This stupid Toronto Sun campaign has really teed me off the last few days. Oh no, the whole world is going to end if we don't allow public service employees to stick their political slogans all over public vehicles and infrastructure!
Idiots.
Afghanistan: The NDP Minority Report and the Call to Remove Military
Thu, 2007-06-21 06:59
#52
Thu, 2007-06-21 07:44
#53
N.Beltov
We should learn from the peace and anti war movement in Quebec. Two anti war groups there are planning to march in protest on Friday against Canada's presence in Afghanistan, "the same day soldiers from the Valcartier base are expected to parade through the province's capital city in anticipation of their deployment in August."
quote:
CBC: The Guerre а la Guerre and Quйbec pour la paix coalitions hope to spark debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan. They are opposed to the traditional soldiers' parade prior to deployment, calling it a charm operation that doesn't encourage real discussion about Canada's mission abroad.
It "doesn't encourage real discussion about Canada's mission abroad". Exactly. The government knows very well public opinion is divided on this contentious issue. If they're going to use the soldiers to sway public opinion [i]without a proper debate as well[/i], then all bets are off and anything goes. Good on the Quebec peace movement.
Thu, 2007-06-21 08:55
#54
quote:
Ribbons have become symbols – once local and personal, now mass-produced – that in their ubiquity have less meaning, not more.They're rather like the American flags plastered on every football helmet, baseball jersey and political lapel in that nation, an excess that speaks of diminished, rather than enhanced, self-confidence.
It's long past time, moreover, to put paid to the notion – which seems to have started in New York after Sept. 11 six years ago – that emergency services are the nearest thing to an arm of the military and, quite literally, vehicles for advertising.
Firefighters and paramedics have jobs to do and political commentary ain't it.
It goes without saying that they support the troops. They're entirely free to plaster their own vehicles with ribbons saying so if they choose.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/article/227841]http://www.thestar.com/article/227...
Thu, 2007-06-21 09:17
#55
N.Beltov
Well, when people are awash and smothered in sports propaganda about this or that team, this or that logo, this or that cheeseburger and this or that "revolutionary" new gas-guzzling car, it's not surprising that some people are convinced that "Canada" is a "team" whose logo ought to be worn. The same people who would silence progressive activists that are civil servants want to use civil servants to promote a war-mongering agenda while they're at work.
With the NATO Secretary General in Canada, it might be useful to remember what was said 6 months ago by the Afghan NATO senior commander:
quote:
CTV (last October): While O'Connor made his plea public, NATO's top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Richards, also warned Sunday that Afghans would begin to support the Taliban again if they didn't see visible improvements within the next six months."They will say, 'We do not want the Taliban but then we would rather have the austere and unpleasant life that might involve than another five years of fighting'," said Richards.
The British officer, who commands 32,000 troops, said the coalition forces need to utilize the winter for reconstruction.
"If we collectively ... do not exploit this winter to start achieving concrete and visible improvement," then some 70 percent of Afghans could switch sides, Richards told The Associated Press.
Six months is up already. Time to get out of Afghanistan.
Thu, 2007-06-21 22:08
#56
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
I don't actually know what resolutions you're talking about, but you apparently believe the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Not sure what the point of your post is otherwise. If you do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I just hope to God the NDP never takes up that view.[/b]
These links may not be a complete answer to your implied question, but they are a start at least.
From the UN page for "Main Bodies", click on the link for "Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee".
[url=http://www.un.org/aboutun/mainbodies.htm]Main Bodies[/url]
[url=http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/index.shtml]Security Council Committee - Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions [/url]
The first and subsequent paragraphs contain links to resolutions, beginning with Resolution 1267 which dates from October 15, 1999.
[url=http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/300/44/PDF/N9930044.pdf?OpenE... COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1267 (1999)[/url]
Fri, 2007-06-22 04:25
#57
Apparently Gordon O'Connor wrote an effusive congratulatory letter to Donald Rumsfeld last December when the latter was packing his bags to leave Washington.
