Military Spending

[Wilber]

Perhaps you wouldn't be, perhaps you may be criticizing him for wrongful war mongering policies and making the situation in the world worse and needlessly endangering canadian military lives. And perhaps endangering your kid's life needlessly. Good thing you'r just arm chairing your support though, and your "kid" is not actually in the military.

The previous government defined the mission and sent our troops to Afghanistan, not Hillier. The present government has confirmed that commitment and extended it, not Hillier. It is Hillier's duty to carry out that mission and his responsibility to see that his people have the resources to do it or explain to the people of Canada why they don't. If telling the public about the real state of their military and how it got there helps fulfill that responsibility, then he should do it.

If you look at Canada's history during the two world wars, we started off by sending people who were poorly led, poorly trained and poorly equipped and ended up with armed forces as good as any in the world. In between a lot of people were killed unnecessarily not through fault of their own but because the government and people which sent them as well as their own leadership let them down during peace time. Our military has slowly deteriorated since the Korean War and when our NATO commitments ended in Europe with the end of the Cold War, this country took a vacation from it's military commitments and the rot accelerated.

For the first time in decades we have both a public and a government taking a real interest in our military's actual needs and Hillier is pushing to extend that interest and exploit it as long as it lasts. I say, go Brian go.

I'll give Martin credit where credit is due. He appointed Hillier and I don't recall him ever going off the deep end when Hillier called a spade a spade, even if it didn't reflect that well on his government. Good on him for that.

No, my kid is not a member of the military, he is a member of another paramilitary group called the police. Every police force should have a chief like Hillier. One who takes advantage of every opportunity to improve the lot of his members and is willing to stick his neck out to do so. A real cop, not a politician in a uniform who's chief priority is his career. If that means telling the public what his force is capable of, what it is not and why, then he should do it. The police and the military do not belong to the government, they belong to the people and the people have a right to know from the horses mouth.

[Army Guy]

Catchme:

No, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, he pin pointed exact time frames, please do go back and look. He specifically stated 1994 forward.

Yes he did pin piont dates, as the below quote states starting from 1991, and yes he did say the worst being in 1994. so actually he has implicated both parties...Taken from the Ottawa citizen. Also if you read the second article it goes to show he has been crictical of the CPC, and he has been vocal about that as well.

ottawa citizen

The "decade of darkness" Gen. Hillier spoke about was the 1990s. Starting with the 1991 federal budget, successive Conservative and Liberal governments reduced the funding and strength of the Canadian Forces in what some in the military then called the "death of a thousand cuts." Yes, the 1994 budget Gen. Hillier referred to was one of the worst, but every budget during those 10 years announced closures, reductions and cutbacks that affected our operations. It was very discouraging for the men and women of the forces, and Gen. Hillier was reminding us of just one example of this negative trend.

He neglected to mention it was the Liberals who started restocking the military and that indeed the new equipment presently being used in Afghanistan was got by the Liberals.

Yes the liberals did spend money on the military, and most of the new equipment is in Afgan, only because thats all they purchased for, for example 8 M777 155mm towed guns were purchased 6 in afgan and 2 in canada for training...yes they did buy Naylas patrol vehs all but a few are in afgan except a few in Canada for training purposes...see the trend here, yes they did purchase equipment now being used in canada across the forces, such as new C7A2 wpns, what we call peanut purchases...they were forced to spend money to keep us safe in Afgan, and only to keep the rest of Canadian citizens quite...now what is not mentioned is the equipment that has retired form the forces during there stay. Most of the Leo fleet, M109 fleet, M113 APC fleet, 105mm french Gait towed arty piece,and theres plenty more and thats just the army, theres still a list from the airforce and navy, equipment retired and no new purchases on the horizen. Equipment used and needed to protect Canada. So when you compare all the cash the liberals spent on thier 12 years in office would it add up to the 13 bil that the CPC spent in the first year..

Apparently, your definition of partisan rhetoric has flaws. And he was definitely NOT apolitical.

