Cdn Military Will Disappear

[Craig Read]

Canada's military is compromising Canadian rhetoric on its 'great power' status and 'moral' ranking in the world. Canada's military is an embarassing farce and should either be funded or simply shut down. Canadian rhetoric on its position internationally is not borne out by facts, nor by the reality that Canada is largely ignored internationally as nothing more than an irritating gadfly.

Some facts:

-55000 strong armed forces but only 17800 are Combat troops. Rest overhead. This means that we have very little effective projectionable force for any amount of time. Witness our sad contribution on the war on terror - a few thousand men for a few months in Kabul. Come on.

-1.1 % of GDP spent on the military, 17 out of 19 NATO countries

-153rd in the world in military spending even though Canada has the 34th highest population

For a G8 country, one of the most productive and prosperous in the world, with the world' longest coastline, second largest landmass, and interests that span the globe, such numbers are a scandal.  [Council for Canadian Security].

I have read about 6 reports from various bodies that state explicitly that if funding is not doubled the Cdn military will simply disappear. The current budget is apparently not even enough to replace old equipment, perform maintenance, pay proper pensions or adquately supply munitions, transport, and hardware for the troops.

This is beyond reproach and morbid. It means we sit at the midgets table internationally and eat crow, while the big boys do the hard work, hard talking, hard drinking and eat steaks.

Welcome to Post modern failure.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Any move to attract more people to the millitary must come after a clear agenda or mission statement is made for our forces. We can't simply be the peons of the US, it seems degrading and redundant.

I agree that domestically we must be in alliance with the US, patroling our borders and continental defense.

Abroad, however, we have to assume a different role. We'll never have the hardware or the budget of our neighbors. We'll never have the strength in numbers. This is fact. We need to, first, find out what we want to do abroad, and secondly, find out what we are prepared to do abroad.

If we wish to be peace keepers (as opposed to peace makers) than we need to look at how we can best go about this, in terms of troop strength, equipment, and financial committment. After we figure all this out, we need to go about giving young Canadians the incentive to join.

This can come in the form of an appeal to patriotism, sense of adventure, or humanitarianism (I don't think that's a word). We can also look at the biggest lure in the US recruiting program, the Montgomery GI bill. Sign on for a term and get free University. Almost every single person I knew in the USN enlisted for this very reason. A secondary financial incentive was pre-approved home loan you were eligble for (only in the US dammit!). Both of these incentives cost money in the short term but obviously are economic boosters in the long term.

All we need is enough public outcry to spur the political will.

[Boydfish]

We'll never have the hardware or the budget of our neighbors.

No, but that doesn't mean that we can't at least make a reasonable attempt at self-protection.

First, let's look at two comparible countries to the Canadian confederation: Australia and Great Britain. Both share a common level of culture and technological expertise.

Neither have even remotely similar resource wealth, especially Great Britain. Australia has ~20 million citizens and Great Britain ~60 million. Both expose a very troubling aspect of the CF's capabilities.

Great Britain

Great Britain currently operates the second largest naval force in the world, with three light aircraft carriers and an amphibious assault ship, with dozens of escorts. They also maintain effective nuclear deterrence patrol subs and an effective nuclear powered sub fleet.

They maintain a regular strength land force of three complete combat divisions, all of which can be deployed due to an effective Territorial Army system that is tasked solely for domestic defence. This land force is further augmented by a complete Royal Marine Brigade and the 16 Air Assault Brigade. The capstone formation, the unrivaled Special Air Service, is the benchmark that other Special Forces are measured against.

The Royal Air Force has been drawn down a bit lower than the other services, but still mounts a credible force in it's Tornadoes and Jaguars. They can mount expeditionary air warfare, which puts them a great deal further ahead than most air forces.

All branches of Her Majesty's forces are professionals, with no conscripted forces in any branch.

In broad comparison, if we look at raw numbers, the CF should be able to deploy:

Land

A complete heavy combat division, along with a reinforced brigade group.

What the CF has:In an emergency, the CF could deploy a single combat brigade, with no replacement equipment.