That prompted this strong statement from Dawn Black:
quote:
"I don't think Canada has benefited from the leadership of Rumsfeld or George Bush and I think I'm with a majority of Canadians in stating that and perhaps now with a majority of Americans," NDP defence critic Dawn Black said.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070622.wrumsfeld22/... and Mail.[/url]
Fri, 2007-06-22 13:40
#58
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228476]Mission in Kandahar to end in 2009[/url]
“The mission, which we have extended, ends in 2009. I will want to see some consensus among Canadians about how we move forward after that,” Harper told reporters session-ending press conference."
Where are we off to next? I think it will be a UN mission in Africa.
Fri, 2007-06-22 14:59
#59
[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070621/que_protest...'s Anti War Protests[/url]
"Anti-war activists are using a military parade in Quebec City to protest the Afghanistan mission, but maintain they are not standing against Canada's troops."
Fri, 2007-06-22 15:07
#60
Unionist, you should also note that it was Black who found the fawning letter to Rumsfeld:
quote:
"Here we have been privileged to benefit from your leadership"
O'Connor wrote that as Rumsfeld was being pushed out of Washington. Unbelievable!
Fri, 2007-06-22 15:40
#61
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]
Where are we off to next? I think it will be a UN mission in Africa.[/b]
Oh goodie.
Fri, 2007-06-22 15:43
#62
That is only an educated guess and I hope I am incorrect.
Fri, 2007-06-22 15:48
#63
Love your Latin signature, Webgear.
Let us pray that one day soon, our troops will be able to cry:
quote:
[b][i]Melita domi adsum![/i][/b]
Fri, 2007-06-22 16:39
#64
I was also thinking of using
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges
Liberate Me Ex Infernis
Quid Est Veritas
Fri, 2007-06-22 17:00
#65
Back on the discussion of the thread.
"CIDA’s current development strategy in Afghanistan is targeted at supporting the
Karzai government. The major programs include security sector reform, governance training, and counter-narcotics operations. Building on earlier
allocations of $100 million per year, a 2006 decision extended that allocation for ten years to total $1 billion in aid to Afghanistan. This makes Afghanistan by far Canada’s largest aid recipient in history."
and
"The benefits of reconstruction and development have not reached large portions of the Afghan population. Six years into a major international engagement in Afghanistan in which $12 billion has been spent on aid Afghanistan remains one of the world’s poorest countries. Under these circumstances, the salaries offered by Taliban forces are drawing many young Afghan males into the insurgency."
At this point of time Canada has provide 1/12th of all the aid which has gone into Afghanistan. That is respectable amount of money compared to what the rest of the world has provide.
Fri, 2007-06-22 19:23
#66
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070622.wvandoos0622... march peacefully in Quebec[/url]
"The protesters marched alongside the troops for a short distance, carrying banners and flags and shouting to be heard over the applause of supporters who stood between them and the columns of soldiers. Police said there were no arrests."
Fri, 2007-06-22 21:08
#67
First R22E BG in rotation since Kabul. I don't doubt they will be as professional as PPCLI and RCR.
The focus on Afghan progress should be evaluated on Afghan perceptions,not Canadian champagne socialist expectations.
Fri, 2007-06-22 21:31
#68
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]
The focus on Afghan progress should be evaluated on Afghan perceptions,not Canadian champagne socialist expectations.[/b]
You're a young Afghan, and you're poor. Poorer than even a young unemployed Newfoundlander or Northern Canadian. What few opportunities exist are in the army, almost the situation for young people in Canada except with a lot fewer maple trees and oil and gas being carted away and siphoned off to the States every day. And then there's the Taliban and their connected friends [wink-nod-wink on friends] paying big bucks to fight against the fascist invaders. For too many Taliban recruits, the choice has become an easy one.