Hey i'll be the first to admit i'm no liberal, as i've seen first hand how the liberal cuts effected the military, and how we were treated, Cretien went years with out purchasing anything, in fact even said on national TV when questioned about it, the military is never happy, give them a dollar and they will ask for another...and yet he did mange to fast track those ever important lear jets the military uses to ferry him around.... but the CDS has slamed both governments perhaps not equally but then again CPC has just started thier rein.

[Jean_Poutine]

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.

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are completely wrong, and to suggest so only shows that you are indeed partisan.

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.

If you consider the military to be a priority, would it not make sense to support the party that's most likely to do something about it?

Which is more important to you, the issues or the parties? I think it makes more sense to look at the issues, prioritize them, and then look at which party is most likely to address the important ones.

[Jean_Poutine]

Fascistic impulses aside, folks, do you really not get why the military should stay out of government?

A commander has a duty to the people he is responsible for, not a particular government. He is subject to the governments orders but his responsibility is to make sure his people are equipped to carry out those orders. If that means going public with its deficiencies then so be it. The people also have a right to be informed about the status of their military from those who really know, not just those who have to win the next election.

Are you saying that no one in government employ should ever be allowed to comment on deficiencies in their departments?

This reminds me of how General Romeo Dallaire spoke to the media during the Rwanda mission to try to embarrass governments - including the Canadian government - into doing more. It was a smart move, but by the argument that Hillier's critics are making, he shouldn't have done it. By their reasoning, it was wrong for Dallaire to talk to the media about politicians.

[Jean_Poutine]

Years of huge deficits were replaced by budget surplus. Shouldn't be too hard to find how much was went to pay down the debt.

There is little reason to believe that the current government can put as much towards the debt, without risking going into deficit. Revenues could be down and expenditures could be increasing. Have to wait and see what this "Fiscal Imbalance" stuff costs.

Over the course of about a decade, the federal government accumulated about $70 billion in surplus, and most of it was put towards debt. The Conservatives put the last surplus - $13 billion - towards debt, but you're right in that it's not likely to continue, nor should it. Once the budget is under control, I think it makes more sense to try to grow the economy and shrink the debt as a percentage of GDP than to spend decades paying it off little by little.

To spur economic growth, I think they should use targeted tax cuts, and make post secondary education more accessible through increased loans and grants.

One simple way for the federal government to free up billions is to revise the equalization program. Quebec has the second largest population; therefore, a large work force. It is also rich in resources and has good infrustructure. It has the second largest city, and cities are economic centers. Quebec doesn't need $5-6 billion from Alberta and Ontario each year just because the provincial government doesn't budget well or runs into difficulties. Both Ontario and Alberta have had difficulties too, but that doesn't make them have not provinces. The equilization program should be used to help less developed areas such as the territories and maritimes.

[madmax]

But you are correct, you would not be hearing from me, had Hillier also praised the Liberals, as then he would NOT have being partisan, and he would've been giving credit where credit was due.

I totally disagree.

It is NOT about what I want to hear, it is about what is fact, and what is breaking military rules. Had Hillier come out and praised only the LIberals and trashed another party, I would have been saying the same thing.

Then what are your thoughts on the O'Conner Hillier feud that has been going on this last little while?

[Jean_Poutine]

Yes the liberals did spend money on the military, and most of the new equipment is in Afgan, only because thats all they purchased for, for example 8 M777 155mm towed guns were purchased 6 in afgan and 2 in canada for training...yes they did buy Naylas patrol vehs all but a few are in afgan except a few in Canada for training purposes....

Yeah, the Liberals bought what, about two dozen Nyalas? Given that the vehicle is specifically designed to deal with one of the biggest threats faced in Afghanistan, you'd think it'd be more of a priority. I remember watching Rep. Gene Taylor on the Washington Journal explaining how the US set the goal of having 4000 vehicles with v-shaped hulls like the Nyala in inventory by January 2008 for the Marines. Now, the Canadian military doesn't need equipment in the kind of numbers that the US does, but I'd think that 100-200 Nyalas be more appropriate than a couple dozen. The only reason I can see for such low numbers is for a trial while considering alternatives.

