Another nail in the coffin

[CaptainCrunch]

We all know that I'm a big proponent of the Canadian Military, thats no secret. I firmly believe that our men and woman when placed in a bad situation should not have to fight a battle on three fronts.

1) We know that they have to fight any enemy thats put in front of them. Peacekeeping isn't all about diplomacy, its also about projecting strength so you can difuse situation, its about being able to forcable enforce the peace. Its about being able to defend yourself. whats unacceptable is this

2) Fighting obsolete equipment, we shouldn't have to worry about our troops being taken out by mines, RPG's and light machine guns. We shouldn't have to worry about our troops going down in 30 year old helicopters, or riding around in un-armoured vehicles, or 25 year old armoured vehicles that couldn't stop a thrown knife. We souldn't have to worry about pilots dying when thier CF-18's with stressed airframes start droppping from the sky

3) Troops shouldn't be lead by ineffective senior officers who are more concerned with politics then saving or preserving the lives of thier troops, we shouldn't have to worry about a Liberal government that over promises our commitments.

so you have to ask yourself why Captain Crunch is supremely p*ssed. After reading todays sun and getting some grey confirmation from some friends of mine it appears that the Canadian forces is going to undergo further gutting at the hands of the Liberal government.

Paul Martin our intrepid and brilliant Prime Minister has decided that he wants add 5000 peacekeepers to our forces composition, however he's decided brilliantly that he dosen't want to increase the defense budget by one penny in order to do this. Instead he's going to further cut down key equipment to reach his goal. So hows he going to achieve this lofty goal.

1) Our four command and control Destroyers, the 280 Iroquois class destroyers are to be mothballed, leaving us with a frigate navy of 12 Halifax class frigates. this leaves us with an ASW platform and thats all. these frigates as good as they are are not designed for anti-air or antiship operations, they are built mainly to hunt subs. so when we send these ships on the next UN or nato requirement and they get gutted if something happens, hey at least we have 5000 under equiped peacekeepts to fall back on.

2) The new multi-purpose Navy vessels designed to carry troops, equipment and helicopters to danger areas will not be built, so we're going to depend on our allies to not only get our troops to the required areas, but we're going to depend on allied resupply. Brilliant planning on the Liberal's part.

3) Our airforce of CF-18's bought in the 80's which are in need of replacement are going to be drawn down by 25%, We currently have 60 combat functional CF-18's thats going to be drawn down to about 45 operational with the rest being used as either trainers or spare parts bins. Beryond the fact that the airframes are 20 years old and the avionics packages don't reach NATO standards, we're not going to replace them.

4) We're replacing our Leopard 1 tanks with Stryker assualt vehicles. A wheeled lightly armoured vehicle that will be used on UN peacekeeping or anti terrorist missions where weapons such as the RPG, or recoiless rifles will quickly turn the vehicles into funeral pyres, and our crews into corpses

5) the Liberal government in order to reach its lofty goal of adding 5000 lightly armed (pistol probably) peacekeepers is looking at closing down 5 Military bases in Winnipeg, GooseBay, BagotVille and North Bay. so not only are we going to screw over the economies of those towns and cities, but we're going to destroy any kind of fast response to crisis in those areas.

The Sun is stating that the Airforce a proud Canadian tradition could be gone by 2013 and the Navy could followup shortly afterwards. All so the Liberals can blow billions of dollars elsewhere on thier friends or on thier ######ed and stupid social programs.

Our defense minister Bill Graham who has no idea what the term realism means when it comes to soft power must be under the pay of some foreign power, this pinko idiot and Paul Martin are guilty of no less then treason as they not only leave us wide open to danger, but we will be forced to rely on other nations for our defense again.