Fri, 2007-06-22 22:03
#69
Well, there ya go Fidel,proving my point. The last Newfoundlander I talked to in April,owned 2 houses,one of which was a waterfront dream and flew his whole family there twice a year.
I don't know any Afghans but I doubt that the ministrations of Canadian champagne socialist do-gooders mean diddly-squat to them. What does mean something to them is a foundation to build the infrastructure they need in order to aspire to their own vision of society.
It is exceedingly simple for the keyboard commandos to criticise a society they know nothing of and prognosticate according to their own privileged surroundings.
I agree with Layton's assessment that Canada needs to do more regarding development and diplomacy.
I have some very serious reservations regarding the effectiveness of the bureaucrats at CIDA.
One cannot expect the martini lunch crowd to embrace a dangerous mission effectively.
[ 22 June 2007: Message edited by: jester ]
Sat, 2007-06-23 01:30
#70
It's their country, jester. Young people from Newfoundland and Saskatchewan and Alberta shouldn't be on the other side of the world killing poor people. Canada's youth needs more opportunity than that. Bush is the worst president in U.S. history, and Harper's just beginning to realize that for the sake of his own political future.
Sat, 2007-06-23 04:30
#71
It's time to 'shit or get off the pot'
let those that want this call for the government to invoke this thing:[url=http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/E-4.5/bo-ga:l_III//en#anchorbo-g... act[/url] and all of us can share the pain equally, put our money and all else were our mouths are or, we leave
[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: Ward to correct link]
[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: Ward ]
Sat, 2007-06-23 04:36
#72
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]The focus on Afghan progress should be evaluated on Afghan perceptions,not Canadian champagne socialist expectations.[/b]
This is insulting and not appropriate here. Lay off the snarkiness.
Sat, 2007-06-23 06:23
#73
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]This is insulting and not appropriate here. Lay off the snarkiness.[/b]
So is this:
quote:
Originally posted by jester: [b]The last Newfoundlander I talked to in April,owned 2 houses,one of which was a waterfront dream and flew his whole family there twice a year.[/b]
But I'm not surprised that someone who thinks Afghans need the help of Stephen Harper, Gordon O'Connor and Rick Hillier would have a rather jaded view of humanity in general.
Sat, 2007-06-23 06:56
#74
N.Beltov
It looks like the peaceful protestors in Quebec had a good march. The government leaders and the NATO S-G in town had to reply in the face of open opposition and wound up getting hopelessly tangled up in their usual lies:
quote:
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: It is not a combat mission; it is a reconstruction mission, but to make [reconstruction] possible, we have to fight. It is as simple as that. NATO has to fight.
This is, of course, a bare faced lie. The latest "reconstruction" bombing mission saw all sorts of women and children, in addition to Taliban fighters, slaughtered mercilessly.
Trying to lift the covers enough to actually evaluate the bogus claim is difficult. But, from what information is available, it's clear that "reconstruction" is a tiny fraction of the money spent over there, next to military spending, armaments, money siphoned off to corrupt Karzai government officials, etc. Tiny pockets of consumerist "western" enclaves in Kabul is about all they have to show.
Sat, 2007-06-23 07:07
#75
quote:
“We have an excellent working relationship with the farmers, with the villagers, with the village elders and with the police in this area,” Grant said. “Clearly, the Taliban see our successes in this particular district as a challenge to them and they continue to disrupt us and dislocate us.”
Wow I thought the Iraqi information minister wasn't working for Canada. Thank you Minister of Oxymoronism....at what point will they get it. Sure they just butched a bunch more of our troops, that must mean we are succeeding...and what are we succeeding at.
Sat, 2007-06-23 07:16
#76
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]“The mission, which we have extended, ends in 2009. I will want to see some consensus among Canadians about how we move forward after that,” Harper told reporters session-ending press conference."[/b]
I listened to Harper's lies last night on the National where he was blamming the opposition that it is going end in 2009 because they refused to support the "troops". Lying asshole that he is.
