Military Spending

[Canuck E Stan]

We all know that the Mulroney years left Canada in high debt and something had to suffer while the debt was got under control!! We ALL benefit from what the Liberals did with the debt. Canada wasn't at war at the time and how times change! Just watch the debt under the Cons go sky high again!!

You know not of what you speak.

Canada's debt

When Trudeau took office, after two world wars and the Great Depression, Canada's federal debt was about $20 billion. When he quit in 1984, it was ten times that. The Department of Finance reported that, “By 1984-5, the debt was $206 billion and growing at an annual rate of almost 25 percent.” Although the successor Mulroney government cut the growth of annual program spending from 13.8 percent to 3.7 percent, by 1991 an average prime interest rate of 10.5 percent had compounded the Trudeau debt to $400 billion.

In short, the deficits that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin claim credit for reducing were created in the first place by one of their own, namely Pierre Elliott Trudeau. All they did was to cut services, cut the military, and download expenses to the provinces, which downloaded them, in turn, to municipalities.

[Borg]

Catchme - it is men like Ranger Rick and his guys and gals that have created the environment that allows you to speak as you do - you seem to show absolutely no regard for this. Do you truly despise him because he is a soldier who tells the truth?

Do you sew your own clothes from flour sacks as well?

The man speaks truth and he is villified.

Should he speak lies?

Above all it is vital that he does speak - otherwise people like you will not have a clue.

Remember he is in Afghanistan because his Lib leaders put him there after promising NATO that we would go. Once committed it is not easy to leave - unless it is ok with you to allow thousands who have supported the troops to die when their protection withdraws?

His oath did not prevent him from speaking the truth and it certainly does not prevent him from expressing opinion. I have taken that oath as well. Perhaps you would care to point out the section that does as you stated? I can assure you it is not there.

War monger? In fact there is no one who loves peace more than a soldier - but then again you would not know this as you live in Lotus Land - benefitting from past sacrifice.

Propping up a government? Not really. He is simply doing his job - killing those that NATO deems worthy of dying. Perhaps you need to chat with NATO and see if they would take you seriously? To win, one usually must kill enough of the opposition that THEY come to the table seeking surrender. That usually has a price.

The more he and his troops kill the better - do you know why? Probably not but that is life.

Emulating the Americans? Well, if it keeps the guys and gals alive I would support that. Would you care to show how a person on the giving end of a weapon is any different just because the uniform is different. He simply does his job - perhaps you once again need to take this up with NATO?

Then again perhaps you could give us some concrete examples of how he is similar to the Yanks and how that similarity is so detrimental to the Canucks in theatre. Give us your sage advice oh wise and distainful one.

Re-building by others? It is easy to re-build in areas that have been pacified.

Ever tried to do this when you are being shot at? I suppose not. The Canucks are not in the quiet area like many of the NATO members. You know, those like the Germans who refuse to assist tha Canucks in their job.

Your accusations are strong for a person who knows so little - perhaps that is why you are a person who probably needs to go over and see for yourself. There are jobs for people who are not in uniform - why not apply. If you are under 65 you have a shot at it.

When you drive to the store, take a vacation out of country, watch television of your choice vote or whatever - be thankful for those who created this environment - it was not the politician and it certainly was not the left leaning professor from Ottawa. I wonder if you can even fathom of whom I might be speaking.

I am sure I will get a a good broadside return - but that will simply prove my point.

I suspect it is people like you that caused Kipling to write the poem "Tommy". You might actually look it up on the internet - read it and think on it.

If you do not find it too intellectually challenging - you might even give us your thoughts on this poem and how it relates to you and your outlook on life.

Have a nice day,

Borg

--------------------------------------

Hillier, a man with integrity? Please show me what you think is his integrity?

I will say why I think he isn't.

His military says they are in a war in Afganistan, he says no "it's a mission".

He took an oath that bars him from expressing political opinion, he broke his oath.

He is propping up a corrupt Karzi government and says nary a word.

He is a war monger and sought to change our military's "mission" in Afghanistan, and the behaviour of our military personnal to resemble the USA's more, even though the Brits and the Dutch are having much greater success using a reconstruction approach, as were we before he took the USA approach..

[hiti]

Forget the debt that Liberals inherited from Mulroney. It was the $40 BILLION deficit that had Canada on the verge of bankruptcy and was the reason for the cut-backs to the provinces and all programs. Necessary cut-backs to balance the budget that the Reform party praised while they called for deeper cuts.