People might be tempted to come on here and state that we can't afford to upgrade our defense capibilities and take care of our troops, and I state right here that the argument is BS. the Liberals found a billion dollars for a gun registry that dosen't work. They found hundreds of millions for Jane Stewart and Sheila Copps to blow on ridiculous programs. They found millions to spend on thier buddies in the ad agencies, yet when it comes to the men and woman who actually face death and danger there's no cash.

the Liberals are dangerous to the survival of Canada both economically and Military. A Soviet mole in the 70's is a lot less dangerous to the viability of this country.

they used to hang traitors

Yuri Antropov is probably laughing in hell right now

[Fire]

I couldn't agree more. The pitiful military is a laughing stock of the world. Canadian sovereignty depends on a strong military. If we rely on the United States for all of our protection then we bascially become the 52nd state.

[Cowboy]

This exact thing was brought to my attention yesterday. I knew the Liberals had promised to "expand" the military but I did not realize that they planned to do it with out giving money to the military.

I am with you on this, it is a little embarassing.

[Agamemnon]

Wow, just the other day I was thinking it would probably be a good move for Canada to scrap the navy and airforce and concentrate entirely on light infantry (for peacekeeping operations primarily) as well as support/logistics units for deployment/extraction/resupply of the infantry.

I fully agree that if this reformation is done half-assed or inefficiently (hello Liberals) then it is a dumb idea. However, considering the current geopolitical climate and Canada's role in it, I think we have to ask ourselves what's more important, having a combined-arms military that generally does not stand up to NATO requirements; or do we decide that actually participating in multi-national interventions, on the ground, in an effective way, is the position we want Canada to take.

I honestly think that if we don't find a way to concentrate our military resources, the billions we sink into all 3 services are wasted. I figure if someone attacks us by air/sea, then the Americans (and NATO) can fulfill their treaty obligations to us and help us out. At the same time, when NATO wants Canada's assistance in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, etc., we actually might have real, trained, equipped light infantry able to be deployed and be effective in the thousands, as opposed to the hundreds.

I guess its all about whether or not you see Canada engaged in a defensive war, or bilateral war, anytime in the future. Obviously things change, which is why this debate is even around.

Not sure if this is an anti-Liberal thread (in which case ignore me), or an anti-military reformation thread (in which case I'm all ears).

Flame away

[KevanGuy]

Excellent and well thought-out post Cap'n. The sad state of our military is an absolute embarassment. Coincidentally, as I read this post I was watching a documentary on Canadians in WWI. I wonder what those vets, if still alive, would think of how our government has abandoned the brave men and women who have fought, died, and are still fighting to maintain freedom.

[Cowboy]

If you have the Herald today Check the back page of Section B

1600 names of Airmen that gave their lives. In World War II alone

That kind of makes ya think, "What has happened?"

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowboy@Aug 29 2004, 10:45 PM
1600 names of Airmen that gave their lives. In World War II alone

That kind of makes ya think, "What has happened?"

"What has happened?" Hmm... no more World Wars? Not too sure why/how there would be any other conflict where we'd lose those kinds of numbers. Also not sure where pointing that out is going... we don't go to war enough?

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Aug 29 2004, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Aug 29 2004, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowboy@Aug 29 2004, 10:45 PM
1600 names of Airmen that gave their lives. In World War II alone

That kind of makes ya think, "What has happened?"

"What has happened?" Hmm... no more World Wars? Not too sure why/how there would be any other conflict where we'd lose those kinds of numbers. Also not sure where pointing that out is going... we don't go to war enough? [/b][/quote]
Thanks smart ass but I was talking about our military...I post a thread letting people know about how many Airmen died. Your arrogant ass has to come back with dumb comment that has nothing to do with the post.

Way to go!!!

Glad to notice you paid attention to the 1600 Airmen dying part of my post!!!

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Cowboy@Aug 29 2004, 11:31 PM
Thanks smart ass but I was talking about our military...I post a thread letting people know about how many Airmen died. Your arrogant ass has to come back with dumb comment that has nothing to do with the post.

Way to go!!!

Glad to notice you paid attention to the 1600 Airmen dying part of my post!!!

Fine, 1600 Canadian airmen died. Do you want credit for something here? I recall the thread being about the Canadian military changes instigated by the Liberal Party, not a cry-in for Canadian military dead. Though you're right, my comment had nothing to do w/ the thread, because it was a reply to your comment... which had nothing to do with the thread.