But good job CTV for pointing out he was only saying this to try to undercut the opposition, with certain demographics, and trying to appeal to others, the majority who want our military out now, to try to bring the CPC numbers back up.
Little does he realize they are not going to come back up. And watch them dip even further after July the 1st.
Sat, 2007-06-23 07:40
#77
joshmanicus
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]An interesting critique of the opposition - both the Liberals and the NDP - from the former co-chair of the Canadian Peace Alliance Darrell Rankin. Rankin is the Communist leader in Manitoba.The gist of Rankin's argument is that the opposition needs to pass some sort of compromise resolution in Parliament, before the next election, setting a date to end the Afghan carnage. Rankin is of the view that this will help to isolate the Harper Conservatives and prevent them from getting a majority government.
[url=http://www.peoplesvoice.ca/Pv16jn07.html#Rivalry_and_opportunism]Rankin: Rivalry and Opportunism[/url]
[ 20 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ][/b]
I agree with some of Darrell Rankin's assessments in these statements while I disagree with others. For example, he says that the NDP appears to be grandstanding on their position re: Afghanistan. I would agree. It is grandstanding, and they should not be afraid to do so at every opportunity. The better the numbers the NDP garners in the long run, the better the chances for them to gain the seats in parliament to ram their withdrawal hopes through.
What I do not agree with is Rankin's point that the NDP didn't do enough to compromise. From what I've read from Stephen Staples, this is just not the case. According to Staples, he tried to broker a deal between the Liberals, Bloc and NDP, which would have brought about exactly what Rankin was talking about. Instead, the Liberals and Bloc decided to not play ball and as a result, their foolish motion to extend the war indefinately failed.
Sat, 2007-06-23 07:51
#78
N.Beltov
quote:
Joshua Kubinec: [Rankin] says that the NDP appears to be grandstanding on their position re: Afghanistan. I would agree. It is grandstanding, and they should not be afraid to do so at every opportunity. The better the numbers the NDP garners in the long run, the better the chances for them to gain the seats in parliament to ram their withdrawal hopes through.
Rankin calls this opportunism, since it puts narrow party political interests ahead of shared interests in isolating and defeating the Conservatives. Abstractly, having more NDPers is a good thing in Parliament. However, short-term interests may actually contradict long-term interests. There's no reason to suppose that parties that work together to defeat the open-ended approach of the Conservatives on the Afghan mission wouldn't [b]all[/b] benefit from such a principled approach all all benefit at the expense of the Conservatives.
quote:
Josh: Instead, the Liberals and Bloc decided to not play ball and as a result, their foolish motion to extend the war indefinately failed.
I think their "foolish motion" was to set a deadline that the NDP could not live with because, in the view of the NDP strategists, it implicitly asserted that the current mission up to the date of withdrawal was acceptable. And the latter the NDP could not live with. This seems a case where half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. And right now, we have no loaf at all.
I didn't read the Staples material. Perhaps the Bloc and Liberals really did sabotage any deal. But from what you've written, I can't see that you've shown that to be true other than asserting that it is true.
Sat, 2007-06-23 08:52
#79
joshmanicus
N.Beltov, please see this [url=http://ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/what-was-stephane-dion-... article[/url], it should clear things up.
Sat, 2007-06-23 09:15
#80
N.Beltov
Staples' blog exposes both parties as selfishly putting their own perceived interests and "scoring points" ahead of general anti-war interests.
As a sidebar, I can't help but think that this Mexican stand-off may very well represent the undisclosed wishes and views of some NDPers and Liberals. It may represent a calculation that nothing is gained electorally by working together to isolate the Conservatives. This is harmful to Canada, whatever inflated views of themselves these two parties have.
I mark my ballot for the NDP because I expect more from that party on key and fundamental issues. The end result here is that the two parties, together, successfully failed to pass a motion either setting a deadline to leave or demanding that the troops "begin" to leave at once.
