CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:42 pm
 


There is a big difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. In a democracy, Harper would have obeyed the motion of the parliament. In a dictatorship, Harper would have put his brother as general of the army.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7580
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:47 pm
 


however king harper and his ilk are saying they will ignore the majority vote in the house on this issue.... maybe we should hang his photo upside down in the harper gallery in ottawa


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:51 pm
 


Harper is commonly a harp player and harps are a transformation of bows. (What is your point Benoit?) Harper is fit to motivate an old-fashion army of archers.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:22 am
 


grainfedprairieboy wrote:
Derby:

The LPC is well aware of the feelings of the military regarding the flag issue but believe that since Canadians generally support the idea they should pursue it and thus the accusations of political expediency.

You may feel the LPC is damned if they do or don't but the fact of the matter is under the past 10 years of Liberal rule the military saw its budget drastically slashed and it's regiments and culture openly attacked and moral drop to the lowest levels in living memory.

Soldiers do not want to go through another dark period where the government they serve is openly hostile to them.


Everybody saw their budgets slashed. Thats what you do when you are massively in debt.

Only the military is bellyaching about not getting more tax dollars at a time when all basic services were in jeopardy.

It would have meant a total collapse of the military had we gone bankrupt.

Bankrupt countries cannot support militaries and none of this touches on the fact that Martin was vilified even though he put the money back in when we had it. Harper is being cannonized by the military and look what he did. He reneged on military spending promises (his own) and stopped several Liberal military purchases which were just as bad as the helo deal but what is said about him? "Hes prioritizing". Harper put 13.7 billion towards the debt after cancelling Military promises and purchases even though that money could have done just about all of them. Well the Liberals had to prioritize too.

Military spending: How much is enough.

1994 white paper: Canada getting it right

I'll bring up Mulroney once again. Time and again several posters (mostly Bootlegga) have shown Mulroney to have been just as bad yet almost always the response has invariably been "well the cold war was over so he's forgiven" or "yes, he wasn't very good either" but then along comes Chretien handed an almost bankrupt country and tasked (and elected under) a promise to change all that yet the military expected Chretien to fix the decades of damage to the CF overnight at the same time as reasing the deficit, paying down the debt and if he wouldn't mind, lowering taxes.

Give me a break.

If Harper is such a saviour for the military then why isn't his spending on the military an exponential increase rather then just following the same curve that Martin established? Hell, I even posted about how I would accept taking one a large lump sum of debt reduction money and appling it directly to needed big ticket purchases but Harper instead applied it to the debt because as a trained economist who knew full well the US recession would hit us did what his training told him to do.

On this forum there has been an incredible shocking amount of hypocracy whenever the Liberals cross paths with the military. They were vilified for not sending the CF to Iraq (and not thanked when it was apparent the immorality of that quagmire) yet the were also vilified for sending us to Afghanistan "underequiped". Real fair.

They were blamed for every death not caused by blue on blue because of "crappy vehicles" despite the US losing about 10 guys a week in far superior equipment and despit ethe fact that they received no regnition for the good equipment they purchased.

All the darts and none of the laurels. Now the military says that any disagreement with the gov't over the war is tantamount to being a traitor yet where were these people when Harper and Klein were publicly defying the gov't over Iraq. Were they traitors? Is it a case of you can only support the war to not be a traitor?

If it were not so sad it would be a joke.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:09 am
 


Budget is irrelevant; the motivations to join the army are. A well furnished army can turn itself against its own population.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:45 am
 


Again, more or less crack. Whichever it is do the opposite.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4229
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:16 am
 


DerbyX wrote:
Everybody saw their budgets slashed. Thats what you do when you are massively in debt.

Only the military is bellyaching about not getting more tax dollars at a time when all basic services were in jeopardy.

It would have meant a total collapse of the military had we gone bankrupt.

Bankrupt countries cannot support militaries and none of this touches on the fact that Martin was vilified even though he put the money back in when we had it. Harper is being cannonized by the military and look what he did. He reneged on military spending promises (his own) and stopped several Liberal military purchases which were just as bad as the helo deal but what is said about him? "Hes prioritizing". Harper put 13.7 billion towards the debt after cancelling Military promises and purchases even though that money could have done just about all of them. Well the Liberals had to prioritize too.


