CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:53 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_GMs/AGM67/granatstein.htm

Which is what I've been saying pretty much since the day I got here. The people to blame are the ones who elected the governments that neglected our armed forces.


The latest conservative government proved that there are no viable options for the military.

And there was a poll on here from a way while back where the largest group of people said they supported a military of between 150 000 and 250 000 members, and if you included the +250 000, over half voted for a military bigger than 150 000 members.

Polls on CKA are generally fairly accurate when it comes to the opinion of the country, as we have an accurate distribution of people based on geographic populations and opinions.

As such, it is my personal view that many many Canadians would support a much larger military, both in terms of manower and budget. Yes the budget increases would be bitched about, but it time the budget would once again become status quo, and should the Liberals eb the ones to make the most increases I'd liek to see the conservatives complin about it to win an election.

The only catch would be is that people would support domestic capability, and not neccisarly an invasion capability. So the military should be structured around defence, with a limited ability to reach out and strike enemy ports and airbases, which without they can't attack us.

This would mean no JSS. Though I don't see a problem with a couple amphibious assualt ships "soley" for the purpose of extended disaster relief across the globe, though the built in capacity for invasion would obviously be included. ;)

bootlegga bootlegga:
Sounds good to me, except for the mines. The last thing we need is a Kursk in the Arctic, slowly leaking radioactive shit into the water. Sensors, coupled with nuke subs would work better anyways.


Uranium is a naturally occurng element, and the small amount of enrichment in the nuclear attack subs up in our artic isn't in near enough quantity to cause any worse environmental damage than Chalk River Power Plant. granted I wouldn't want to fish within X number of miles of the site, but overall it would not damage the ecology of the artic.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23060
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:23 pm
 


ridenrain ridenrain:
I've indeed read the book and, like all opinions, there is some I accept and some I reject.


Yawn, big surprise there. Liberals = evil, Conservatives = perfect. :roll:

ridenrain ridenrain:
While we all play lip service to the saying "we get the government we deserve", we need to remember that the left has traditionally under-represented the forces as the vital members of society that they are.


Again, please.

ridenrain ridenrain:
After Korea, we retreated to "peasekeeping" because that was a way that we could show the flag, pretend were doing something but not actually have to spend money on the forces. We never saw the forces on the CBC and troops almost never made it into the media, and teh only time they did was when they were used as "constables in green" or when the did something really stupid.


You must not have watched the CBC in the 70s and 80s then. Before cable TV proliferated, the CBC was the only place to get documentaries on the military, and they had plenty of them.

The retreat to peacekeeping didn't occur until Trudeau took over. If you knew your history, you'd know that Pearson (a dirty stinking Liberal) won an election over Diefenbaker in part because he advocated arming our troops with tactical nukes, which Dief was deadset against because it meant dealing with the Yanks.


ridenrain ridenrain:
Now that Chretien's Afghan peasekeeping adventure turned into a shooting war, we find that we're not equiped. What a suprise.

Mulroney deserves blame too but most of that time was taken up by Liberal majorities and the cuts were painfull and deep.


Bullshit. Mulroney won two majorities, the second being the most decisive in history (until 1993 aqnyways). He had all the political capital he needed. The ink on his White Paper in 1987 wasn't even dry before started cancelling projects, like nuke subs, 6 frigates, new tanks, APCs for the Arctic, the world's most powerful icebreaker, you name it. He had a decade of $20+ BILLION deficits and spent next to none of it on the CF.

No, between sticker shock (aka cheapness) and his attempts to secure his own lasting legacy (the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords), he left the CF in even worse shape than Trudeau, having cut manpower through early retirements, selling off the Chinooks, closing our bases in Europe, you name it.

Chretien inherited a massive deficit and debt and had to cut spending. Given that the CF is the government's biggest bill (after interest on the debt), it made sense that cuts would come from them. I would gladly villify if he had cut spending on the CF and only the CF, but he cut spending across every department in the government. Everyone had to make do with less.

Does that totally forgive those cuts? Of course not. But if you bring up the cuts, then you also have to bring up the fact that Chretien poured more money into the CF after 9/11 than any leader since Pearson. Defence spending jumped 50% in 4 years after 9/11.

And the troops were equipped for Afghanistan. Our LAV IIIs were so awesome, Dubya wanted some for his little adventure in Iraq. Our snipers, using the best equipment in the world, set new long-range kill records. Sure there were some Cold War holdovers (like the Iltis), but they wer replaced by Nyalas and G-Wagens as soon as their flaws were revealed by a suicide attack in Kabul. And of course, having to hitch rides from the Dutch in our old Chinooks stung. Little things like not having desert camo are things you righties like to pick on, but look closer at the reason why they didn't have them. We had just switched to a new pattern (CADPAT), and the desert version was last on the list for production, not a big surprise considering Canadian soldiers had pretty much NEVER fought in a desert zone (at least since WW2).