And maybe that's it. It was a successful failure. The range of views in Parliament may not be nearly as wide as its Members let on or would like us all to believe.
Sat, 2007-06-23 09:22
#81
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]
And maybe that's it. It was a successful failure. The range of views in Parliament may not be nearly as wide as its Members let on or would like us all to believe.[/b]
Bingo! You just won a big fat cigar.
Sat, 2007-06-23 10:08
#82
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]
Staples' blog exposes both parties as selfishly putting their own perceived interests and "scoring points" ahead of general anti-war interests.
[/b]
I would also include the interests of the troops on the ground, which all political groups say they support however really do not care for in my view.
Sat, 2007-06-23 10:16
#83
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]The end result here is that the two parties, together, successfully failed to pass a motion either setting a deadline to leave or demanding that the troops "begin" to leave at once.[/b]
You're exactly right. 124 Conservative MP's and 103 Liberals combined still have our guys in Afghanistan for another 18 months or pending orders from a change of cosmetic government in Warshington come 2009. 2009 seems to be a magic year for the colonial administratorship in Ottawa.
It's like the free trade debates way back when. The Liberals made themselves out to be anti-FTA and anti-Mulroney. Canadians had to vote [i]"strategically"[/i] for the Liberals if we wanted to punish Mulroney. In the end they might as well have elected Mulroney for all the good it did voting Liberal.
In Canada, a vote for either the Liberals or Conservatives is a vote for the big business/banking cabal and subserviant colonial administratorship in general.
[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sat, 2007-06-23 10:19
#84
joshmanicus
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Staples' blog exposes both parties as selfishly putting their own perceived interests and "scoring points" ahead of general anti-war interests.As a sidebar, I can't help but think that this Mexican stand-off may very well represent the undisclosed wishes and views of some NDPers and Liberals. It may represent a calculation that nothing is gained electorally by working together to isolate the Conservatives. This is harmful to Canada, whatever inflated views of themselves these two parties have.
I mark my ballot for the NDP because I expect more from that party on key and fundamental issues. The end result here is that the two parties, together, successfully failed to pass a motion either setting a deadline to leave or demanding that the troops "begin" to leave at once.
And maybe that's it. It was a successful failure. The range of views in Parliament may not be nearly as wide as its Members let on or would like us all to believe.[/b]
I really think that your giving the Liberals too much credit. I haven't read anything in their actions which would lead me to believe that they actually want Canada to withdraw from Afghanistan.
EDIT: If they were really interested in a withdrawal, they would have probably been more open to compromise with the NDP.
[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: Joshua Kubinec ]
Sat, 2007-06-23 10:34
#85
(124 Conservative MPs + 103 Liberal MPs) = subserviant colonial administraitorship
[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Sat, 2007-06-23 10:56
#86
remind
quote:
KABUL (AFP) - President Hamid Karzai angrily condemned Saturday "indiscriminate and unprecise" operations by NATO- and US-led forces in Afghanistan that he said had killed 90 civilians in just over a week."Attacks causing civilian casualties, as I have said before, is not acceptable for us. It is no longer tolerated," Karzai told reporters at his palace.
"As you are aware over the past several days, as result of indiscriminate and unprecise operations of NATO and coalition forces, our people suffered casualties," the grim-faced president said.
He listed four operations over the past 10 days, including one that involved three days of fighting in the southern province of Uruzgan in which he said 52 civilians were killed in foreign forces' artillery fire.
[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070623/ts_afp/afghanistanunrestciviliankar... incidents would cause the international mission to bring security to Afghanistan to fail, he warned.[/url]
Actually webgear, I am pretty damn offended that you include the NDP in your summation.