Sorry, I'll try to ignore.

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+Aug 29 2004, 05:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Aug 29 2004, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowboy@Aug 29 2004, 11:31 PM
Thanks smart ass but I was talking about our military...I post a thread letting people know about how many Airmen died. Your arrogant ass has to come back with dumb comment that has nothing to do with the post.

Way to go!!!

Glad to notice you paid attention to the 1600 Airmen dying part of my post!!!

Fine, 1600 Canadian airmen died. Do you want credit for something here? I recall the thread being about the Canadian military changes instigated by the Liberal Party, not a cry-in for Canadian military dead. Though you're right, my comment had nothing to do w/ the thread, because it was a reply to your comment... which had nothing to do with the thread.

Sorry, I'll try to ignore. [/b][/quote]
Since when do the death of our military men have nothing to do with the military, In one post someone wondered about how our veterans feel about our military. I was pointing out conicidentally today in the news paper there is a list of 1600 names posted.

I don't want credit for anything, I was just pointing it out.

Infact I wasn't expecting anybody to reply to my post, it was just a side note...

But your arrogant, and you had to say something about it.

[Dirty Mr. Clean]

Wow the first election promise broken again. How many times with Canadians vote for these guys?

Edit: Grammer.

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Dirty Mr. Clean@Aug 29 2004, 06:26 PM
Wow the first election promise broken again.# How many times with Canadians vote for these guys?

Edit: Grammer.

Every party breaks promises...Isn't that what being a politician is all about?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Dirty Mr. Clean@Aug 29 2004, 05:26 PM
Wow the first election promise broken again. How many times with Canadians vote for these guys?

Edit: Grammer.

As much fun as it is to throw around phrases like stupid liberals, pinko idiots, treasonous Prime Ministers and broken campaign promises it should be pointed out that we have a minority government right now. As this article points out (there are much better, but this is the one I could find on short notice) Paul Martin's position on the military isn't far from Harpers. However, it was bound to be watered down by the forced cooperation with the NDP and BQ.

[Dirty Mr. Clean]

I don't agree the Liberals could have teamed up with the Conservitives and get the votes they would need easier then with the NDP and BQ.

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Dirty Mr. Clean@Aug 29 2004, 07:05 PM
I don't agree the Liberals could have teamed up with the Conservitives and get the votes they would need easier then with the NDP and BQ.

Actually the conservatives would not do that!

They want the Liberals out I think it is called a vote of no confidence, so they want the NDP and Bloc on their side.

and the question is, why would they do it when their views socially and econmically and pretty much every other view conflict

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by Dirty Mr. Clean@Aug 29 2004, 07:05 PM
I don't agree the Liberals could have teamed up with the Conservitives and get the votes they would need easier then with the NDP and BQ.

Not likely. As was mentioned, it's highly doubtful the Conservatives will back anything the Liberals put forward, even if they're in idealogical agreement.

Sadly, a minority government means there's going to be far too many concessions made by the Liberals to the far-left and Quebec in order to get the Bloc and the NDP to support them on other issues (the budget being the biggest one). I feel Canada would actually be much better if the NDP and the Conservatives had their roles reversed, with Layton and co. as the opposition and Martin cooperating with Harper on key issues, especially fiscal policy where their positions aren't that far apart.

[CaptainCrunch]

Just a few things that I want to add in response to this thread

1) If we got rid of our airforce and Navy Nato or the American's would defend us in terms of crisis

First and foremost if we disolved our Navy and Airforce it would be unlikely that we would be allowed to stay in Nato as our ability to contribute meaningful personal and equipment would drop below acceptable limits, and Nato is not a charitable organization, if they did decide to let us in, but had to provide a coastal and air command structure Canada would be billed far more than our defense budget.

If the American's had to come to our aid in time of crisis you can bet there would be a hard cost to it as well. Mom and Pa Kettle in Kansas would also be unhappy if thier little Jimmy had the chance of coming and dying for a wealthy country that was too stupid to defend itself.