Touting his attack on the Canadian deficit “come hell or high water” with a flaunting confidence, Martin pulled funding out of almost all federal programs but military spending.

Martin's third budget, announced on March 6th, 1996 calls for the Department of National Defence (DND) to spend a total of $10.963-billion in 1996-97, down around $1 billion. There were more cuts but still military spending remained roughly 2 per cent higher than DND's 1980-81 budget.

Martin started to increase the military budgets in 1999.

2004, Martin spent $7 billion for new equipment, supplies and tax relief for Canadian military personnel. Martin said he would fast track a $1.3 billion plan to buy new, fixed-wing aircraft for search and rescue operations, a $3 billion plan to replace Canada's aging sea king fleet of helicopters for the Air Force, a $700 million purchase of new tanks called Strykers–an eight-wheel armoured vehicle that will replace the Leopard tanks. There was $2.158-billion announced in the 2005 Liberal budget for 2006-07 and 2007-08 with a total of $12.7 billion over the following five years.

Steve is just continuing Liberal programs and equipment procurements that Paul Martin budgeted for.

So yes, Rick Hillier is Steve's prop. Hillier also promised Paul Martin that he would have 800 soldiers for Sudan. Guess there is no glory in just helping starving people that Bush is not interested in.

[Catchme]

No, sorry it is NOT men like Hillier, who allow me to enjoy the freedom I have, it was men like my grandfathers and uncles and other men of their calibre. Big difference than the Hilliers of today IMV.

[weaponeer]

Hillier is an excellent CDS. Not a politician in uniform, but a real combat soldier. He's a warrior, something we have not had leading the CF in my 18 years. He is the best General Officer I have every known, and I have known several.

He has given the CF a new sense of pride, improved moral, and he LEADS. This straight talking soldier is something the weak minded lefties don't care for because he says unpleasent things they do not want to hear.

As for the "dark days" of the 1990's, they were dark for us. However, Canada did have a serious fiscal problems that needed to be sorted out. The CF is responsible to defend the Canadian way of life, and if that means suffering budget cuts to save Canada, then so be it for the time required.

The CDS is stating the facts as he sees them, and he is right. The prob here is the relationship between the Libs and the military. The libs have always had an arrogant condesending attitude towards the military and people who serve in the forces. Many lib PMs, King, Trudeau, Cheeton have had poor relatios with the military because of their prejudices towards soldiers, sailors & airmen. trudeau did not like the military or soldiers, neither did Chreeton. When the PPCLI was being sent to afghanistan in 2002 Chreeton came out to edmonton to say goodbye. I his speach he could not even get their regts name right. These guys are being sent off to war by this twit, and he doesn't even know who they are. MacKenzie King, the lib PM in WW2, he did not visit hospitals where wounded soldiers were staying unless he had no other choice, and he said after a visit with Canadian troops in Europe in WW2 that he was "brought to the point of sickness at being around these soldiers, I cannot stand their war jargon", the book Canadian Military History, pg 187. This is what a lib PM said about Canadians fighting & dying for his very existance.

The military has always been the military. The problem here is the libs, and their attitudes towards the military.

[Borg]

No, sorry it is NOT men like Hillier, who allow me to enjoy the freedom I have, it was men like my grandfathers and uncles and other men of their calibre. Big difference than the Hilliers of today IMV.

I am assuming - perhaps wrongly - that this was addressed to me.

If not sorry.

If it was was - why will you not do me the courtesy of responding to the rest of my post?

Divert? Change lanes? Not interested? Only care about your own opinion - others be damned?

Final question - is there anything conservative or military that does not immediately make you foam at the mouth and spout and denounce? Or do you figure all of us folks are dirt under your feet?

Surely there must be something that would at least merit SOME respect from you. Or are you completely against everything that wears a uniform or votes conservative and so on. You really hate ole Ranger Rick so much?

Your life seems almost lonely.

Over to you,

Borg

[weaponeer]

Borg,

These people are bigots, plain & simple. Look at thier posts, take out the words militarty, soldiers, police, Hillier etc.., and replace them with racial slurs, then see what they really are.....

Weaponeer

[Figleaf]

The man speaks truth and he is villified.

Should he speak lies?

He should shut up and do his job.

His job is not to mouth off about the choices of civilian government.

