocrite" button.

[geoffrey]

I understand they are moving ahead with plans to buy more patrol plans and construct a base in the Northwest Territories in furtherance of Harper's claim that we needed to stake more of a claim on our northern islands. But I would very much like to hear about new patrol boats for coastal monitoring, and those icebreakers he talked about.

I agree with all of the above moves... but I feel like too much of our defense budget is going to Afghanistan... the Euros need to pick up some of that responsibility. We can't be burdened with it forever, despite the great things Canadians are accomplishing over there.

[tml12]

I understand they are moving ahead with plans to buy more patrol plans and construct a base in the Northwest Territories in furtherance of Harper's claim that we needed to stake more of a claim on our northern islands. But I would very much like to hear about new patrol boats for coastal monitoring, and those icebreakers he talked about.

I agree with all of the above moves... but I feel like too much of our defense budget is going to Afghanistan... the Euros need to pick up some of that responsibility. We can't be burdened with it forever, despite the great things Canadians are accomplishing over there.

I completely agree. If anything, Harper is increasing Canadian sovereignty by strengthening our military. After years of Liberal neglect, we currently can only be defended by the U.S. A stronger Canadian military would decrease our reliance on the Americans.

[jdobbin]

As I said - this was clearly a mistaken priority issue within the military, taken without political guidance, and has now been corrected. I don't expect it to happen again. The Conservatives have been far more generous - though not as generous as I would have liked - to the military. I understand they are moving ahead with plans to buy more patrol plans and construct a base in the Northwest Territories in furtherance of Harper's claim that we needed to stake more of a claim on our northern islands. But I would very much like to hear about new patrol boats for coastal monitoring, and those icebreakers he talked about.

So no, he doesn't get a buy. But compared to his accusers, he's been great, and when I look at the people here who cheer on the Liberals and then yelp about something they clearly never cared about before, It just pushes my "hypocrite" button.

It has happened again. This time to the Canadian Air Force. The Globe and Mail reported that sovereignty flights are also being cut back due to re-distributed budgets. Those flights were to take place over the north.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story...tary-money.html

[geoffrey]

Factual correction jdobbin... from your article:

"But I want to emphasize that no aircraft operations will be affected. There'll be no reduction in flying hours. And aircraft will certainly not be sitting on the ground as a result of the over-programming," Capt. Jim Hutcheson, an air force spokesman, said Thursday.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Factual correction jdobbin... from your article:

"But I want to emphasize that no aircraft operations will be affected. There'll be no reduction in flying hours. And aircraft will certainly not be sitting on the ground as a result of the over-programming," Capt. Jim Hutcheson, an air force spokesman, said Thursday.

jdobbin wouldn't admit to actually fabricating a post. Better to just ignore it than anything else.

[jdobbin]

Factual correction jdobbin... from your article:

"But I want to emphasize that no aircraft operations will be affected. There'll be no reduction in flying hours. And aircraft will certainly not be sitting on the ground as a result of the over-programming," Capt. Jim Hutcheson, an air force spokesman, said Thursday.

Sorry, I should have reported the CanWest paper's story but couldn't find one not on subscription till now.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/554093.html

"You just curtail whatever you can to try and make up the shortfall," he said. "You can make cuts without really affecting (flying operations), but you can’t do it for a long time."

Larry McWha, a former Canadian Forces helicopter pilot, isn’t surprised the air force is facing a shortfall.

This was the comments that were being mentioned on CTV as well. Unless more money is kicked in for Canadian operations, there will be a cut in air flights over time. So far, no extra money is coming yet. The cash crunch is coming.

[Borg]

So Harper gets a pass for now doing the same thing?

As I said - this was clearly a mistaken priority issue within the military, taken without political guidance, and has now been corrected. I don't expect it to happen again. The Conservatives have been far more generous - though not as generous as I would have liked - to the military. I understand they are moving ahead with plans to buy more patrol plans and construct a base in the Northwest Territories in furtherance of Harper's claim that we needed to stake more of a claim on our northern islands. But I would very much like to hear about new patrol boats for coastal monitoring, and those icebreakers he talked about.

So no, he doesn't get a buy. But compared to his accusers, he's been great, and when I look at the people here who cheer on the Liberals and then yelp about something they clearly never cared about before, It just pushes my "hypocrite" button.

Argus - I am stealing your "hypocrites button" comment for future use. Thanks in advance for that one.

All of this talk about a boat tied up and such - this sort of thing has been going on for years.

Air Force is approximately 200 plus pilots short in their manning - maybe more now.

Army manning is down as is navy.

This all takes place over time. Years in fact.

How long have the Cons been in place?

Gimme a break - only one of Argus' hypocrites could start this ball rolling.

It will literally take years before Canada has a true functioning military. At present it still depends upon the generosity of others and the ability to rent equipment to move men and equipment around the world.