A pair of self contained and self deploying battlegroups, one specialized in amphibious assault and one in air assault.

What the CF has:Neither. No capability to deploy or even train either.

A complete division for defence of the confederation alone, fully equipped and self-supporting.

What the CF has:The CF reserves are unable to scratch up a single composite battalion.

A complete special forces squadron of ~200 troops with global reach.

What the CF has:A dubious SF group that has blown millions reinventing the wheel, when a branch of the CSAS, with proven training and doctrine was freely available to the CF. It was turned down to avoid offending the cheese eating surrender monkey element in Canada.

Naval

One light aircraft carrier and one amphibous assault ship.

What the CF has:None.

At least six nuclear powered attack subs.

What the CF has:Four diesel boats that cannot self-deploy to war zones.

Escort forces able to fight and win anywhere in the world.

What the CF has:16 ships, with few actually deployable due to manpower shortages.

A fleet auxillary force that can sustain a single group anywhere in the world.

What the CF has:Essentially two support ships, both about to rust out.

Air Force

A domestic defensive air component that can "own" their entire airspace while deploying a small expeditionary air warfare group.

What the CF has:No bombs and obsolete equipment.

An airlift component that can lift and sustain an entire brigade of troops in under 15 days.

What the CF has:They rent obsolete Russian transports for heavy lifting.

The Australian example is even more interesting, as they have fewer people and fewer dollars, but have spent the money wiser, as they have focused on remaining a complete combat force, rather than simply buying what seemed politically expedient.

[Craig Read]

Boyd, good post. The Aussies are spending U$40 billion over the coming 5 years on more military spend. They will be a balancing force with projection capability in East Asia and beyond.

What does Canada contribute ? Basically nothing. No heavy aircraft, no airforce or navy [2 or 3 frigates only] to speak off, and an undermanned 18.000 person personnel combat base that is suffering from low morale and low grade equpiment.

Beautiful.

Coupled with CIDA's $2.5 billion budget tied to the buying of Canadian goods, a gutted External Affairs office [30 % decline in budget since 1993], and no vision, Canada is a just another annoying little country whose bravado is not matched by strength.

Kind of like the little wimp in class with the squeaky voice that tells everyone how tough he is. Of course when challenged he asks his big brother to do his fighting for him.....maybe the French will defend Canada's international obligations and interests ??

[Hugo]

I was recently having this debate with some friends the other day, and they asked what the point was of having a military anyway since Canada is so friendly and peaceful. To which I responded, well, take it away and you'll find out the hard way. After all, Belgium was strictly neutral in WWII and that didn't stop Hitler overrunning them and subjecting them to his tyranny.

It's not just about protecting our borders. Although it is not terribly moral or courageous to leave all the work to the US, they will protect Canada against invasion since it is in their interests not to allow a foreign aggressor onto the same continent. As I said, it isn't responsible or fair to leave the US holding the baby, but in this respect we aren't in too much danger.

But what we should have learnt in the post-Cold War world is that attacks can be insidious and sudden, and can target us right in our homeland. If terrorists destroy the CN tower or bomb the Skydome during a Blue Jays game, what do we do? We can ask the US to prosecute the perpetrators for us, which they may or may not do. After all, we have snubbed their foreign policy requests recently and they may decide that if Canada isn't prepared to support them, why should they lose the lives of their servicemen and precious war materiel fighting our battles?

We can also leave it up to "quiet diplomacy" and the UN, which is basically to say that the problem will be ignored since diplomacy doesn't tend to work on an implacable and fanatical enemy willing to kill himself if he can take a few of us with him, and the list of the UN's failures in the prevention of terrorism and tyranny department is staggering. What this will be taken as, is a sign of weakness, and the world's terrorists will quickly assess Canada as an easy target and move in for the kill.

Or we could build a military capable of doing something useful. Just a thought, but apparently one that hasn't occurred to the empty heads in our cabinet.

[Neal.F.]

.maybe the French will defend Canada's international obligations and interests ??

Just like the bloody cowards defended Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania back in the thirties.