Let's be clear here. I don't support a bottomless pit of money for the military and as far as I am concerned, the military is one of the most inefficient spenders of their own budgets and I could fill volumes about stupid purchases.

But the problem with the LPC brand of financing is that not only was the budget reduced, there was a corresponding increase in the number of deployments the military was called upon to handle. In fact, by 2000 we had soldiers deployed to 52 countries and this had stretched the army very thin for both men and money.

You need to distinguish between having an army training in garrison and one that is deploying as there is a large cost difference. This is why your historical finacial models don't shuck and jive with reality.

DerbyX wrote:
along comes Chretien handed an almost bankrupt country and tasked (and elected under) a promise to change all that yet the military expected Chretien to fix the decades of damage to the CF overnight at the same time as reasing the deficit, paying down the debt and if he wouldn't mind, lowering taxes.

Give me a break.


Reduced money and increased deployments are only one complaint. A big one for the military was Chretien's disbandment of the Airborne Regiment. I fully expect you as a civilian with no understanding of the military to see this as a good idea but for soldiers who fight for their units and buddies long before Canada factors into the equation, this was the biggest insult any government could ever levy.

There was also a long list of other grievances such as Chretien ordering the UN danger pay provided to each soldier from every country participating on UNPROFOR to be sent to the federal treasury instead of the soldiers as he felt their regular pay was enough or the time a Liberal cabinet minister needed to fly home from Europe and diverted an air force jet that was supposed to return with a 170 troops forcing these soldiers to wait several more days camped out on a tarmac. Hell, the direct social engineering of politicians setting race and gender quotas for individual units still leaves a foul taste in the mouth of an organisation which strongly believes people should be in a position by merit.

DerbyX wrote:
If Harper is such a saviour for the military then why isn't his spending on the military an exponential increase rather then just following the same curve that Martin established? Hell, I even posted about how I would accept taking one a large lump sum of debt reduction money and appling it directly to needed big ticket purchases but Harper instead applied it to the debt because as a trained economist who knew full well the US recession would hit us did what his training told him to do.


I disagree with spending increases until such time as Canadians finally decide what kind of military they want, what role they wish it to play etc.

Yesterday at the base I gave a brief where I highlighted that Canada's navy was responsible for coastal defence but following WWII they have slowly walked away from their obligations even though there has been no parliamentary order rescinding their responsibility. They have done this in order to maintain a blue water capability but both the RCMP and Coast Guard have been unable to assume the role. In fact, it is so bizarre that Canadian and American Navy's have integrated communications and control equipment but Canadian Navy and Coast Guard do not.

DerbyX wrote:
On this forum there has been an incredible shocking amount of hypocracy whenever the Liberals cross paths with the military. They were vilified for not sending the CF to Iraq (and not thanked when it was apparent the immorality of that quagmire) yet the were also vilified for sending us to Afghanistan "underequiped". Real fair.

They were blamed for every death not caused by blue on blue because of "crappy vehicles" despite the US losing about 10 guys a week in far superior equipment and despit ethe fact that they received no regnition for the good equipment they purchased.

All the darts and none of the laurels. Now the military says that any disagreement with the gov't over the war is tantamount to being a traitor yet where were these people when Harper and Klein were publicly defying the gov't over Iraq. Were they traitors? Is it a case of you can only support the war to not be a traitor?

If it were not so sad it would be a joke.


You make many legitimate complaints but ignore the fact that the LPC was openly hostile to the military, its culture and possessed very little understanding of how to utilise the resource. Where Harper gets Kudos is he at least listens to the soldiers when it comes to things like the flag issue. Martin to his credit, began to repair what his former boss had damaged and was probably more like Ignatieff in the sense that he had a better understanding of the role of the forces and where and how money should be spent.

Under Harper the military will continue to enjoy more freedom to soldier unencumbered by arm chair Generals and at least a sympathetic ear to funding or manpower issues.