A similar vehicle that the Canadian government should consider is the Buffalo. The inside of each tire is solid steel. So, you don't have to worry about changing flat tires. It also has a robotic arm to deal with potential explosive threats. Given that the emphasis is on protection rather than on firepower, even people on the far left should be able to support such a purchase.

I also think they should buy enough M777s for the entire Canadian military to bring that capability up to date.

[Jean_Poutine]

Then what are your thoughts on the O'Conner Hillier feud that has been going on this last little while?

Good point.

[madmax]

Good point.

Hold that thought for the next time we butt heads

[jdobbin]

Then what are your thoughts on the O'Conner Hillier feud that has been going on this last little while?

I think Hillier is treading thin ice with O'Connor most certainly. I've read a few articles saying there is no love lost between the two and that Hillier is dragging his feet on domestic military policy. He doesn't believe in it.

[Catchme]

It is NOT about what I want to hear, it is about what is fact, and what is breaking military rules. Had Hillier come out and praised only the LIberals and trashed another party, I would have been saying the same thing.

Then what are your thoughts on the O'Conner Hillier feud that has been going on this last little while?

Spin and propaganda trying to cover Hillier's partisanship!

[madmax]

Spin and propaganda trying to cover Hillier's partisanship!

The truth is more problematic, then a "coverup".

[Catchme]

Spin and propaganda trying to cover Hillier's partisanship!

The truth is more problematic, then a "coverup".

Not sure what you are meaning?

[Wilber]

This reminds me of how General Romeo Dallaire spoke to the media during the Rwanda mission to try to embarrass governments - including the Canadian government - into doing more. It was a smart move, but by the argument that Hillier's critics are making, he shouldn't have done it. By their reasoning, it was wrong for Dallaire to talk to the media about politicians.

How was he wrong? It was politicians who were responsible for not doing anything.

[Jean_Poutine]

This reminds me of how General Romeo Dallaire spoke to the media during the Rwanda mission to try to embarrass governments - including the Canadian government - into doing more. It was a smart move, but by the argument that Hillier's critics are making, he shouldn't have done it. By their reasoning, it was wrong for Dallaire to talk to the media about politicians.

How was he wrong? It was politicians who were responsible for not doing anything.

Exactly

He wasn't wrong, but according to some, people in the military shouldn't be pointing out where politicians have failed to act on defense issues. Personally, I think their opinions should be welcomed, just as a doctors opinion should be welcomed on the health care system, because they speak from experience.

[madmax]

Spin and propaganda trying to cover Hillier's partisanship!

The truth is more problematic, then a "coverup".

Not sure what you are meaning?

I am saying that the conflict is real. That it is not a coverup derived by spin doctors for our consumption.

Like any issue, you have to read some articles that go a ways back. Goose Bay, Trenton, JTF2. And how Hillier says OConner is suggesting Civilian Defence For Political Reasons. Their is alot of truth in the statement.

Likewise, Hillier is being labelled as campaigning for his next job.

I am not fond Hillier. But what you are labelling Hillier being biased about, is more about Hilliers attitude then his actual bias. Not that he doesn't have one. But at the end of the day, he used his typical colourful style to speak about cut backs in the 90s. Somethat that other government departments have pointed out in their fields during this same period, without any flare.

Hillier has a vision of the military and where he wants it to be. To heck with anyone whom disagrees with him. O'Conner included.

[geoffrey]

Likewise, Hillier is being labelled as campaigning for his next job.

What be that job?

[weaponeer]

My your partisanship is showing, which is why I suppose you are ok with Hillier being a poor role model and breaking military rules.

Hillier is a great role model. If my kid was in the military I would be thanking my stars he had someone like that for a boss.