No, neglecting the CF is a case of all or none. Either every leader since St. Laurent neglected it (and therefore the majority of Canadians), or no one's guilty.

Take your pick.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:32 pm
 


Nice rant Boot. It's a bit partisan, but overall I agree with the details you brought up.

The 90s were the worst time for the CF in a very long time, but it was a product of neccesity, else the country would have gone bankrupt. And as Boots said, the spending was cut across the board (Red Book ring a bell?) and spending did increase when we had the room.

And LAV IIIs were a great Liberal purchase, but like all things they can be made better.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:34 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
ridenrain ridenrain:
I've indeed read the book and, like all opinions, there is some I accept and some I reject.


Yawn, big surprise there. Liberals = evil, Conservatives = perfect. :roll:

ridenrain ridenrain:
While we all play lip service to the saying "we get the government we deserve", we need to remember that the left has traditionally under-represented the forces as the vital members of society that they are.


Again, please.

ridenrain ridenrain:
After Korea, we retreated to "peasekeeping" because that was a way that we could show the flag, pretend were doing something but not actually have to spend money on the forces. We never saw the forces on the CBC and troops almost never made it into the media, and teh only time they did was when they were used as "constables in green" or when the did something really stupid.


You must not have watched the CBC in the 70s and 80s then. Before cable TV proliferated, the CBC was the only place to get documentaries on the military, and they had plenty of them.

The retreat to peacekeeping didn't occur until Trudeau took over. If you knew your history, you'd know that Pearson (a dirty stinking Liberal) won an election over Diefenbaker in part because he advocated arming our troops with tactical nukes, which Dief was deadset against because it meant dealing with the Yanks.


ridenrain ridenrain:
Now that Chretien's Afghan peasekeeping adventure turned into a shooting war, we find that we're not equiped. What a suprise.

Mulroney deserves blame too but most of that time was taken up by Liberal majorities and the cuts were painfull and deep.


Bullshit. Mulroney won two majorities, the second being the most decisive in history (until 1993 aqnyways). He had all the political capital he needed. The ink on his White Paper in 1987 wasn't even dry before started cancelling projects, like nuke subs, 6 frigates, new tanks, APCs for the Arctic, the world's most powerful icebreaker, you name it. He had a decade of $20+ BILLION deficits and spent next to none of it on the CF.

No, between sticker shock (aka cheapness) and his attempts to secure his own lasting legacy (the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords), he left the CF in even worse shape than Trudeau, having cut manpower through early retirements, selling off the Chinooks, closing our bases in Europe, you name it.

Chretien inherited a massive deficit and debt and had to cut spending. Given that the CF is the government's biggest bill (after interest on the debt), it made sense that cuts would come from them. I would gladly villify if he had cut spending on the CF and only the CF, but he cut spending across every department in the government. Everyone had to make do with less.

Does that totally forgive those cuts? Of course not. But if you bring up the cuts, then you also have to bring up the fact that Chretien poured more money into the CF after 9/11 than any leader since Pearson. Defence spending jumped 50% in 4 years after 9/11.

And the troops were equipped for Afghanistan. Our LAV IIIs were so awesome, Dubya wanted some for his little adventure in Iraq. Our snipers, using the best equipment in the world, set new long-range kill records. Sure there were some Cold War holdovers (like the Iltis), but they wer replaced by Nyalas and G-Wagens as soon as their flaws were revealed by a suicide attack in Kabul. And of course, having to hitch rides from the Dutch in our old Chinooks stung. Little things like not having desert camo are things you righties like to pick on, but look closer at the reason why they didn't have them. We had just switched to a new pattern (CADPAT), and the desert version was last on the list for production, not a big surprise considering Canadian soldiers had pretty much NEVER fought in a desert zone (at least since WW2).

No, neglecting the CF is a case of all or none. Either every leader since St. Laurent neglected it (and therefore the majority of Canadians), or no one's guilty.

Take your pick.


R=UP

I think you would have to complete a long and treacherous odyssey before he ever holds his precious conservatives accountable to anywhere even close to the level he does the Libs.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4914
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:40 pm
 


I will say one thing as a 'conservative' so far there has been lots of talk and very little action.

I would like to see us spending our deficit (ugg I still hate that) here on things that we WILL need like arctic ice breakers, new JSS etc.

And I will admit, NO ONE (any political stripe) has done enough for the military. They are big on talk, but little on spending.





PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:44 pm
 


uwish uwish:
I will say one thing as a 'conservative' so far there has been lots of talk and very little action.

I would like to see us spending our deficit (ugg I still hate that) here on things that we WILL need like arctic ice breakers, new JSS etc.

And I will admit, NO ONE (any political stripe) has done enough for the military. They are big on talk, but little on spending.


I think a couple of nice quiet nuclear subs would be better then heavy icebreakers which may bust through that ten feet of ice no problem but that will freeze over right away so I dont know why everyone think's icebreaker's are a solution.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:47 pm
 


ziggy ziggy:
uwish uwish:
I will say one thing as a 'conservative' so far there has been lots of talk and very little action.

I would like to see us spending our deficit (ugg I still hate that) here on things that we WILL need like arctic ice breakers, new JSS etc.

And I will admit, NO ONE (any political stripe) has done enough for the military. They are big on talk, but little on spending.


I think a couple of nice quiet nuclear subs would be better then heavy icebreakers which may bust through that ten feet of ice no problem but that will freeze over right away so I dont know why everyone think's icebreaker's are a solution.


Doesn't matter if the ocean will refreeze behind it, as if it is escorting any vessels, they will be close enough that the water wont refreeze before they pass by.

I personally believe icebreakers are being cited over subs as they show a visual presence combared to a sbmerged sub. plus the noise of it might scare an enemy sb out of territoril waters, which ultimtely is the point.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:48 pm
 


I'd love to see us get some nucs. For some reason naval members like Wullu would tell us that the navy itself wasn't too keen over getting nucs instead of other vessels. I think NIMBY was a mentioned concern.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23060
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:49 pm
 


Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
bootlegga bootlegga:
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_GMs/AGM67/granatstein.htm

Which is what I've been saying pretty much since the day I got here. The people to blame are the ones who elected the governments that neglected our armed forces.


The latest conservative government proved that there are no viable options for the military.

And there was a poll on here from a way while back where the largest group of people said they supported a military of between 150 000 and 250 000 members, and if you included the +250 000, over half voted for a military bigger than 150 000 members.

Polls on CKA are generally fairly accurate when it comes to the opinion of the country, as we have an accurate distribution of people based on geographic populations and opinions.

As such, it is my personal view that many many Canadians would support a much larger military, both in terms of manower and budget. Yes the budget increases would be bitched about, but it time the budget would once again become status quo, and should the Liberals eb the ones to make the most increases I'd liek to see the conservatives complin about it to win an election.

The only catch would be is that people would support domestic capability, and not neccisarly an invasion capability. So the military should be structured around defence, with a limited ability to reach out and strike enemy ports and airbases, which without they can't attack us.

This would mean no JSS. Though I don't see a problem with a couple amphibious assualt ships "soley" for the purpose of extended disaster relief across the globe, though the built in capacity for invasion would obviously be included. ;)

bootlegga bootlegga:
Sounds good to me, except for the mines. The last thing we need is a Kursk in the Arctic, slowly leaking radioactive shit into the water. Sensors, coupled with nuke subs would work better anyways.


Uranium is a naturally occurng element, and the small amount of enrichment in the nuclear attack subs up in our artic isn't in near enough quantity to cause any worse environmental damage than Chalk River Power Plant. granted I wouldn't want to fish within X number of miles of the site, but overall it would not damage the ecology of the artic.


I agree that many Canadians would support a larger CF, but that it would be more defence-oriented than the bigwigs in the CF would prefer. Frankly, I think one of the problems with the CF is its leadership. They seem to have a serious case of penis envy and want to have all sorts of big ticket items other countries have, instead of building what Canada really needs for its own protection. They want amphibious assault ships (or a helo carrier), giant transport planes and all sorts of other 'expeditionary force' shit, but can't specify why we would need such equipment, or even point to a recent event where it would have been useful. What's worse, is that they refuse to operate armed icebreakers to patrol the Arctic? I mean, WTF?!?

I know I rail about the C-17, but unless we are planning on flying a battalion of troops halfway around the world, it really isn't necessary to own them. Yes, they can drop troops in the Arctic, or ship supplies to Manitoba if it floods, but we could have leased planes from a Toronto company and had roughly the same capability for a fraction of the cost. Or we could just have bought more C-130s (which we are also doing) instead. The point is spent a lot of money on a capability we won't need in a couple of years. Is that wise with our limited budget (especially given that it costs almsot $50,000 an HOUR to operate)?