The Germans used to ridicule the French by saying the way tob defeat the French was to roll out a few kegs of wine and some dancing girls....

Their Maginot line, supposedly the most formidable line of defense ever built by a country was penetrated and the cowardly nation went down to defeat faster than Poland who at least fought a damn courageous fight against the Nazis, sending hussars out on horseback out against panzers. it wouild have been too easy for the Poles to surrender and cut a Vichy style deal with the Nazis, like the cowardly French swine, but Poland at least had, and still has a sense of honour.

Liberal Canada chooses instead to emulate the French, one of the most sneering, politically correct regimes in the world.

[Slavik44]

another thing we must realise is that the millitary is often called in, during natural disaster such as floods, Earth quakes and so on. I mean say an Earth quake hits B.C...the water from he ocean cuases chaos on the coast, it would be highly probable that looting would go on, there would most likely be fires...and other sorts of disturbances going on....and I Highly doubt that the RCMP and the Firemen could handle it all by themselves......but the closest Millitary base is in Alberta. Look at the wildfires that ravaged the B.C forests...having more personnel in the millitary would have given us, a more people to help fight the fires, and perhaps saved us from millions of dollars in damages.

what i am trying to say is not only do we need troops for purposes mentioned by other people already; such as protecting our selves form attack, beign able to assist countries that are being attacked, help to stabilize other third world countries, as well as giving Canada the ability to assert it's self internationaly and have a real say in what goes on. There are numerous reason's for having a bigger army and perhpas it is about time we started to work our way towards getting one.

[Slavik44]

.maybe the French will defend Canada's international obligations and interests ??

Just like the bloody cowards defended Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania back in the thirties.

The Germans used to ridicule the French by saying the way tob defeat the French was to roll out a few kegs of wine and some dancing girls....

Their Maginot line, supposedly the most formidable line of defense ever built by a country was penetrated and the cowardly nation went down to defeat faster than Poland who at least fought a damn courageous fight against the Nazis, sending hussars out on horseback out against panzers. it wouild have been too easy for the Poles to surrender and cut a Vichy style deal with the Nazis, like the cowardly French swine, but Poland at least had, and still has a sense of honour.

Liberal Canada chooses instead to emulate the French, one of the most sneering, politically correct regimes in the world.

while the French did surrender and sure we can call them cowards...use a bit more factual information.....

The French were cocky....there maginot line did not stretch all the way to the coast....they French just were not to bright. They didn't relaize that perhaps the Germans woudl Go around the maginot lines...and becuase everyhtign on the maginot lines could only shoot at german they were rendered useless,and int he end most of Germany's troops whent through a whole in the line where there was dense forest. If you looka t the french they are time and time agian are highly arrogant, wiht confidence in there poor tactics, but then agian hind sight is 20/20....but its only 20/20 if it is used, and in many cases the winning side fails to learns from there mistakes, while the losing side normally learns a few things.

[Neal.F.]

The French were also bound to come to the defense of Czechoslovakia and Poland in teh event of a German invasion. They sold the Czechs to the Nazis for a bill of goods, and completely reneged on Poland. Had they stood up to Hitler on Czechoslovakia, Hitler would have had to have backed down. At that time he would not have been able to fight on both fronts, and that might well have been the end of Hitler there.

But Hitler had sized up the French, and to a certain extent the Brits well. He marched into the demilitarized zone of teh Rhineland with 10 thousand troops, and made it look like more by marhing some ouyt again, and back over the bridge. The brits and French did nothing. "afetr all, it IS their land anyway...Maybe we were a little harsh with them at Versailles." At that thime there was a prevailing peacenik sentiment in both countries. There was no stomach for war. Brit PM Stanley BAldwin even said that never again shall British soldiers go shed blood on foreign soil.

Hitler again tested the waters in 1936 with Austria. The French and Brits again turned a blind eye, confirming Hitler's belief that the western leaders were cowardly "little worms". "After all, Austria is , essentially German...Versailles hardly left Austria as a viable state anyway."