Perhaps you wouldn't be, perhaps you may be criticizing him for wrongful war mongering policies and making the situation in the world worse and needlessly endangering canadian military lives. And perhaps endangering your kid's life needlessly. Good thing you'r just arm chairing your support though, and your "kid" is not actually in the military.

Because he was and is wrong. On all accounts. Please read:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....16entry188216

My faith is in the people on the ground in Afghanistan military and civilian. I have no faith in "experts" that judge from a distance.

You can link articles from these "experts" form here to high hell, I have no faith in defeatists. Weak moraled, weak minded people who have no idea what there are talking about.

These people are related to the the same folks who said we could not win WW2, we could not defeat communism. Hard work and sacrafice, that's what will win this.....

[weaponeer]

He should be the chief lobbyist, but not spokesperson. His political or policy views should never be heard, or even acknowledged or speculated on in the public sphere.

Ya right, he is supposed to let politicians stick up for the military. That's how they got so run down in the first place.

Fascistic impulses aside, folks, do you really not get why the military should stay out of government?

What do you think? Should fire chiefs be allowed to publickly say they have a funding crisis? How about cops? Water supply technicians? Chief Medical Officers? Shouldn't they all be slient and let the politicians take care of us>?

Apparently they do not get it figleaf, nor do they get why there are rules against military partisanship commentary and actions.

There is a difference between saying there are funding crisis, which many before Hillier did say, than chastizing a former government in order to make the current government appear better.

Hillier ignored the fact that it was the Liberals and Martin who stated the resupplying of the military, and placed all the gratuity for this, upon the CPC, when the military has NOT even yet received what has been ordered. Not only was he breaking the rules he was being disengenuous.

Then his fullout Gord is wonderful took it well over the top.

One does not hear Chief Medical Officers, fire chiefs, or the RCMP saying such things. Yes, they say there are monies needed, and they say they got money they do not prostrate themselves to the government, or officials, who did so, nor do they berate those who didn't in a partisan way.

Again, those that think this is okay are extremely partisan.

AGAIN, had he given the fiberals praise, we would not be hearing from you. If he said what you WANT to hear, you would not care......

My your partisanship is showing, which is why I suppose you are ok with Hillier being a poor role model and breaking military rules.

But you are correct, you would not be hearing from me, had Hillier also praised the Liberals, as then he would NOT have being partisan, and he would've been giving credit where credit was due.

It is NOT about what I want to hear, it is about what is fact, and what is breaking military rules. Had Hillier come out and praised only the LIberals and trashed another party, I would have been saying the same thing.

No, it is about what YOU want to hear. I have read all your post, you don't like military people, and you don't want to hear the opinions of us, because you don't seem to think we should have one. No, we should not go on TV in uniform and campaign for on party or another, no we should not post party signs on our bases, but the CDS is responsible to defend the military, he is the leader of the military. The Libs DO NOT deserve credit for anything towards the military. They bought LAV3 vehicles because they were CHEAP and made in Canada. The fact it turned out to be an OK vehicle was an accident. As it turns out they did not buy enough to outfit each regt properly anyway.

THIS IS EXACALLY what I have been trying to get across in other posts on this & other threads about the military and it's relationship with Liberals. Catchme's condesending attutude is the same as I have seen and experienced from many Libs. We in the military are beneth her/them, and have no right to an opinion unless it is the same as hers/there's.

[Wilber]

Hillier has a vision of the military and where he wants it to be. To heck with anyone whom disagrees with him. O'Conner included.

Hillier is the top guy in the military, lets hope he does have a vision of where he wants it to be. That's why he is there, or it should be.

[weaponeer]

Spin and propaganda trying to cover Hillier's partisanship!

The truth is more problematic, then a "coverup".

Not sure what you are meaning?

I am saying that the conflict is real. That it is not a coverup derived by spin doctors for our consumption.