The military has been under systematic dismantling - with Canucklehead and liberal approval for nearly 20 years - how could anyone be the slightest bit surprized when some of these instances take place?

Moral outrage? Too bad some of you showed up 15-20 years too late.

Borg

[Remiel]

20 Years? So you are implying the darling of the Right, Brian Mulroney, is complicit in its deterioration?

Glad you are finally seeing the light of non-partisanship.

[Borg]

20 Years? So you are implying the darling of the Right, Brian Mulroney, is complicit in its deterioration?

Glad you are finally seeing the light of non-partisanship.

Absolutely - but remember - they were put into power by the Canuckleheads who live in this country - and right or wrong the Cons of old were involved.

That was then and this is now.

Libs carried it through to fruition.

Where were you when it all started.

Sitting in your rose garden?

Just because I am strong in my opinion does not mean I am blind - unlike many here.

Your sarcasm is wasted - probably much like your life.

Borg

[Argus]

20 Years? So you are implying the darling of the Right, Brian Mulroney, is complicit in its deterioration?

Glad you are finally seeing the light of non-partisanship.

It started long before Mulroney, actually. Trudeau really dismantled the armed forces. Mulroney, a Quebecer with little interest in the military, simply continued it.

Mulroney has never been "the darling" of the Right. He was a middle of the road politician. Certainly he was more fiscally conservative and prudent than the Liberals he followed, but almost anyone would have been.

[Borg]

20 Years? So you are implying the darling of the Right, Brian Mulroney, is complicit in its deterioration?

Glad you are finally seeing the light of non-partisanship.

It started long before Mulroney, actually. Trudeau really dismantled the armed forces. Mulroney, a Quebecer with little interest in the military, simply continued it.

Mulroney has never been "the darling" of the Right. He was a middle of the road politician. Certainly he was more fiscally conservative and prudent than the Liberals he followed, but almost anyone would have been.

Very true. Interesting that there is always a Kebeker in the middle - or hiding in the wings somewhere.

Borg

[margrace]

20 Years? So you are implying the darling of the Right, Brian Mulroney, is complicit in its deterioration?

Glad you are finally seeing the light of non-partisanship.

It started long before Mulroney, actually. Trudeau really dismantled the armed forces. Mulroney, a Quebecer with little interest in the military, simply continued it.

Mulroney has never been "the darling" of the Right. He was a middle of the road politician. Certainly he was more fiscally conservative and prudent than the Liberals he followed, but almost anyone would have been.

Very true. Interesting that there is always a Kebeker in the middle - or hiding in the wings somewhere.

Borg

Interesting also that there is am American plant on here too.

[scribblet]

Interesting also that there is am American plant on here too.

An American plant on here, on MLW, say it isn't so. Who is it, who planted him and why?

[Borg]

20 Years? So you are implying the darling of the Right, Brian Mulroney, is complicit in its deterioration?

Glad you are finally seeing the light of non-partisanship.

It started long before Mulroney, actually. Trudeau really dismantled the armed forces. Mulroney, a Quebecer with little interest in the military, simply continued it.

Mulroney has never been "the darling" of the Right. He was a middle of the road politician. Certainly he was more fiscally conservative and prudent than the Liberals he followed, but almost anyone would have been.

Very true. Interesting that there is always a Kebeker in the middle - or hiding in the wings somewhere.

Borg

Interesting also that there is am American plant on here too.

margrace I will let out one bit of info - I am not American - if I was I would announce it. In fact I am a Canadian.

Sorry you disapprove. But my parents did not drown me at birth. They did however teach me how to think for myself and not believe the newspapers and television always reported the truth. They taught me to think and act and be responsible for those actions.

They also taught me how to build a fire, kill an animal, prepare it and eat it and use various weapons. They educated me in some of the finest institutes in Canada -and they loved me and taught me to hold my friends close and my enemies closer.

I have a very large family and I not only love them all very deeply, they love me.

So now you have some personal as well as citizenship info.

Borg

[Army Guy]

Poser:

You have this incredable knack for making a story where one does not exist. you story is so wrong on so many levels , but then again you know that being an ex military person.

You give the impresion that our entire coast is protected by one ship, are we that guliable to think that for your defense buck that is all you get...Give me a break...

What about our coastal radar, our coastal patrol ves, or maritime patrol aircraft, not to mention our airforce assets...nobody even mentioned those...what are they doing are they tied up as well "NOPE"...story does not say...it just what you don't say that speaks volumes....So is it really a story or a grab for headlines.

Your story is about a fisheries patrol, you know patrolling our coastal fishing grounds for fishing violations. it says nothing about sovereignty patrols you know the ones they patrol and defend our coast line with. You forget to say anything about that, but if you did it would not have the same impact..we need that finger waving in the wind pionting at the CPC "shouting you guys blew it"

I'll tell you who's to blame it's the Canadian tax payer who should be ashamed for allowing our government to put our military in thier current state.