As much as the CF despises peacekeeping, the public likes it and views it as a source of pride. I can't even imagine how many times I read/saw/heard people bragging about Canada having contributed peacekeepers to every single UN mission, or having supplied more total (about 125,000) than anyone else in UN history. Those facts are a distant memory these days. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with peacekeeping, as long as there is a peace to keep. Sending lightly armed troops into a war zone is dangerous and stupid.

I think the JSS can be sold easily to the public, especially if the next time there's a tsunami in Asia, one of ours shows up and starts dropping off supplies the way the USN's carriers and amphibious assault ships did in 2004. Heck, we sent one to the Bahamas to help out after Hurricane Andrew a while back. Tack on our ability to deploy frigates anywhere in the world (like to Somalia to fight pirates) and I think it's doable. What isn't palatable to the public are assault ships, helo carriers or any other sort of big, offensive weapons. Harper learned that lesson in 2004.

And I agree uranium is naturally occurring, but not in the quantities or grade used in nuclear propulsion. When I was talking about the Kursk, I implied that if one of Russia's shitty nuke subs hit a mine and sank, it would leak, and given Russian nuclear reactor technology, would definitely be an environmental disaster.





PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:53 pm
 


That would be so expensive,there's people around that have supplied the north for years in the 3 month window they have and do it well.
The cost of convoying ship's up there for anything but military or emergency work would be horrendous.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:22 pm
 


$1:
As much as the CF despises peacekeeping, the public likes it and views it as a source of pride. I can't even imagine how many times I read/saw/heard people bragging about Canada having contributed peacekeepers to every single UN mission, or having supplied more total (about 125,000) than anyone else in UN history. Those facts are a distant memory these days. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with peacekeeping, as long as there is a peace to keep. Sending lightly armed troops into a war zone is dangerous and stupid.


Thats because the people are ignorant. If they really saw what peacekeeping is, they'd be in as much of an uproar over us standing by as they were over the shit-show that happened with the airbourne regiment. It's even worse on the soldiers who have to stand there and watch litterally hundreds, if not thousands of people slaughtered right before their eyes, all because UN SOPs dictate that we are only to observe the peace, and not intravene in violence. Most prime example is Ruwanda, but it also happened in Bosnia and Somolia.

Most people percieve peacekeeping as the military out doing convoys, meeting and greeting the people, and standing firm between two opposing sides, or protecting a smaller group from genocide. But that is peacemaking, not peacekeeping.



Ziggy: Stop thinking 500-1000 Tonne barges that supply local towns, and start thinking cross-polar, 200 000 Tonne oil tankers and cargo ships, where the costs of cutting through the ice are cheaper than the costs of going all the way down to the panama canal in smaller vessels.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:07 pm
 


$1:
I know I rail about the C-17, but unless we are planning on flying a battalion of troops halfway around the world, it really isn't necessary to own them. Yes, they can drop troops in the Arctic, or ship supplies to Manitoba if it floods, but we could have leased planes from a Toronto company and had roughly the same capability for a fraction of the cost. Or we could just have bought more C-130s (which we are also doing) instead. The point is spent a lot of money on a capability we won't need in a couple of years. Is that wise with our limited budget (especially given that it costs almsot $50,000 an HOUR to operate)?


So I'm assuming these "leased" planes would have been fully (with no reservations) under CF control and would have flown wherever (and whenever) we required them to go regardless of threat level?

What kind of defensive suites do these Ruskie planes have?

What was the fine print in proposed contract?

$1:
As much as the CF despises peacekeeping, the public likes it and views it as a source of pride. I can't even imagine how many times I read/saw/heard people bragging about Canada having contributed peacekeepers to every single UN mission, or having supplied more total (about 125,000) than anyone else in UN history. Those facts are a distant memory these days. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with peacekeeping, as long as there is a peace to keep. Sending lightly armed troops into a war zone is dangerous and stupid.


Any future peacekeeping missions we go on, our troops should be under Canadian command (not the UN), following Canadian rules (not the UN's), and not wearing the blue berret.

Just my personal feelings on that topic.

$1:
I think the JSS can be sold easily to the public, especially if the next time there's a tsunami in Asia, one of ours shows up and starts dropping off supplies the way the USN's carriers and amphibious assault ships did in 2004. Heck, we sent one to the Bahamas to help out after Hurricane Andrew a while back. Tack on our ability to deploy frigates anywhere in the world (like to Somalia to fight pirates) and I think it's doable. What isn't palatable to the public are assault ships, helo carriers or any other sort of big, offensive weapons. Harper learned that lesson in 2004.


We should scrap the JSS (would have been a mediocre ship anyway), and have two seperate programs. One to replace the AOR capability, and another to provide troop carrying/Amphib assault capability.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests



cron
 
     
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.