Like any issue, you have to read some articles that go a ways back. Goose Bay, Trenton, JTF2. And how Hillier says OConner is suggesting Civilian Defence For Political Reasons. Their is alot of truth in the statement.

Likewise, Hillier is being labelled as campaigning for his next job.

I am not fond Hillier. But what you are labelling Hillier being biased about, is more about Hilliers attitude then his actual bias. Not that he doesn't have one. But at the end of the day, he used his typical colourful style to speak about cut backs in the 90s. Somethat that other government departments have pointed out in their fields during this same period, without any flare.

Hillier has a vision of the military and where he wants it to be. To heck with anyone whom disagrees with him. O'Conner included.

Hillier came to see us doing our pre-deployment training. He spoke to everyone, then took us officers aside and had some words. There is not doubt in my mind he is the best General I have ever met in 18 years of service. He is a soldier, not a politician, that makes peole nervous. Canadians in the know are more used to seeing a Baril, or De Chastiline as the CDS, a quiet "lap-dog". Hillier is a combat leader, more in line with the CDS generals that ran the military in the 1960's & '70's, fromer WW2 officers.

You cannot believe everything you read in the press. The media is mostly speculation, not fact. Nobody here, or in the media is present at high level defence meetings, so it is speculation.

O'Conner & Hillier are BOTH combat officers, from the Canadian Armoured Corps. I have met both of these men, had dinner with O'Conner. I have full faith in their leadership. I would follow Hillier to hell & back. You do not see military members complaining about them...

As for the so called rift, media speculation. There is not doubt they have differences, they're human remember. Our defence policy has always been Canada First, this is nothing new. You start defending Canada on the beaches of Europe and the Middle East, ot the beaches of Nova Scotia........

[Catchme]

Spin and propaganda trying to cover Hillier's partisanship!

The truth is more problematic, then a "coverup".

Not sure what you are meaning?

I am saying that the conflict is real. That it is not a coverup derived by spin doctors for our consumption.

Like any issue, you have to read some articles that go a ways back. Goose Bay, Trenton, JTF2. And how Hillier says OConner is suggesting Civilian Defence For Political Reasons. Their is alot of truth in the statement.

Likewise, Hillier is being labelled as campaigning for his next job.

I am not fond Hillier. But what you are labelling Hillier being biased about, is more about Hilliers attitude then his actual bias. Not that he doesn't have one. But at the end of the day, he used his typical colourful style to speak about cut backs in the 90s. Somethat that other government departments have pointed out in their fields during this same period, without any flare.

Hillier has a vision of the military and where he wants it to be. To heck with anyone whom disagrees with him. O'Conner included.

Hillier came to see us doing our pre-deployment training. He spoke to everyone, then took us officers aside and had some words. There is not doubt in my mind he is the best General I have ever met in 18 years of service. He is a soldier, not a politician, that makes peole nervous. Canadians in the know are more used to seeing a Baril, or De Chastiline as the CDS, a quiet "lap-dog". Hillier is a combat leader, more in line with the CDS generals that ran the military in the 1960's & '70's, fromer WW2 officers.

You cannot believe everything you read in the press. The media is mostly speculation, not fact. Nobody here, or in the media is present at high level defence meetings, so it is speculation.

O'Conner & Hillier are BOTH combat officers, from the Canadian Armoured Corps. I have met both of these men, had dinner with O'Conner. I have full faith in their leadership. I would follow Hillier to hell & back. You do not see military members complaining about them...

As for the so called rift, media speculation. There is not doubt they have differences, they're human remember. Our defence policy has always been Canada First, this is nothing new. You start defending Canada on the beaches of Europe and the Middle East, ot the beaches of Nova Scotia........

What do we have to be defended from?

Not that you're post was not fascinating, as it was, and I will definitely do some research, but it is going to take a lot of convincing to revise my opion of Hillier. But there is room, and I am still digesting his vision of what he wants the military to be.

There was a time that I believed in that vision, or one similar, however, since then, I have become more informed as to the ways and whys of creating wars and military expansionism.