[weaponeer]

Whatever,

Had he said Chreeton was a great guy, I wish he was still around the libs would not at all be upset. He said something they did not want to hear, so he's bad.

The REAL prob is the lib attitude towards the military, it has always been arrogant and self-righteous. They have always looked down on the military and those who serve. Hillier called a spade a spade, good on him...

[Jean_Poutine]

Martin's third budget, announced on March 6th, 1996 calls for the Department of National Defence (DND) to spend a total of $10.963-billion in 1996-97, down around $1 billion. There were more cuts but still military spending remained roughly 2 per cent higher than DND's 1980-81 budget.

European countries spend a lot more than $10 billion on defense and they aren't considered big military spenders by US standards, nor are they immune to the sort of economic problems that Canada has faced.

If you look at this chart from the CBC, you can see that the Canadian defense budget was 2.1% of GDP or above from 1976 to 1993 when it was cut down to 1.1% of GDP, and it has not gone anywhere near 2% of GDP since. Although, Harper has set a long term goal of restoring the budget to 2% GDP - which is NATO average - and is the only one to do so.

Martin started to increase the military budgets in 1999.

2004, Martin spent $7 billion for new equipment, supplies and tax relief for Canadian military personnel. Martin said he would fast track a $1.3 billion plan to buy new, fixed-wing aircraft for search and rescue operations, a $3 billion plan to replace Canada's aging sea king fleet of helicopters for the Air Force, a $700 million purchase of new tanks called Strykers–an eight-wheel armoured vehicle that will replace the Leopard tanks. There was $2.158-billion announced in the 2005 Liberal budget for 2006-07 and 2007-08 with a total of $12.7 billion over the following five years.

Steve is just continuing Liberal programs and equipment procurements that Paul Martin budgeted for.

Martin's plans for the military wouldn't even restore half of what he cut.

Not to mention that tax payers got nothing for the $500 million that was lost when the helicopters that were supposed to replace the Sea Kings were cancelled, and the need to replace the Sea Kings remained.

The Stryker was another dumb idea. The Stryker is basically the same as a LAV III. I don't mean to sound like an armchair general, but it just makes sense to have a variety of equipment in inventory so that the commanding officer has options as the situation changes instead of having to wait for the procurement of new equipment, which can take years. With that in mind, why would you replace a tank with a light armored vehicle when you already have good light armored vehicles? I think the fact that the Leopards are being used in Afghanistan proves that point.

$12.7 billion over five years is peanuts. The Conservatives are spending $17 billion on new equipment and it still doesn't cover everything that needs to be taken care of. That's what happens when you procrastinate.

So yes, Rick Hillier is Steve's prop. Hillier also promised Paul Martin that he would have 800 soldiers for Sudan. Guess there is no glory in just helping starving people that Bush is not interested in.

You're entitled to your opinion - even if it's wrong - but it's not the military that's at fault for not being able to go beyond the current commitment; it's the fault of the government that cut funding and expected them to do more with less.

[Borg]

Actually, he is doing his job.

And the troops love him for it - best morale booster the military has had in years.

His predecessors did not - they sucked the golden tit at the expense of the troops - hence folks think Ranger Rick is out of line.

I might add - quoting directly from the article in the Star - I am sure it is your favourite paper -

Chief of defence staff denies blunt talk about past budget cuts is too political

Feb 17, 2007 04:30 AM

Bruce Campion-Smith

Ottawa Bureau

Quote - But Hillier made no apologies for his blunt talk, saying his job was to describe the state of the armed forces, "like it or not."

"We've gone through a decade of darkness and we're starting to come out it," he told reporters.

He denied he was straying into political waters or trying to signal a preference that the minority Conservatives – who have pledged $17 billion in new purchases, including helicopters and transport planes – remain in power.

"As the chief of defence staff, I care not who governs our country as long as they support the Canadian Forces," he said. End Quote

Read the last line of the quote and then go to the entire article if you like - link provided.

Entire article: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/182858

He has gonads AND brains - not sure what you have but I doubt it is much of either. Unfortunately you seem to represent the average Canucklehead today. Liberal social re-engineering has done wonders for people like you.

Wanna' drop that purse and get it on little fellow - or do you want me to tell your mommy to take you home and spank you? ;->

Glad he is leading the charge because I am sure you would not be up to the job.

Have a nice day.

Borg

The man speaks truth and he is villified.

Should he speak lies?