Sat, 2007-06-23 12:48
#87
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]
Actually webgear, I am pretty damn offended that you include the NDP in your summation.[/b]
Why be offended? If you have read any of my posts about the NDP defence critic and this report you would understand that the some of the NDP leadership are playing political games with the military (in my view) in order to score some political points for the next election.
Sat, 2007-06-23 13:08
#88
N.Beltov
Fidel and Joshua: I was away for a bit here. One of the points that the Communist Rankin made was that, in his view, some of the Liberals had modified or changed their views. I don't think either of you are taking this into account (for different reasons). Rankin was suggesting taking advantage of that slight change, however long it might last, to isolate the Tories. His claim was that the window may be closing, but not yet closed. This is a concrete question that isn't answered by making generalizations about how Liberals "must behave" because they're Liberals (Fidel) or throwing our arms up in the air over the miniscule changes among them (Joshua). Isolating the Conservatives [b]is also about[/b] pinning down the Liberals over their temporary change in policy, even if it is only some of them, the way they are prone to do by putting their finger in the air and checking for the wind direction, however long it lasts.
Webgear raised the issue of "the interests of the troops". I'm no soldier but I know that participation in active duty, combat, and so on, is the surest way for a soldier to move forward in his/her career (provided he doesn't get seriously injured or killed). Taking soldiers out of harms way, which would be the result if the anti-war movement was successful, may very well have a negative effect on a soldier's career but it hardly seems like much of a criticism of the anti-war movement.
Sat, 2007-06-23 14:31
#89
The Liberals and Paleocons have pinned themselves down, N. Beltov. If we help to unpin them, we're looking at another phony majority for one of the two warmongering chickenhawk-wannabe parties. The country's being run by remote control as usual.
Sat, 2007-06-23 15:43
#90
N.Beltov
I seem to remember the NDP supporting the Martin Liberals in exchange for a better approach to health policy. The Liberals broke the deal and got hoofed from office a little sooner than they might have but it seems to me the NDP looked pretty good through that sequence of events ... and got more seats the next time the Canadian people got a chance to vote on the parties.
Re-iterating the same assertion isn't very compelling Fidel. It seems more like a replacement for an argument than an argument.
Sat, 2007-06-23 16:20
#91
I think dealing for anything with the Liberals would be a kiss of death for the NDP at this point. Our Liberals are like British Tories in a sense that voters look for reasons to vote for them both. They don't have many reasons at the moment. The Martin Liberals had their chance to deal for the NDP's support and blew it.
It appears the Liberals are for cow-towing to Uncle Sam's agenda in Afghanistan the same as their ideological cousins on the right. They still believe in "the mission." Their proposal for troop withdrawal in 2009 was a nothing move and have no desire to oppose the Tories. They're not even trying to grandstand. I'm just as non-plussed by the Liberals today as I was when they betrayed their voters in 1994 with NAFTA and GST. We've come to know they're lying whenever their lips move. The LP takes no issue with their role as official "opposition" to the colonial administrative party in power. They're invisible, and that's just what the Tories have come to expect of their old partners sharing power with them.
Sat, 2007-06-23 16:33
#92
N.Beltov
I was more referring to the soldiers interests about equipment and other items. The NDP report states that the current equipment needs to be replaced however when the equipment is about to get replace the NDP complains that the items cost too much and are not required.
Sat, 2007-06-23 17:15
#93
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]The NDP report states that the current equipment needs to be replaced however when the equipment is about to get replace the NDP complains that the items cost too much and are not required.[/b]
The NDP is wrong if it says that "current equipment needs to be replaced". All spending on the military should halt until it stops committing aggression and murdering innocent people. That's my view, anyway.
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6233082.stm]Karzai angry over West's tactics[/url]
quote:
More civilians have been killed this year as a result of foreign military action than have been killed by insurgents, correspondents say.
Sat, 2007-06-23 17:56
#94
N.Beltov
quote:
Webgear: I was more referring to the soldiers interests about equipment and other items.