Canada is not a war like nation, it has gone and done what it perceived to be it's duty, when asked and when needed. The military of today, appears to want Canada to be militaristic in nature. That seems more like ego gratification to me, rather than rational thinking responsible citizens of the world.

I find it very problematic

[weaponeer]

Spin and propaganda trying to cover Hillier's partisanship!

The truth is more problematic, then a "coverup".

Not sure what you are meaning?

I am saying that the conflict is real. That it is not a coverup derived by spin doctors for our consumption.

Like any issue, you have to read some articles that go a ways back. Goose Bay, Trenton, JTF2. And how Hillier says OConner is suggesting Civilian Defence For Political Reasons. Their is alot of truth in the statement.

Likewise, Hillier is being labelled as campaigning for his next job.

I am not fond Hillier. But what you are labelling Hillier being biased about, is more about Hilliers attitude then his actual bias. Not that he doesn't have one. But at the end of the day, he used his typical colourful style to speak about cut backs in the 90s. Somethat that other government departments have pointed out in their fields during this same period, without any flare.

Hillier has a vision of the military and where he wants it to be. To heck with anyone whom disagrees with him. O'Conner included.

Hillier came to see us doing our pre-deployment training. He spoke to everyone, then took us officers aside and had some words. There is not doubt in my mind he is the best General I have ever met in 18 years of service. He is a soldier, not a politician, that makes peole nervous. Canadians in the know are more used to seeing a Baril, or De Chastiline as the CDS, a quiet "lap-dog". Hillier is a combat leader, more in line with the CDS generals that ran the military in the 1960's & '70's, fromer WW2 officers.

You cannot believe everything you read in the press. The media is mostly speculation, not fact. Nobody here, or in the media is present at high level defence meetings, so it is speculation.

O'Conner & Hillier are BOTH combat officers, from the Canadian Armoured Corps. I have met both of these men, had dinner with O'Conner. I have full faith in their leadership. I would follow Hillier to hell & back. You do not see military members complaining about them...

As for the so called rift, media speculation. There is not doubt they have differences, they're human remember. Our defence policy has always been Canada First, this is nothing new. You start defending Canada on the beaches of Europe and the Middle East, ot the beaches of Nova Scotia........

What do we have to be defended from?

Not that you're post was not fascinating, as it was, and I will definitely do some research, but it is going to take a lot of convincing to revise my opion of Hillier. But there is room, and I am still digesting his vision of what he wants the military to be.

There was a time that I believed in that vision, or one similar, however, since then, I have become more informed as to the ways and whys of creating wars and military expansionism.

Canada is not a war like nation, it has gone and done what it perceived to be it's duty, when asked and when needed. The military of today, appears to want Canada to be militaristic in nature. That seems more like ego gratification to me, rather than rational thinking responsible citizens of the world.

I find it very problematic

Catchme,

There is nobody in Canada or the Canadian Forces that wants us to be militaristic. Your 1000% right, we are not a warlike people, I could not agree more. However, that does not mean that other folks in this world feel the same way. We live in a very dangerous world, we always have, what you see on TV today is nothing new. I don't want to be left to the mercy of the world. We as Canadians have too much to loose.

All General Hillier, and the rest of us in the military are saying is lets DO IT RIGHT!!! If you, the gov't, are going to send us to Afghanistan, DO IT RIGHT. We need the equip to do it right. Our generals know what needs to be done, lets do it. We need to defend our country, our territory our interests. We need an army, airforce and navy that can conduct COMBAT to defend our country if every neccesary, that does not mean we WANT to use COMBAT.

We are in a war in Afghanistan, something you and millions of other Canadians have never seen our nation do in your life time. I understand it bothers people, if it did not, that would concern me. Canadians have a tradition of NOT taking defence matters seriously, resulting on many occassions in Canadian's being caugh in a very bad situation.

If peolpe don't like the war, blame the politicians, they sent us there, not me, armyguy or Hillier. We are simpley doing our job.