He should shut up and do his job.

His job is not to mouth off about the choices of civilian government.

[Wilber]

In my opinion Hillier has long been way too political for a serving general officer. He is a civil servant, not a spokesperson and has a responsibility to behave that way. If he can't do that part of the job, he's the wrong man for the job.

I was always under the impression that an officer's primary responsibility was to those who served under him. Something that the politicization of our military brass was making obsolete. Hillier seems to be a throw back to a time when that was still true and a damn good one at that. He sticks up for his people, that makes him a man to be respected.

[Borg]

Wilber - precisely.

He is not a snivel servant - he is a general - a soldier and a leader of men.

He took the same oath every other officer takes - fortunately this man takes his oath seriously.

Unfortunately for him - many Canadians do not understand he is doing what he is supposed to do - the Generals the Canadians have been used to - DID NOT DO THEIR JOBS - but people preceived them to be doing their jobs - while sucking the golden tit and worrying more about high priced jobs on the street.

The Canadian book - Tarnished Brass - illustrates what the military has been going through for many years.

Things have finally changed and folks need to get used to it.

Borg

In my opinion Hillier has long been way too political for a serving general officer. He is a civil servant, not a spokesperson and has a responsibility to behave that way. If he can't do that part of the job, he's the wrong man for the job.

I was always under the impression that an officer's primary responsibility was to those who served under him. Something that the politicization of our military brass was making obsolete. Hillier seems to be a throw back to a time when that was still true and a damn good one at that. He sticks up for his people, that makes him a man to be respected.

[Remiel]

If nothing else, Hillier should not have used the whole " decade of darkness " thing. To use that kind of analogy was foolish, and the same thing could of been said using plain, factual words. It's not always what you say, it's how you say it, as the proverb goes.

And weaponeer, before you say another word, think of all the soldiers who have ever served in the Canadian military who may have been liberal or socialist, and how they died for us just like their conservative comrades, and then keep your partisan crap to yourself. Your generalizations dishonour the memory of a great many more Canadians than you think. I respect the people in the Canadian military a great deal, but if you think protects you from my criticism, think again.

[mkclamp]

Gen. Hillier made those remarks in defence of the Canadian Forces. Regardless of his political stripe, the statements made are correct. However, can the blame be placed soley on the Liberals (of which I am a member) or the Conservative governments of the past, or all parties over the last few decades. Remember, it is the people who ultimately decide where tax dollars are spent. For the average person, military spending wasn't a big priority until 9/11 happened, then our defence became a priority. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future when and if the current demons that threaten us become non-existent. What will military spending look like then?

[Catchme]

Well Hillier has over stepped his bounds within the military rules, with impunity, and he is way wrong in doing so, and it speaks much to his character, or lack thereof. His speaking in support of the CPC, and condemning the Liberals, or indeed any regular forces military person speaking in support or denigration of a Canadian government, is breaking the military rules.

QR&O 19.44 limits political involument. It states

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:

(a) take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;

( make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or

© except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.

Hillier made a politcal speech, to us, the electors on behalf of the CPC. So he broke both 7 a and b.

Got to love, how the CPC condemn others for iimpugning the law, but it is quite fine when they do it. Much like Harper's spending 76k of our tax money, on trying to sell us the phoney mission/war in Afghanistan. Even though they railed at the Liberals, who were taken to task by Sheila Fraser in 2003, for using government tax dollars to fund self serving polls. Which is something much less serious than using tax dollars to pay for propaganda to use against us.

[geoffrey]

How was the speech on behalf of the CPC? He said the military was neglected, which it was, and isn't as much anymore. That's a factual statement, not political spin. He never endorsed the CPC.

[Catchme]

geoffery, oh if it was just a simple comment that the military was neglected it, it would still be criticism, which is not allowed either. But Hillier took it to anothet level, and lied by inference.

he told a meeting of defence experts that the military was coming out of the "decade of darkness" that began with the Liberal government in 1994.

So you see, he named a party labelled it in a negative manner and thereby juxpositioned the CPC and gave support to the to them by labelling the Liberals negatively.

This was also a lie, stating it was JUST the Liberals when Mulroney had started the cute, remember the helicopters sold to the Dutch, by Mulroney, which we are now buying back. This was mentioned earler in the thread as well.

Then after he was done labelling it erroneouly the "dcade of darkness" he conntinued on berating the Liberals.