Then finally he was ready to devour Czechoslovakia, he knew that by asking for little, getting the concession would enable him to finish the whole thing off shortly thereafter. The Brits (PEace in our Time) and French caved in in Munich. "After all, The Sudetenland is pretty much German. What harm is there in returning them to the Fatherland?" What was worse was that the French were under treaty with Czechoslovakia to defend her against German aggression.

The Brit attitude as expressed by some at the time "Why should we be overly concerned about a faraway people of whom we know little?", in reference to the Czechs and Slovaks.

Then he tested the waters once again, by demanding, and getting the Port city of Memel (Klaipeda) from Lithuania, under threat of force. The Allies again did nothing. This set the stage for Danzig (aka Gdansk).

Poland was the last straw for the Brits, who honoured their treaty , but the French continued on their merry path to eventual enslavement.

So you can clearly see wht Hitler thought he could get away with Poland, and only had to toss a few crumbs out to Stalin to get it.

He did not count on Churchill.

Canada should not emulate France in attitude, and should learn from history that one cannot always count on Allies unless the ally is the USA, Britain or Poland, and that keeping one'sforces at teh peak of preparedness in terms of modernization, and personnel is crucial.

The enemy will.

[Craig Read]

Certainly correct Neil. But Liberals don't read history - they just rewrite it to fit their fantasies.

Chamberlain - the coward and the arrogant arch appeaser and the worst leader in British history after George III - stated that Britain had no interest in 'people in far off countries about which we know nothing.' I will never forget the newsreal of this imbecile talking to the media before he flew to meet Hitler at Berchtesgarden telling the press 'when i was a little boy i learnt if you are not successful to try try again.'

What a moron. Chamberlain created the appeasement strategy by himself with little input, bludgeoned his Cabinet to support his policies, and spread disinformation in the media to justify his policies.

He would be a welcome politician in Canada or a democratic Presidential nominee.

Canada has international interests spread far and wide. According to Canadian rhetoric Canada has ideals, values and policies that it wants to spread around the world - everything from Chretien's promise to save Africa, to various CIDA programs in 150 countries supporting education, health, and democratic reforms.

If you don't have a military; an underfunded external affairs office; a CIDA tied to trade and not a vision and underfunded; a hatred of the Western tradition; a senseless anti-US policy; and only emotional support and nothing more for internationalism - then obviously no one takes you seriously. You are trying to be all things to all people, and as in life so with politics - no focus no results.

From the mid 40s to the mid 50s Canada had 100.000 combat troops, Pearson and the External affairs dept were involved 'at the creation' of various international agencies created to help increase international dialogue [not usurp national sovereignty], we were staunchly allied with the British and Yanks and the world knew that Canada meant business and could defend its interests with military projection and money.

Today we have nothing but words, post modern theories and knee bending to the UNO and insufferable anti-Americanism which comprises the country's best interests.

Trudeau Liberalism writ large.

[Morgan]

More grim news about the military. At first I couldn't believe my eyes when I glanced at the headline.

Is there any hope for Canada's Defense Dept no matter which party wins the election? Has the LPOC truly driven this once proud department into the ground? Will Canadians agree to cuts in other departments to support even a small but well equiped defence department?

Army soon will have just 500 available troops, John Ibbitson, Globe & Mail, Jan.14/04

By September, the Canadian army will have only 500 troops available for deployment, fewer soldiers than the National Hockey League has players.

Last year's sudden deployment to Afghanistan was the last straw after years of cutting corners, senior commanders told David Pratt last month as he assumed his new position as Defence Minister.That means, Mr. Pratt was told, that starting Sept. 1, for a period of about one year, the Canadian army will be able to field only 500 regular troops for new commitments.

This time the crisis is real. The solution, according to military advocates, is to increase the military's $13-billion budget by $4-billion or $5-billion immediately. We all know that simply won't happen.

Nonetheless, Prime Minister Paul Martin says he is absolutely committed to improving the condition of the Armed Forces. "We are not going to send our men and women abroad unless they are in equipment that is top-of-the-line," he told soldiers at CFB Greenwood last week.