You would have a tough time taking apart the arguments about military spending in Canada, in general, by Steven Staples over at the Polaris Institute or [url=http://www.ceasefire.ca]www.ceasefire.ca[/url] . I encourage you to try. But perhaps you were referring to [i]specific[/i] pieces of equipment?
That sort of spending, however, is difficult to disentangle from the actual goals of the mission or missions of the armed forces. And certain kinds of spending, like, say, choosing between a really good fighter and missiles, often wind up being a political football. I can't see military spending ever getting completely out of the domain of the political.
I should admit that I haven't read the NDP report carefully, however.
Sat, 2007-06-23 18:21
#95
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]You would have a tough time taking apart the arguments about military spending in Canada, in general, by Steven Staples over at the Polaris Institute or [url=http://www.ceasefire.ca]www.ceasefire.ca[/url] . I encourage you to try. But perhaps you were referring to [i]specific[/i] pieces of equipment?
That sort of spending, however, is difficult to disentangle from the actual goals of the mission or missions of the armed forces. And certain kinds of spending, like, say, choosing between a really good fighter and missiles, often wind up being a political football. I can't see military spending ever getting completely out of the domain of the political.
[/b]
I do not think it would be too difficult. In my view, Mr. Staples has a hatred of the military, he has an axe to grid, he has never said a positive comment about the military in any of his reports that I can think of.
In referring to the NDP report, I will give you the example of the supply trucks that are mentioned in this report. If you look at other NDP press releases they are against the buying of these supply truck because of the cost.
The current supply trucks are over 25 years old, and are well pass being serviceable. They should have been replaced 10 years ago. In about 2001 the whole fleet of trucks were grounded because the brake systems have all failed to past inspection.
Sat, 2007-06-23 18:23
#96
remind
The NDP report clearly states what equipment they are speaking about and why they are talking about it webgear, and I have read everything you said and the report several times. Your comments fail to indicate anything other that spouting the CPC line from a attempted caring position and have failed impress me in anyway shape or form, as to your support of the military personnel.
Frankly IMV, you are the playing games, with Canadian lives and money.
quote:
On February 22, 2007 Lieutenant Gen Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff testified before the Standing Committee on National Defence that “it is projected that by the middle of the summer, the inside temperature for tank crews could be
in excess of 60 degrees Celsius.”Because of this the Government has started down a path of “mission creep” with respect to acquisition and our role in Afghanistan. This creep threatens to change the doctrine and disposition of the Canadian Forces quickly and irrevocably.
In March 2007 the Government announced it would lease 10 Leopard 2 A6 tanks from Germany for use in Afghanistan as well as purchase 100 Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands at a cost of $1.3 Billion11. This was a significant purchase
by the Government, and was accompanied by a signal from the Minister of National Defence that Canada would be involved in heavy combat operations for the next ten to fifteen years.
This was an enormous announcement, with a huge effect on the future of the Canadian Forces. It prompted me to request an emergency debate with the Speaker of the House on April 16, 2007. As was said in the House:I believe that [b]the announcement made by the Minister of National Defence that Canada should expect to be involved in heavy combat with armour for the next 10 to 15 years in different parts of the world is actually momentous, historically significant and without precedent. The Minister was talking about an undertaking three times longer than the great war or than World War II.[/b]
It also spoke about the mental disorders occuring from this ill founded and wrong occupation, for which there does not appear to be any services, which is something frankly you have never mentioned. Certainly you do not appear to be a spokesperson who is at all worried about the military personnel, in my opinion.
quote:
The current mission is taking a tremendous toll on the men and women of the
Canadian Forces. The Kandahar mission has been difficult for members of the Forces and their families.The high tempo of foreign operations during the 1990s along with stagnating pay levels had a deleterious effect on the quality of life of members of the Forces and their families. The Kandahar mission and its extension have increased demands on the CF. The Committee has noted the problems members of the Forces and
their families have had in seeking counselling and Post Traumatic Stress related treatment.