Face it he broke the rules and came out partisian for the CPC, a huge NO NO!

[geoffrey]

So you see, he named a party labelled it in a negative manner and thereby juxpositioned the CPC and gave support to the to them by labelling the Liberals negatively.

Maybe he supports the NDP?

[Jean_Poutine]

geoffery, oh if it was just a simple comment that the military was neglected it, it would still be criticism, which is not allowed either. But Hillier took it to anothet level, and lied by inference.

he told a meeting of defence experts that the military was coming out of the "decade of darkness" that began with the Liberal government in 1994.

So you see, he named a party labelled it in a negative manner and thereby juxpositioned the CPC and gave support to the to them by labelling the Liberals negatively.

This was also a lie, stating it was JUST the Liberals when Mulroney had started the cute, remember the helicopters sold to the Dutch, by Mulroney, which we are now buying back. This was mentioned earler in the thread as well.

Then after he was done labelling it erroneouly the "dcade of darkness" he conntinued on berating the Liberals.

Face it he broke the rules and came out partisian for the CPC, a huge NO NO!

Bullshit!

Notice the quotes around decade of darkness? The words Liberal government are not in quotes, and are not his words. He did not mention the Liberals once in the speech. He did mention the cuts in the 90s, but he also said that they are rebuilding the military in a scope and scale that perhaps hasn't been seen in decades, and decades would not only include the Chrétien government, but the Mulroney government as well.

Now, how about you pull your foot out of your mouth and watch the speech here before commenting on it further.

[Catchme]

jean Poutine, try again with the attempted white wash, and please verbal abuse is not tolerated here, thank you.

Hillier followed O'Connor speaking at the same venue reitering, in fact, O'Connor's points and speaking of him glowingly.

He limited it to a decade, and quite clearly labelled it the 90's and the Liberal government trying to cut the deficit. He did not say "decades" and did not go back further than the Liberals.

"Those actions ... have now led to some deep wounds in the Canadian Forces over this past what I would call a decade of darkness," Hillier said.

Then Jean, there was this military rule breaking of his partisian endorsing, get it endorsing O'Connor:

His comments, which included a glowing endorsement of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, prompted a rebuke from Liberal MP Denis Coderre, who called Hillier a "prop" for the Conservatives.

Then he said it again:

"We've gone through a decade of darkness and we're starting to come out it," he told reporters

Of course, after all of that, he tried to say because of course he knew he crossed the line:

"As the chief of defence staff, I care not who governs our country as long as they support the Canadian Forces," he said.

No matter which way you try to split hairs Hillier was partisian, and that is unacceptable.

[weaponeer]

If nothing else, Hillier should not have used the whole " decade of darkness " thing. To use that kind of analogy was foolish, and the same thing could of been said using plain, factual words. It's not always what you say, it's how you say it, as the proverb goes.

And weaponeer, before you say another word, think of all the soldiers who have ever served in the Canadian military who may have been liberal or socialist, and how they died for us just like their conservative comrades, and then keep your partisan crap to yourself. Your generalizations dishonour the memory of a great many more Canadians than you think. I respect the people in the Canadian military a great deal, but if you think protects you from my criticism, think again.

I do think of those who have served, as I am one, and I have lost friends, so spare me the lecture. My best friend in the military is a diehard Liberal, as was I once. The Liberals DO have a problem with the military, and those who serve, and frankly that's the problem. Canadian History is full of examples of this. Trudeau said that thew military was "about as important as pig subsidies", MacKenzie King tells of "being sickened by soldiers" when he visited them in WW2. Jean could not have given a dam about the CF, and we all know it.

I have attended many formal occassions as a CF officer where senior politicians were present. With few exceptions the Liberals were condisending, and did display an attitude towards military officers. They were definatly uncomfortable around us. This is where my attitudes were "re-shaped", and my choice of support changed. This is not to say all Liberal politicians were like that, those whom had served did seek us out to talk to us. I had a really good conversation with Bill Graham one day while he toured our unit. McCalum visited our unit once, he was in over his head and it showed, he could not have cared less if he tried. With all the recent equip purchases, most Liberal MPs seem more concerned about whose getting "spin off" business than whether we have the right equip for the troops.

When a Canadian soldier died overseas, PM Mulroney would call the family, Jean did not. The Liberals did not stand up for the CF during the Somalia crisis, they dithered, and we lost the Airborne Regt. They had help on that one from the PCs on that one, I must admit.