If a few generals had spoken up in years past, we may have avoided disasters like Flanders Fields, Passchandaele, Hong Kong and Dieppe.

Hillier is doing his job very well, Canadians are just not used to seeing this kind of General. The officers who served in the first Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo are all becoming the senior officers who run todays military. They have real world experience, not the "office" experience of the generation they are replacing.

[Catchme]

weaponeer says: Catchme, There is nobody in Canada or the Canadian Forces that wants us to be militaristic. Your 1000% right, we are not a warlike people, I could not agree more. However, that does not mean that other folks in this world feel the same way. We live in a very dangerous world, we always have, what you see on TV today is nothing new. I don't want to be left to the mercy of the world. We as Canadians have too much to loose.

Glad to see you agree with the fact that Canadians are not war like peoples.

However, I do not believe in any more of a dangerous world than what we always have done. And a good deal of the danger has been, and continues to be, manufactured by those with an agenda. Selling false fear to people is reprehensible, I hope you are not doing that.

Having more wars will NOT lessen any dangers.

All General Hillier, and the rest of us in the military are saying is lets DO IT RIGHT!!! If you, the gov't, are going to send us to Afghanistan, DO IT RIGHT. We need the equip to do it right. Our generals know what needs to be done, lets do it. We need to defend our country, our territory our interests. We need an army, airforce and navy that can conduct COMBAT to defend our country if every neccesary, that does not mean we WANT to use COMBAT.

Again who do we need defending from?

We are in a war in Afghanistan, something you and millions of other Canadians have never seen our nation do in your life time. I understand it bothers people, if it did not, that would concern me. Canadians have a tradition of NOT taking defence matters seriously, resulting on many occassions in Canadian's being caugh in a very bad situation.

Hillier said we were on a mission, not a war. Perhaps that is a problem in perceptions? We are NOT supposed to be in a war in Afghanistan.

If peolpe don't like the war, blame the politicians, they sent us there, not me, armyguy or Hillier. We are simpley doing our job.

If doing your jobs, contains actions that break International and Canadian laws, it is your individual responsibility, as a military person, to speak out about it and have it investigated. If you are not doing that, you are not doing your jobs as required and set out in law.

Moreover, we are speaking out about, and we are blaming the politicians, only to be accused of NOT supporting the troops. Sorry it can't be both ways.

If a few generals had spoken up in years past, we may have avoided disasters like Flanders Fields, Passchandaele, Hong Kong and Dieppe.

Oh please!

Hillier is doing his job very well, Canadians are just not used to seeing this kind of General. The officers who served in the first Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo are all becoming the senior officers who run todays military. They have real world experience, not the "office" experience of the generation they are replacing

Well, that is really not a good recommendation, seeing as how, the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo, are what initially infuriated me, having the government, either Liberal or CPC, using our military as a private army, and tax payers dollars, for oil and US hegmony is unacceptable.

Having said that, I have been reading up on Hillier, and my attitude is/was softening. But I am again rethinking that. As, if Hillier really was on the outs with Harper and O'Connor his butt would be gone from his job.

[Wilber]

QUOTE

Hillier is doing his job very well, Canadians are just not used to seeing this kind of General. The officers who served in the first Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo are all becoming the senior officers who run todays military. They have real world experience, not the "office" experience of the generation they are replacing

Well, that is really not a good recommendation, seeing as how, the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia and Kosovo, are what initially infuriated me, having the government, either Liberal or CPC, using our military as a private army, and tax payers dollars, for oil and US hegmony is unacceptable.

Having said that, I have been reading up on Hillier, and my attitude is/was softening. But I am again rethinking that. As, if Hillier really was on the outs with Harper and O'Connor his butt would be gone from his job.

What does your personal opinion of those conflicts have to do with the competence of those who were there. They were political decisions to go there, not military.

So you would prefer military commanders who are inexperienced so they can continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over until they learn their jobs.