I could happily post dozens of failures of the Harper government in regards to the military but it really wouldn't remotely compare to the Liberals.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:05 am
 


grainfedprarieboy wrote:
Let's be clear here. I don't support a bottomless pit of money for the military and as far as I am concerned, the military is one of the most inefficient spenders of their own budgets and I could fill volumes about stupid purchases.

But the problem with the LPC brand of financing is that not only was the budget reduced, there was a corresponding increase in the number of deployments the military was called upon to handle. In fact, by 2000 we had soldiers deployed to 52 countries and this had stretched the army very thin for both men and money.

You need to distinguish between having an army training in garrison and one that is deploying as there is a large cost difference. This is why your historical finacial models don't shuck and jive with reality.


I don't think so. In fact concurrent to all the other complaints, one of the chief complaint was that "the Liberals never had much use for us".

Again, wrong both ways. They deploy the troops they are sending us ill-equiped. They don't and its because they hate the military and have no use for them.

Can you provide evidence showing deployments, cost associated with the deployments including troop numbers and equipment to support your point?

Don't forget that Mulroney, even if he used the troops less, was still paying for bases abroad which count as deployment in my books. Thats why he closed Lahr, and Baden-Baden, to save money.

Now you don't support bottomless military spending because as a buisness owner you can grasp the connection between the taxes you pay and gov't spending, a fact I believe is lost on alot of other people. Getting anybody in the military to actually commit to detailing how much spending is enough is next to impossible because then they would have to give up the "we are short-changed" complaint or else show that the level they expect is unreasonable.

grainfedprarieboy wrote:
Reduced money and increased deployments are only one complaint. A big one for the military was Chretien's disbandment of the Airborne Regiment. I fully expect you as a civilian with no understanding of the military to see this as a good idea but for soldiers who fight for their units and buddies long before Canada factors into the equation, this was the biggest insult any government could ever levy.


Actually, though it occured during your hiatis I took the opposite side in that the regiment should never have been disbanded and it was wrong. However contact Winnipegger and/or Bootlegga for a much better report on exactly who was to blame and why. The military itself bares ALOT of the blame, chief of which was their policy of "dumping troublmakers" on other units like the airborne by concealing fitness reports.

This was also a case of the military not accepting much responsibility starting right at the top and forcing a newly minted politician to deal with a very large headache. I think that this was also a case of "reap what you sow" in that the Liberals were blasted on their "military record" and potrayed as an "enemy to the forces" long before Chretien had been elected. When he was looking to cut budgets I now understand entirely why he decided to disband a unit receiving so much bad press that made no case for itself by the way they were attacking the Liberals.

grainfedprarieboy wrote:
There was also a long list of other grievances such as Chretien ordering the UN danger pay provided to each soldier from every country participating on UNPROFOR to be sent to the federal treasury instead of the soldiers as he felt their regular pay was enough or the time a Liberal cabinet minister needed to fly home from Europe and diverted an air force jet that was supposed to return with a 170 troops forcing these soldiers to wait several more days camped out on a tarmac. Hell, the direct social engineering of politicians setting race and gender quotas for individual units still leaves a foul taste in the mouth of an organisation which strongly believes people should be in a position by merit.


I have never heard that before. At face value its wrong. At best it was trying to recoup the cost of deployment but even then its still wrong.

I'm not saying the Liberals didn't make mistakes. Education and healthcare can do the same thing.

As for quotas, well they are both good and bad.

grainfedprarieboy wrote:
Yesterday at the base I gave a brief where I highlighted that Canada's navy was responsible for coastal defence but following WWII they have slowly walked away from their obligations even though there has been no parliamentary order rescinding their responsibility. They have done this in order to maintain a blue water capability but both the RCMP and Coast Guard have been unable to assume the role. In fact, it is so bizarre that Canadian and American Navy's have integrated communications and control equipment but Canadian Navy and Coast Guard do not.


And yet I can't seem to find a single sailor who has anything good to say about a submarine program.