It is unrealistic to expect that Canada will ever again field a conventional army with the firepower to destroy another conventional army. Instead, our military leaders hope to develop a medium-weight force that is mobile, well-equipped, with the latest in intelligence and communications abilities, to be deployed in concert with our better-armed allies.

Even that is more than this country can afford, unless we are ready to scale back public funding for health, education and social services.

[SirRiff]

everyone bitches about the state of our military, fine, i dont like it either, but you rarely hear the simple straitforward alternatives.

1) spend WAY more money to maintain a 1st world military

2) cut WAY back on out international peace keeping missions.

what makes you think canadians are willing or able to do either. you are talking about making a fundamental reallocation of funds towards military spending, or a fundamental reallocation of canadian foreign policy via peacekeeping. i dont see either as happening if canadians are given a choice.

[KrustyKidd]

what makes you think canadians are willing or able to do either. you are talking about making a fundamental reallocation of funds towards military spending, or a fundamental reallocation of canadian foreign policy via peacekeeping. i dont see either as happening if canadians are given a choice.

This is like having the answers before the exam.

Scince this wasn't multiple choice I suppose it must be answered with a pont by point mini essay so here goes.

A choice? They have had a choice as sucessive Liberal governments have been voted in time after time. Because Canadians don't care. They prove it by voting Liberal.

Peace keeping? We havn't done that scince Cyprus. Yugo was survival, not peacekeeping. UNDOF, Iraq/Iran were Observer forces, not peacekeepers. We don't have the muscle to peacekeep. What we have in Afganistan is a Police Force. Peacekeeping is dead Riff, there isn't much to give up.

1st World military? Once again, no choice to be made. It would take ten years at least to get the equipment. Then another ten to get the power to project that equipment and manpower to an even close corner of the world. We are at the mercy of other western powers..

It's too late to even say that we should do something. Much too late. My best recommendationis to rent our troops out to the Americans or to join in some way. Meanwhile, train a larger JTF to at least be able to board an ocean liner taken over by terrorists and invest in the militia to be able to handle problems in our own country like civil disorder and natural disasters..

[udawg]

they asked what the point was of having a military anyway since Canada is so friendly and peaceful. To which I responded, well, take it away and you'll find out the hard way.

Amen to that.

I agree with the 2002 Senate committee report on the state of Canada's military. This is the report that said Canada should pull out of all overseas commitments for 2 years, and put 4 billion new dollars directly into the military. That amounts to about $130 per Canadian citizen.

Not being a financial or military expert, I couldn't tell you how much our military actually needs to arrive at operational capability. But I believe that no matter what the cost is, we need to pay it. Even if it was 2 or 3 times the cost the committee suggests, I would be quite willing to pay. There is no cost greater than not being capable of defending one's own country.

The main problem is that many left-wingers in Canada are deliberately attempting to downsize our military to extinction. *cough* LPOC *cough* The people and groups in favour of actually HAVING a military need to be more vocal, and show the politicians that Canadians still believe in defence capabilities. I think that would be most Canadians, but nobody does anything about it.

Whatever the cost, our nation needs to invest in our military. It is completely unacceptable to only be capable of mustering 500 soldiers. We couldn't even defend my small town of 5000, should someone decide to invade. Hell, the natives in Oka could outnumber our combat-ready troops.

So I say, pull out of our "peacekeeping" missions. Put whatever money in that is necessary. Cut out useless federal programs. Find the money, then use it wisely. Don't buy equipment for political reasons; buy it for military reasons. And above all, rally the Canadian public around the idea of a strong, worthy, capable military that we may all take pride in.

[udawg]

And before anyone asks, (I assume somebody will):

Yes, I WOULD actually pay the extra taxes or whatever to pay for this. I routinely pay more money than the report says, for things infinitely less important.

I'm sure there are those out there, who would not be willing to loosen their deathgrip on their wallets, but I am not one of them. For something like national security, there is no price too high.

[KrustyKidd]

I try my best to make all my decisions based on strength rather than weakness. While strong enough to take on failure I use success as my motivation. In order to do this you have to have resiliency and tools. Canada has the resiliency but in this case lacks the tools.

