Military Spending

[weaponeer]

Actually Harper called my friend in hospital whose missing a leg. As well, Hillier flew out to Edmonton to visit him.

Your relatives have served Canada well, you should be proud. Both my grandfathers served in WW2, my mom's grandfather served in WW1 with the German army. You can't win 'em all. Serveral of my great uncles also served, one was a POW in Burma.

My "beef" is towards people, any people, that spout off garbage they know nothing about. There are plenty of issues discussed here I am not up to speed on, enviromental issues for example. I don't go into those threads spouting nonsense, I have opinions, I ask questions to see if what I think is valid. I have learned alot. I still cannot understand Global Warming, and why it was -34 here in North Bay, but whatever, I'll learn.

I have read your post about he military issues, and frankly I see you as an anti-military zealot. Sorry, that's how you come across. ArmyGuy is in Afghanistan, and you profess to know more about what's going on there that he does. I was ther in 2002, going back in Apr. I hope I don't get a call from Steve.....

[PolyNewbie]

jbg:I doubt PN knows what he is talking about. Ask his shrink.

I think jbg doesn't like me because I understand banking and the role lawyers really play in society. This stuff is supposed to be kept hidden. jbg could never talk about the banks without having to look over his shoulder all the time.

He is an idiot too. He cannot pick anything wrong with my posts and throws around insults like a ten year old.

[weaponeer]

PN, You get turned down for a mortgage of something???

[madmax]

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?

While a logical argument, I am laughing out loud.

[Argus]

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

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest the only members of the Canadian military voting Liberal or NDP are the overpaid Francophone clerks who call themselves officers back at HQ.

[Argus]

jbg:I doubt PN knows what he is talking about. Ask his shrink.

I think jbg doesn't like me because I understand banking and the role lawyers really play in society.

Or, and just consider this possibility, he thinks you're a fruitcake.

My point was exactly right, CNN and the BBC lied. CNN is in fact Jewish controlled and many reporters such as Anderson Cooper and Wold Blitzer work for the CIA or are members of the CFR - hardly unbiased. - Polynewbie

[Argus]

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

True though.

[madmax]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest the only members of the Canadian military voting Liberal or NDP are the overpaid Francophone clerks who call themselves officers back at HQ.

Part of your limb is breaking. Be hard Pressed to Find a Quebec NDP supporter, let alone a Military Francphone Clerk Officer NDP supporter.

If I could prove their voting recording, I would be my entire bank account, RRSPs and Investments.

Most reg soldiers when I was in couldn't give to dung heaps about politics and parties. Only PARTIES with beer and women were important.

But a FrancoPhone Clerk Officer might have a good % of being a Liberal, or a PQ/BQ supporter as these have been the only real parties of choice since the Progressive Conservative BQ split.

[madmax]

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

True though.

You ready to sign up?

[Jean_Poutine]

Catchme,

Hillier said word for word:

"We have been re-equipping the forces with an energy and a scale and a scope that has not been seen in recent years, perhaps even decades."

I've watched the whole thing from beginning to end while you're simply grabbing quotes from a news article. So, don't tell me what he did or didn't say.

I've given you a link to where you can watch the speech for yourself, yet you continue to spout on without knowing what you're talking about because you obviously haven't taken the time to watch it. You're like a person critiquing a book by reading someone elses review of the book instead of the book itself. If you want to make an ass out of yourself by talking about something you have not taken the time to check out, by all means do so, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Remiel]

You're a hack, Argus.

Weaponeer provided a perfectly good rebuttal, and could of been a lot angrier and confrontational, given my previous tone. You, who have nothing invested in the exchange, decide to make another inane comment. No wonder I am genuinely surprised every time you post something that isn't complete bull.

[Figleaf]

The double standards employed by the Right are on good display once more:

On the one hand, fallaciously criticical when judges discharge their constitutionally ordained function of being a check on the legislature, but on the other hand, cheerleading when military leadership oversteps itself into civilian politics.

Speaking as a rational centrist, I find that the incoherent inability to sustain theoretical consistency is the most telling fault of the right wing today. Such inconsistencies, falling always in the direction of predictable prejudices, do more to undermine the right wing than any other feature.