10 Barnett Rubin, Foreign Affairs, January 2007
154 Forces’ members must now serve up to nine month rotations, and multiple tours in Afghanistan. The Government has also discussed “re-rolling” members of the Air Force and Navy to meet the needs of the mission.
Note the 100 tanks from the Netherlands it is quite apparent why the Nethlands person was here last week being shown around!
Sat, 2007-06-23 18:28
#97
N.Beltov
Here's an idea: unionize the soldiers and then they will have a vehicle through which their wishes can be conveyed [i]independently[/i] of politicians, higher ranking officers, or nosy outsiders.
In fact, I think the Mounties could use a union as well. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2007-06-23 19:25
#98
Remind
On average it takes 10 years to replace a piece of equipment. So to replace those supply trucks today would mean that the current supply trucks will have been in service for 35 years.
With each delay in ordering new equipment the military suffers a bit more, it will cost lives one day.
Does this not seem silly in your view, to equipment in such a poor state that it takes one hour of maintenance for every hour of driving. I have vehicles in my platoon that have been waiting parts for nearly 18 months because the trucks are 15 to25 years old and the parts are limited. The parts are all being sent to Afghanistan and other overseas missions because they are a higher priority than the trucks here in Canada.
They are driving APCs from the 1960s in Afghanistan. I have a picture of my great-grandfather in the same type of APC that is currently being used in Afghanistan.
The amount of PTSD and mental illness cases are equally to the amounts cases on any UN/NATO mission from the 1990s.
The soldiers that are currently doing 9 month tour lengths are in static headquarter positions and majority of these soldiers are in senior leadership roles thus are amongst the safest people in the country. This is not the first mission were Canadian soldiers have done 9 month tours.
The Dutch general is in charge of NATO. I am sure he has visited many countries with NATO as part of his duties just like all the previous other generals have done so in the past.
The NDP are just playing politics with the military.
I on the other hand want the best for the military.
Sat, 2007-06-23 19:49
#99
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]With each delay in ordering new equipment the military suffers a bit more, it will cost lives one day.[/b]
That is absolute frigging nonsense, who do you think you are talking to, grade 11 or 12 students, or supporters of the CPC?
All that means is the government should not have been sending any people there, at all, in the first place. Nice try to say it is the NDP playing politics and harming the personnel. They would not be in harms way in the first place, if not for the Liberals and the CPC sending and keeping them there so poorly equipped.
Moreover, following proper proceedure and having a white paper, is not going to make a damn bit of difference to the time frame as they would not be there for this summer anyway, or perhaps not by 2009 even, with your estimated decades long replacement time. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
[b]The amount of PTSD and mental illness cases are equally to the amounts cases on any UN/NATO mission from the 1990s.[/b][/quote}provide proof.
[quote][b]The NDP are just playing politics with the military. [/b]
BS, you are trying to play phoney politics with the NDP.
quote:
[b]I on the other hand want the best for the military.[/b]
Actually, I do not believe this even for a second.
[ 23 June 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Sat, 2007-06-23 20:06
#100
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]RemindOn average it takes 10 years to replace a piece of equipment. So to replace those supply trucks today would mean that the current supply trucks will have been in service for 35 years.[/b]
35 years ?. Good grief! Why hasn't the NDP given the green light go to previous successive old line party autocratic governments with decades-long strangleholds on the purse strings in Ottawa ?. I know! It's because the NDP weren't the ones running the show all these years that supply trucks needed replacing.
quote:
[b]The NDP are just playing politics with the military.I on the other hand want the best for the military.[/b]
Sure-sure ya ya. Pull the other one eh. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2007-06-23 20:13
#101
Fidel
The NDP are stating they are "It’s the NDP that’s the effective opposition in standing up to Harper’s Conservatives.”
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/5466]Standing Up For Canadians [/url]
They are currently against the current equipment purchases stated by the CPC.