When looked upon for aid the government must go through a waffle act of wondering if the public wil stand another bypassing of military purchases for a year or so in order to come up with the money..

When asked to participate in Iraq you want to believe that the possibility that having zip to contribute may have had more to do with our decision than what we truely believe.

[Communist_boy]

Cut out useless federal programs. Find the money, then use it wisely.

I would like to know. I have seen this many times here, and i am at a loss to understand what everyone here considers "useless" programs.

The cause of investing in the military is very important one. However by just investing in our military we must ensure that we do not just become the American lapdog, free to do its bidding.

The forces need to use their money wiser as well. The new Stryker vehicles are a bad option. The Sea Kings, brutallty obsolete.

However I do not support the critisism of the RCN's decision to purchase the four submarines, they are basically good equipment, with a few kinks i admit, but the media needs to smarten up. They blew that situation way out of proportion.

[Morgan]

What about cutting out welfare to "refugees" while they wait years to get the decision and then more years to challenge that same decision? A tribunal of 3 judges should be able to judge each case for merit within 24 hours, then it's either they stay or they take the next Air Canada flight out of Dodge City.

What about cutting out the Privacy Czar and the Governor General's office and the Senate, all of those freeloaders, liberal and conservative alike.

What about cutting foreign aid to Cuba and to the Palestinians until Mr. Castro vacates office. Ditto with what's his face who likes strapping bomb vests to little girls.

All that saved money would be better spent on the military any day.

[udawg]

What about cutting out welfare to "refugees" while they wait years to get the decision and then more years to challenge that same decision? A tribunal of 3 judges should be able to judge each case for merit within 24 hours, then it's either they stay or they take the next Air Canada flight out of Dodge City.

Amen to that Morgan.

While I agree that we need to be careful to maintain our sovereignty, we also can't be so fearful that we simply do the opposite out of spite.

One needs to have faith in our elected leaders that we will use our military wisely. *sigh* Not that they give us much reason to have faith...

Money could also be saved by reducing the bureaucratic idiocy that evelopes the federal government... but that's too much to ask for... so instead, I suggest we stop funding private organizations (ie: National Action Committee)...the Firearms Registry (most, in my corner of the country, consider this useless... as well as expensive... a billion dollars would go a long way for our forces...), and programs like the one Paul Martin said he was ending (Quebec ad campaign).

Federal programs should be limited to areas that the constitution names (defense, immigration, etc), and other areas that expressly help the Canadian public in its entirety. No special interest group should be funded by the government, at any level.

[Communist_boy]

What about cutting out the Privacy Czar and the Governor General's office and the Senate, all of those freeloaders, liberal and conservative alike.

So then if i read this correctly:

Is that we remove the Senate, Govenor General and the Privaccy commissioner, those are what you consider useless, or waists of money eh.

Those things are part of our heritage, and while the US still exists we must hold onto them as much as possible. With the exception of the privacy commish.

I do however believe that they should be cut back.

And that glorious thing known as the gun registry. People call it useless baised on the fact that it didnt work within a few years, if given time it will work. A program of that sort can not just be jumpstarted and assumed to be perfect. The same thing would be said about the military if more money was put in.

You would have people complaining within a few years that it isnt enough, or its not the way it should be.

There were only 2 major mistakes with the gun registry:

1) the cost was not accuratly estimated.

2) it isnt stong enough

[udawg]

There were only 2 major mistakes with the gun registry:

1) the cost was not accuratly estimated.

2) it isnt stong enough

While this a little off the topic at hand, the main problem with the gun registry is that it does nothing to combat the criminal use of firearms. Police will tell you that most firearms-related crimes involve unregistered, illegal guns. In most cases, illegal to begin with, even if there wasn't a registry. Therefore the gun registry is useless, as it merely harasses the law-abiding gun owners that we don't need to worry about.