[Jean_Poutine]

The double standards employed by the Right are on good display once more:

On the one hand, fallaciously criticical when judges discharge their constitutionally ordained function of being a check on the legislature, but on the other hand, cheerleading when military leadership oversteps itself into civilian politics.

Speaking as a rational centrist, I find that the incoherent inability to sustain theoretical consistency is the most telling fault of the right wing today. Such inconsistencies, falling always in the direction of predictable prejudices, do more to undermine the right wing than any other feature.

If a modest budget of 2% GDP is maintained for the military, I wouldn't have as much to say about it, but that is not the case, and given the facts, I think the military should be a top priority for the government. My position on that does not translate into support for the Conservative party on every other issue, but naturally I'm more likely to support the party that is most likely to address what I consider to be most important.

Another area in which I would like to see change which the Conservatives have pushed for is democratic reform, but that's hard to address with a minority government.

A centrist should be able to see pros and cons to each side. Obviously if someone can see no good in the Conservative position on any issue they'd be firmly fixed in the Liberal/left-wing camp. So tell me, if you're such a centrist, what is it that you are able to agree with the Conservatives on?

[Argus]

You're a hack, Argus.

Nonsense. I'm a genius. You just think I'm a hack because you're too stupid to recognize my genius.

[Figleaf]

The double standards employed by the Right are on good display once more:

On the one hand, fallaciously criticical when judges discharge their constitutionally ordained function of being a check on the legislature, but on the other hand, cheerleading when military leadership oversteps itself into civilian politics.

Speaking as a rational centrist, I find that the incoherent inability to sustain theoretical consistency is the most telling fault of the right wing today. Such inconsistencies, falling always in the direction of predictable prejudices, do more to undermine the right wing than any other feature.

If a modest budget of 2% GDP is maintained for the military, I wouldn't have as much to say about it, but that is not the case, and given the facts, I think the military should be a top priority for the government. My position on that does not translate into support for the Conservative party on every other issue, but naturally I'm more likely to support the party that is most likely to address what I consider to be most important.

I agree. I would never support the Conservative party, but I do support proper funding for our military.

Another area in which I would like to see change which the Conservatives have pushed for is democratic reform, but that's hard to address with a minority government.

One of the most unfortunate things Harper has done is abandon the Reform Party legacy in favor of old-style crony politics.

A centrist should be able to see pros and cons to each side. Obviously if someone can see no good in the Conservative position on any issue they'd be firmly fixed in the Liberal/left-wing camp. So tell me, if you're such a centrist, what is it that you are able to agree with the Conservatives on?

I don't accept your premise. If any political party is completely wrong, being a centrist does not make you beholden to accept their nonsense out of some notion of 'balance' or whatever. As a centrist, I have no obligation to give credence to the Natural Law or Marxist Leninist parties, nor to the Conservative Party.

However, FYI, as mentioned, I agree with proper funding for the military. I have agreed with Harper occasionally telling the Bush administration where they are mistaken. I have no problem with Harper not catering to the demands of the Ottawa media corps. So, MOST of what Harper is about is totally wrong, but not ALL of it.

[White Doors]

The government should get the Canadian forces funding back up to 2% of GDP asap. There is alot of work ahead of us however getting upgraded equipment for the Navy and Airforce as well. Therefore we will need to actually spend more than 2% of GDP to get our capability level back up there with countries of our standing.

[Catchme]

Jean Poutine,

Yes, actually I have listened to it, and am amazed at how far you’ve gone in denying Hillier's partisanship, and from a completely erroneous position, I may add. Did you actually listen to it? Because ALL the newspaper quotes were quite correct, in fact IMV they did not go far enough.

Yes, you are right, he did say in “years perhaps decades” at the very beginning, but he also said; “Those actions, dollar deprived, have now led to some deep wounds in ... the Canadian Forces over this past, what I would call, a decade of darkness,"

More importantly, what they missed him saying, which was far more pointed and partisan, was:

“re-equipping with energy on a scope that we have not seen in years, perhaps decades, and with a speed which would’ve been unbelievable just 2 years ago.”