[weaponeer]

This entire issue is about a core fundimental prob within the CF. Simply, the military has to do our job, plus everybody elses. This ship voyage was a FISHERIES PATROL. Patrolling to make sure fisherman don't over fish, & foreign vessels do not enter our waters. This may come as a shock, but that is not the militaries job. Dept Fisheries & Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, RCMP, this is their job. The Navy is only supposed to be called in to assist these agencies.

As well, there are plenty of other assets that monitor our coastlines, radars, CP140 patrol aircraft, satalites etc... CanadaCOM, NORCOM & NORAD know whoses out there & what's going on.

I have seen countless examples where the CF has been brought in to do someone elses job. Forest fire patrols, mining & mapping surveys, fisheries patrols, pollution patrols, iceberg patrols, counting Caribou flights etc....

[jdobbin]

This entire issue is about a core fundimental prob within the CF. Simply, the military has to do our job, plus everybody elses. This ship voyage was a FISHERIES PATROL. Patrolling to make sure fisherman don't over fish, & foreign vessels do not enter our waters. This may come as a shock, but that is not the militaries job. Dept Fisheries & Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, RCMP, this is their job. The Navy is only supposed to be called in to assist these agencies.

As well, there are plenty of other assets that monitor our coastlines, radars, CP140 patrol aircraft, satalites etc... CanadaCOM, NORCOM & NORAD know whoses out there & what's going on.

I have seen countless examples where the CF has been brought in to do someone elses job. Forest fire patrols, mining & mapping surveys, fisheries patrols, pollution patrols, iceberg patrols, counting Caribou flights etc....

They have a law is the States called Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the U.S. Navy from enforcing U.S. laws. No such act exists in Canada and it *is* the job historically of the Canadian Navy in enforcing fisheries laws.

It ain't glamourous but it is the military's job in Canada.

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/navres/home/n....asp?category=4

[weaponeer]

It is a tasking given to the navy by the gov't. We have agencies for these jobs as I have listed in my prior post, they are responsible for fisheries. It's not the navies job to monitor fishing, count fish stocks, give out fines for over-fishing or poluting. That's DFO's job, CCG's job and RCMP's job. The navy will always carry out any tasking given by the gov't.

My point is fisheries is not a naval job, civil orgs must perform those tasks, navy should be in a supporting role. Again, this comes down to people having no clue what a military is used for. (A Canadian tradition)!!

Anyhow, it's late, my shift is over going home, goodnight to all.....

[jdobbin]

It is a tasking given to the navy by the gov't. We have agencies for these jobs as I have listed in my prior post, they are responsible for fisheries. It's not the navies job to monitor fishing, count fish stocks, give out fines for over-fishing or poluting. That's DFO's job, CCG's job and RCMP's job. The navy will always carry out any tasking given by the gov't.

My point is fisheries is not a naval job, civil orgs must perform those tasks, navy should be in a supporting role. Again, this comes down to people having no clue what a military is used for. (A Canadian tradition)!!

Anyhow, it's late, my shift is over going home, goodnight to all.....

The Navy will carry out any task of the government because unlike the U.S., there is no law preventing them from assisting other government agencies. As I said, it isn't a glamourous but if the Navy ships are tied up for lack of money, it hurts our sovereignty. Protecting Canada's fisheries is not some idle duty.

[weaponeer]

The Navy will provide ships for Carnival Cruises if so ordered, but it is not a wise use of those assets. Sending a frigate to chase poluters & over-fishers is a waste. DFO has airplanes for that, the CCG has ships & planes for that as well. Besides, aircraft are much better at patrolling over the vast ocean expanses.

The Navy should be concentrating on Naval operations with USN, RN, NATO, including multi-national ex's, NORAD ops, yes they do that. They should be "aid to civil power" by exception. Sortie and entire frigate for fisheries patrol, a waste. Divert them off operational patrol to provide assistance, no prob.

What's happened here is that the CF has been tasked with so many non-military roles, that people have forgotten over time what the military is for. They equip it for these non-military roles, then can't figure out why the military needs $$ for A-stan. War, combat, that's our job. Nobody likes war, but we got to be able to deal with it. Nobody like their house to burn down, need a firehall. Firemans job is to fight fire, not get cats out of trees & pose for callenders....

Foucus on the primary task..

[Fortunata]

The Canadian Navy will not be participating in NATO naval exercises due to budget constraints even though we are hosting? WTH? Defence analyst Steve Staples says navy playing politics to get more money in the next budget. Steve better put our money where his mouth is. He promised arctic sovereignty. He can't do that without ships. The ships can't do that without money. Steve hasn't had a problem spending like a drunken sailor up to this point (i.e. flying out to Vancouver to announce an announcement. What a Liberal thing to do.)

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#