[Rasputin]

Commie boy made the interesting comment

The cause of investing in the military is very important one. However by just investing in our military we must ensure that we do not just become the American lapdog, free to do its bidding

Well he is right but in the wrong way. Without a military, without an adult and realistic assessment of geopolitics, without supporting allies, without recognising that alliance patterns influence trade patterns, without have a moral and philosophical vision of what your country is and how it can best help itself and the world, without understanding what made u wealthy and respected in the world in the first place, you are nothing more than a light gadfly, full of rhetoric and pomposity but adding no value. In other words you will be a lapdog - of whatever flight of fancy enters the head of the PM in residence.

Martin the day before he became PM told the US media he will invest in the military and change our foreign policy..........STILL WAITING Paul...........

[Joe Blow]

I think we're goin to be waiting a long time as well. So far all he's done is reiterate two programs which were launched under the last regime, both of which were highly questionable in their own right. The Sea King replacement could've begun 11 years ago if the Liberals hadn't decided to play party politics with the lives of our aviators and henceforth spent more on upkeep and cancellation penalties the you could scarcely imagine.

And then there's the Stryker gun system, which incidently the US is buying as well but is now reconsidering its purchase due to a large # of deployment and functionality issues with the Stryker. The largest one being that they haven't even had field trials yet with a fully operational model, the damn thing is still in prototype stage. What the hell is the Canadian forces (with our pathetically limited budget) doing with buying untested equipment. We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, afford to purchase something which 'turns sour' on us. The Leopards needs replacement yes, but with something tested and proven in real world scenarios, not on a simulator.

The CAF is in desperate need, and something needs to be done quickly, or just divest the whole damn thing and ask the US to become the next state.

[Communist_boy]

As far as I know, the stryker system had been cancelled after the budjet freeze martin instituted. However i definetly agree that they are not a good thing. They cant fire on the run, as far as i know they cant do a full turret turn.

The leapards do need to be replaced, but not by stryker, If the Canadian military would invest in the Leopard 2, which by the way has been tested and proved to be a very well fitted tank for the Canadian forces.

As for the sea kings, they deffinetly need replaced, I believe it is now 3 people that have died over the past 10 years due to them.

Also when the Americans were buying their Hummers, they were made in Canada, the company came to the canadian government and asked if they wanted to buy them at the same time for a reduced price. The government said no. Also the Americans extended a deal to the Canadians to sell them their slightly out of date hummers for a very reasonable price, and what did the government say, no.

Im kinda seeing a pattern in what the government wants.

The only thing that is some what decently equiped is our Navy, with the exception of the Iroquis and Kingston class, which are considered completely obsolete within the next 10 years, and what does the government do, there are no current plans to buy new ships.

Heres a plan, lets get someone that can count, and realises that it is cheaper to keep up to date rather than waiting until it is 50 years to late.

Perhaps there should be a test for PM, you must be intelligent, and understand what needs to be done, you never know it may just work, its never been tried before.

[udawg]

It's the same thing that's been happening for nearly 50 years now, since the Avro Arrow was cancelled by Diefenbaker for no reason other than political pressure from the US and possible "cost overruns".

In Canada, we believe in not replacing something til we can't even recover scrap metal from the last crash. At least, that's what the politicians seem to think...

Sometimes, I think of a Canada where instead of sending our GG on luxury trips to foreign countries, we spend the money on new equipment for our troops. Instead of criminalizing possesion of guns, we buy some for our soldiers. Instead of working so hard to please Quebec, we build some new bases there so we can quell the rebellion quickly. Then I wake up, and realize it's nothin but a dream.

Sometimes I wonder about a big conspiracy in Ottawa, where the Liberals are doing all this, getting in trouble, getting caught in the midst of corruption, just to prove to themselves how gullible we really are. Just to see how far they can go before we stop complaining and do something about it.

Or maybe the separtists are in control of the LPOC, and they are simply trying to degrade the military to the point of collapse, so when they DO rebel, we won't be able to stop them.

Or maybe I need some sleep. But the point remains, this is a disgrace a half century in the making. And ironically, a Conservative started it. Maybe a Liberal, Martin, can end it. Or maybe we'll have to wait 4 years, 10 Sea King groundings, and a couple hundred million wasted taxpayer dollars for the Conservatives to do it themselves.