So, he pinpointed his approval, of the CPC even more firmly than his “decade of darkness”. But even that wasn’t enough, because he went on to pour out wonderful amazing partisan things about O’Connor:

“and great credit goes to Gord O’Connor, his work, his effect, his stubbornness in dealing ..And his moving, caring and driving a bureaucracy to achieve all we need..

Now, one would think that Hillier just couldn’t get, anymore partisan than he had been, as really it was Martin who actually got the equipment they are using now. But he made absolutely no mention of that or Martin. If he was NOT being partisan he would’ve. In fact, he was basically chastising the Liberals all the way through, it partisanship to the 8th degree. However, not content with that, he actually narrowed it further and went to the nth degree of partisanship by saying:

“… most important over the past 1 to 2 years now, we have begun to realize the impact of the reductions from 1994.”

And right there, he completely disregarded the cuts of Mulroney, prior to 1994 and focused it in a significantly partisan way against the Liberals and for the CPC.

So, one can see Hiller really takes his oaths and his military rules seriously, NOT. He was campaign stumping to the military personal listening, on behalf of the CPC and nothing more. He is NOT a civilian, and he passed the accepable line of military conduct and broke rules.

[newbie]

Nonsense. I'm a genius...

And a real legend in your own mind.

[Canadian Blue]

What is a genius?

[Catchme]

The double standards employed by the Right are on good display once more:

On the one hand, fallaciously criticical when judges discharge their constitutionally ordained function of being a check on the legislature, but on the other hand, cheerleading when military leadership oversteps itself into civilian politics.

Speaking as a rational centrist, I find that the incoherent inability to sustain theoretical consistency is the most telling fault of the right wing today. Such inconsistencies, falling always in the direction of predictable prejudices, do more to undermine the right wing than any other feature.

Exactly correct, along with the attempts to disavow their words and actions.

[Canadian Blue]

Personally, I hate the labels with regards to right and left, it's too simplistic. Really no one is that ideological, I prefer to address everything issue by issue. Besides most people tend to refute such labels. I don't give much weight to the Rush Limbaugh's, or the Naomi Klein's of the world. They never seem to believe that their is a middle ground.

[M.Dancer]

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.

Chiefs of Staff are a lot more than "Civil Servants" ...there are also the chief lobbiest and supporters of the military. After decades of dangerous underfunding by both the tories and the grits, he sees an opportunity to avoid a funding crisis.....

Remember, there are still cases where full time CF personal have to moonlight to make ends meet, let alone serve on equipment that would be consdidered old in the bolivian armed forces........

[M.Dancer]

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.

zactly

[madmax]

Remember, there are still cases where full time CF personal have to moonlight to make ends meet, let alone serve on equipment that would be consdidered old in the bolivian armed forces........

The equipment may be coming but few understand the financial crunch faced by many CF personel.

[Catchme]

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.

zactly

Not zactly, at all:

Hilliers words far more pointed and partisan, were:

“re-equipping with energy on a scope that we have not seen in years, perhaps decades, and with a speed which would’ve been unbelievable just 2 years ago.”

So, he pinpointed his approval, of the CPC even more firmly than his “decade of darkness”. But even that wasn’t enough, because he went on to pour out wonderful amazing partisan things about O’Connor:

“and great credit goes to Gord O’Connor, his work, his effect, his stubbornness in dealing ..And his moving, caring and driving a bureaucracy to achieve all we need..

Hillier just couldn’t get, anymore partisan than he had been, what he forgot to mention was that it was Martin who actually got the equipment the Military in Afghanistan are using now. If he was NOT being partisan he would’ve mentioned that the resupplying of the military commenced under the Liberals. Instead, taking a page out of the CPC manual he trashed the Liberals instead. Not content with that, he actually pushed his partisanship further by saying:

“… most important over the past 1 to 2 years now, we have begun to realize the impact of the reductions from 1994.”

He completely disregarded the cuts of Mulroney, prior to 1994, not only that, his aforementioned "decade of darkness" was shored up with him specifying a date of 1994, and focused it against the Liberals, and for the CPC.