2) We should specialize our army and make it into a light infrantry based Military

This has been looked at multiple times, it sounds good in theory but it rarely works out. When it comes too any kind of war situation chances are the enemy knows your force compisition and if your too specialized he'll make you pay.

IE force is heavy in Infantry, you load up on artillary and long range weapons so you can chew up your enemy at a distance

too much artillary dependance you counter with air threats

too much armour dependance you load up on longer ranged missile systems

the only way to win any kind of confrontation is to have a strong combined arms approach so you can hit the enemy with anything.

The only way that you can keep your troops alive is to give them the flexibility to survive in any situation.

The only thing we'd get if we built a army lite, even when using them for peace keeping is a higher body count when it hits the fan.

Also a big part of any military in peace keeping is not diplomacy, but to scare the two parties at odds into behaving through intimidation. Make them realize that if they want to move through a refugee camp with guns and knives that they are going to pay for it.

this 21st century lets ask them not to slaughter woman and children dosen't work period.

3) Mike F's point

As much fun as it is to throw around phrases like stupid liberals, pinko idiots, treasonous Prime Ministers and broken campaign promises it should be pointed out that we have a minority government right now. As this article points out (there are much better, but this is the one I could find on short notice) Paul Martin's position on the military isn't far from Harpers. However, it was bound to be watered down by the forced cooperation with the NDP and BQ.

Paul Martin has always been a enemy of the military as is Bill Graham. Martin cut the military and has put lives in danger throughout his whole career, Bill Graham is a proponent of soft power for his whole life and dosen't believe that Military strength equats to international prestige, both are naive foolish and dead wrong. And if the stuff does hit the fan, and something does happen and the body bags start coming home, I hope both men can face up to it

4) Ha Ha its unlikely that something is going to happen so we don't need any kind of self defense capability

The military is kind of like a fire ax in a hallway with the sign break in case of trouble. When its peaceful you don't need them. But if something happens you wish you had them. Between the poor performance of CSIS, our weak military, our misdirected government this country is screaming from the hill tops for a attack. Look at what happened on 9/11, it would be easier to do it up here. If you don't think it won't happen because of our foreign policy stance against America your lying to yourself. Terrorists aren't going to differentiate between us in the American's when it comes to finding a soft target, and we will be preferable because we have no way to respond.

Our country gives off an incredible whimp vibe, and in this day of long distance terrorists we could pay for that.

The history lessons are harsh, just when you get to the apex of peace, something sends you to war, every single time.

Heck we're not even a good peacekeeping nation anymore, we're symbolic at best and a joke at the worst.

And I'm serious when I say that if Martin and Graham and the Liberal's go through with this then they should be charged for treason. they've broken the faith with everyone who's put on the uniform, they've put these people in danger so they can get money to thier friends and hangers on. If thats not treasonist then I don't know what is

[nieuwy-89]

The only thing that surprises me about this is that one of the bases they're closing is in Ontario.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by nieuwy-89@Aug 30 2004, 05:16 AM
The only thing that surprises me about this is that one of the bases they're closing is in Ontario.

It'll be a closure in name only, they'll do the same thing that they did in Alberta and move all of the assets into a superbase like they did in Edmonton. Ask yourself which voting area is the weakest liberal area and thats where it will go

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Dirty Mr. Clean@Aug 29 2004, 06:26 PM
Wow the first election promise broken again. How many times with Canadians vote for these guys?

Edit: Grammer.

Actually the second... Goodale already all but said that National Pharmacare Program was not gonna happen.

But hey, who's counting?? well, we are, and its a damn shame the rest of the country isn't.

I really feel for Harper or whoever gets to inherit this mess of a country if the Liberals mothball the military and tell America to shove it. Just ######ed policy, but Ontario and the East have spoken... ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce you to the party who will not rest until Canada is split apart or six feet under... the Liberals.

Incidentally... don't the liberals realize that having a strong, vibrant and advanced military is good for the economy and provides quality jobs??