The Navy is one area I feel Canada needs far greater resources because our military should be protecting us not off fighting US wars of aggressions masquerading as helping people who would turn on us in a second if they felt we were insulting their religion.

grainfedprarieboy wrote:
You make many legitimate complaints but ignore the fact that the LPC was openly hostile to the military, its culture and possessed very little understanding of how to utilise the resource. Where Harper gets Kudos is he at least listens to the soldiers when it comes to things like the flag issue. Martin to his credit, began to repair what his former boss had damaged and was probably more like Ignatieff in the sense that he had a better understanding of the role of the forces and where and how money should be spent.


I dispute the openly hostile angle. Its more of a case of not fully understanding but then how can they? Has the military ever made a single honest effort to bridge that gap or have they simply complained about them.

You have said you are a card carrying member of the Liberal party but not for any reasons of actually getting them to listen to an Albertan viewpoint. If the same thing is happening here, if the Liberals are getting advice they think is honest military advice from the military but its actually designed to make them appear more antagonistic then whos fault is it?

Chief among the problems is the whole blanket Liberal condemnation. Martin made a real effort and put real money is and quite frankly was the architect of the economic wizardry. Yet he was still vilified by the military. If you were making an honest effort and received the same treatment wouldn't you start to think "the hell with it"?

grainfedprarieboy wrote:
Under Harper the military will continue to enjoy more freedom to soldier unencumbered by arm chair Generals and at least a sympathetic ear to funding or manpower issues.


How do you figure? He was the only PM to tell the CF to fight on a budget.

grainfedprarieboy wrote:
I could happily post dozens of failures of the Harper government in regards to the military but it really wouldn't remotely compare to the Liberals.


All perspective. The helo deal keeps getting mentioned as a failure and a scandal but it was a smart financial move and a kept promise. Harper however has reneged on several military purchases and shelved plans for new SAR aircraft even though we no longer have reoplacement props.

The bottomline remains that the Liberals will soon be back in power and the military is giving it no reason whatsoever to put iy high up in the list of spending priorities.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:52 pm
 


DerbyX wrote:
Again, more or less crack. Whichever it is do the opposite.


:!:


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7580
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:47 pm
 


the issue of lowering the flag for the fallen soldiers came about because of the numbers we have lost... its about respect... which the tory government has none of...


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:55 pm
 


Lowering the flag can also be viewed as a diplomatic way of saying to American neo-cons. that Canadians are not war-mongers.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1323
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:59 pm
 


kenmore wrote:
the issue of lowering the flag for the fallen soldiers came about because of the numbers we have lost... its about respect... which the tory government has none of...


As many as we have lost, it was nothing compared to what we lost in the two world wars, and never did the flag get lowered ecept on remeberance day. The Conservatives have more respect in this case becuase they are respecting the military's wishes that this tradition be upheld. (in case you don't know the military takes tradition very seriously).
This is just a BS move by the Libs to look good to the uninformed masses.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:00 pm
 


Both you guys (kenmore and benny) are missing the point. Although I'm arguing what is essentially a pro (pro/con debate term) position, the core issues are that the military doesn't like it and don't think of it as respect.

I am not making the argument that lowering the flag is in any way a gesture of disrespect to the US even though I oppose the war. If that were the case then I would change my argument in a flash.

Kenmore, while the CPC is doing this for political purposes also, I don't agree that they have no respect or else I can't defend my position.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:19 pm
 


DerbyX wrote:
Both you guys (kenmore and benny) are missing the point. Although I'm arguing what is essentially a pro (pro/con debate term) position, the core issues are that the military doesn't like it and don't think of it as respect.


An army is not reducible to its past and present staffing. In fact, the idea of maintaining a permanent army is a democratic decision. Without a permanent army, Canada would be less prompt to be the yes-man of Americans.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:24 pm
 


Benoit wrote:
DerbyX wrote:
Both you guys (kenmore and benny) are missing the point. Although I'm arguing what is essentially a pro (pro/con debate term) position, the core issues are that the military doesn't like it and don't think of it as respect.


An army is not reducible to its past and present staffing. In fact, the idea of maintaining a permanent army is a democratic decision. Without a permanent army, Canada would be less prompt to be the yes-man of Americans.


without a standing army Canada would be less likely to be a yes-man of Aemerica?

Feel free to explain the logic behind that theory.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.