Tory politicians were more friendly towards us. They ingauged in conversation, asked questions. I was at an event a few years ago that Ralph Klien attended. He came to speak to us, had a beer with us and told stories of his days in the RCAF.

As for the "dark days of the 1990's", they are behind us now. The CF did it's part to help preserve the Canadian way of life by taking huge budget cuts to help balance the books. In some ways we are a better, more efficient org for it, in other ways we are still really hurting because of it. Some good things from the 90's, many outdated peices of equip were retired, many surplus bases closed, HQs were reduced and streamlined, so it was not all bad.

The CF has contributed much to this country, people of all political stripes have served, and died, however these days those on the left are hostile towards us. Some of the posts here can support that.

As for the Liberal party, I cannot say what has happened to them. They used to be the party of the center, occassionally looking left or right, but maintaining the center. It seems they have taken a solid turn towards the left, and are headed that way, NDP lite.

As for myself, yes I support Harper and the Tories. Why, because most, not ALL, most of their values are in line with my own, and that's my right. I have been in the military 18 years, Liberal support used to be very high throught the CF, that is not the case today.

[Catchme]

So, if you are in the military, you have no problem breaking the military rules either like Hillier, eh?

QR&O 19.44 limits political involument. It states

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:

(a) take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;

( make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or

(b except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.

Labelling those on the left, as being against the military is short sighted and spurious at best.

Yes, I have a friend who was Airborne, and is still furious over the 4 paratroopers, whose actions prompted the whole disbanding of the Airborne. In fact, I myself have been a bit teed off about it since it happened as well. The Liberals did not do the correct thing in that regard.

Having said that, today's military, IMV is not that of WWI and II, and no compare can be made or paralells or prestige drawn from them.

[weaponeer]

You don't know the first thing about today's military or the military of WW1 & 2....

[Catchme]

You don't know the first thing about today's military or the military of WW1 & 2....

And you would know that how? Oh that's right you wouldn't, just another empty comment. Moreover, I did not man it in the way you took it.

For example, my Grandfather was a signalman and a runner between lines and trenches in WWI, they did not have the radio equipment, that today's military have. All communications were done by signal flags from a high point, or runners carrying messages. They had NO body armour to protect them and in the last days they barely had boots. What they faced was much harsher and way more deadly than what our military in Afghanistan is facing.

My grandfather, his brothers and cousins comprise a good portion of the people in the pics in the link below.

http://www.heritage.nf.ca/greatwar/gallery...ts/default.html

http://www.heritage.nf.ca/greatwar/gallery.../big_b3169.html

He lived through this unfortunately not many did and he lost brothers and cousins in one fell swoop. He was there until it was over, and he was there from the beginning. Please do not again dismiss his actions and that of my extended family because of your personal perceptions of me. It is unworthy of a Canadian military person. My grandfather was gased in the trenches, but came home to live a life fiull of nightmares and PTSD, only to die later from wide spread cancer, in Calgary Veterans Hospital from being gased at Ypres. Take a look at the History of the First 500, and see if you think you could measure up.

Our Regiment suffered very heavily, but only in proportion to the indomitable courage and fortitude displayed under most adverse conditions, and even in the face of death itself. It is said that no other unit suffered so heavily in proportion to the number of men engaged. One hundred men were report killed, 210 missing, and 374 wounded. No action could be more fitting than that this field should be bought by the voluntary subscriptions of the people of Newfoundland and forever held in memory of the men who sacrificed their lives that day. July 1, 1916, will be remembered in the history of our country as at once glorious and tragic. Regarding the conduct of the Regiment, Sir Douglas Haig telegraphed: “The heroism and devotion to duty they displayed on the 1st July has never been surpassed.” In a letter to Sir E. P. Morris (now Lord Morris) the Lieutenant-General who commanded the corps said

And BTW how is Harper about phoning the families, oh I know he doesn't call, if he did you would've mentioned he did, so he is not too much different then Chretien in that regards, eh?

And Harper was not even goiing to let those brought home to be filmed coming home as has been the long standing Canadian tradition. So, truthfully he is even less than Chretien was in the areas of being non-supportive, and more politically motivated as opposed to actual caring.

Also, I see that you failed to explain why, if you are military, you feel you have a right to break the military rules as were posted, that you are breaking. Care to offer up an explanation of why you feel you have the right to break the rules? No I thought not.