Canada crippled by dishonest pacifism

[Smith048]

The sad fact is that, the military will never see any big funding increase by the government no matter what they say. The only way we will get any more money or be taken serious when we say we need more money for training, equipment, and everything else we lack. Is if Canada gets attacked, cause OBL said we are on his list, and the Gov see that we have no way to protect ourselves cause of the years of cut backs, and negelect. How long has it been since 9-11, and still no improvement.  But I could be wrong, maybe we will get more funding.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

I agree with westie.It will take some kind of disaster for people to wake up and go 'holy crap, we ARE at risk and we ARE defenseless'

 

[The_Falcon]

I was a little shocked that editorial came from That great Liberal Bastion known as The Toronto Star.  Although I don't understand how they can support expanding the forces and closing bases at the same time.

 

[R031button]

Honestly, right now, I can see two things changing the forces. One: the Liberals suddenly have a random change of heart. Two: Canada decides to send a substantial force on an operation, and the CDS flat out, publically, says " I'm sorry Mr PM, We cannot do that".

 

[Blindspot]

I had a hard time deciding which thread to post this in but I thought this one was the most appropriate:



Canadians depend on luck for national security, says Senate report

Wed Dec 8,11:10 AM ET  

STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - Canadians depend largely on luck for national security, not good planning and preparedness, says a Senate committee.
 
"When it comes to national security and defence - issues that are not part of the everyday lives of most Canadians - the vast majority of citizens trust in luck," the committee on national security and defence said Wednesday.

"Unfortunately, luck is notoriously untrustworthy."

In its first "guide book" on military and security preparedness, the committee says Ottawa has made progress dealing with military and security shortcomings during the last year, but significant gaps remain.

The government's most significant reform is the consolidation of much of the security file under Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and the release of the national security policy, it says.

Still, the new government under Prime Minister Paul Martin "has yet to demonstrate that is prepared to match resources with its stated objectives."

Major issues that remain include:

-Inadequate defence budgets, lack of military personnel, co-ordination within the federal government, the need for expanded co-operation with U.S. security institutions.

-Airports lack screening of mail and cargo, have inadequate background checks on airport personnel, lack controls over access to restricted areas, don't provide enough training for part-time customs staff.

-Seaports are vulnerable. Organized crime and inadequate container screening persist.

-Great Lakes surveillance is "the soft underbelly of Canadian coastal defence."

-There is no evidence that intelligence agencies have enough staff and scope to "thwart threats to the security of Canadians and Canada's allies."

-A "toothless Coast Guard" is vastly underutilized.



It seems that the Senate Committee echoes a great deal of the overall sentiments contained in ARMY.CA. If only the committee position was binding to the government, some headway might be achieved. However, since the committee position isn't binding do you believe it will fall upon deaf ears in Ottawa, only to be used as quote material by sympathetic jounalists, or will this succeed in turning up a measure of worthy pressure to act?

In its first "guide book" on military and security preparedness, the committee says Ottawa has made progress dealing with military and security shortcomings during the last year

What progress? A few helicopters and talk of 5000 peacekeepers? Has any other progress been made?

 

[Cloud Cover]

do you believe it will fall upon deaf ears in Ottawa, only to be used as quote material by sympathetic jounalists, or will this succeed in turning up a measure of worthy pressure to act?

[

"Yes"     .... "depends on the context, and who the journalist is and what they are spinning"....   and "not a chance."

 

[Dogboy]

-A "toothless Coast Guard" is vastly underutilized.

you must remember
Canada's Coast guard has a non military history
it was for life saving not border protecting unlike most other world powers



also please tell me why does Canada Need a big honkin army?

who is going to invade us?

now before i get flamed hear I'm not saying we should scrap the whole thing far from it.

but lets spend our money wisely

like the fazing out or heave armer and tracked vehicles their costly hi maintenance  and in modern war soon to be obsolete

why do we need submarens also
are we expecting a big nave attack from a terror cell ?

yes we need more fighter aircraft that ill give you

yes we need more manpower thats also true and well only get it if people see the army as a good carer opshon


also why do war hawks always say that Canada is full of Hippie pacifists i always hated that
there now feel free to flame me

 

[Fishbone Jones]

First off, you'd be taken more seriously if you could spell (or use the Spellcheck) and link your sentences in a coherent form.

Second, why would you condone the demise of an effective ground force, but champion a high tech air force with nothing to support or defend them?

Please rethink your prose and position before coming here with your abstract ideologies.

 

[Dogboy]

First off, you'd be taken more seriously if you could spell (or use the Spellcheck) and link your sentences in a coherent form.

Second, why would you condone the demise of an effective ground force, but champion a high tech air force with nothing to support or defend them?

Please rethink your prose and position before coming here with your abstract ideologies.

wher did i say the we shuld srink the ground force ? i sayd we need more people in it did i not?

and i do use teh spell check

 

[Fishbone Jones]

but lets spend our money wisely

like the fazing out or heave armer and tracked vehicles their costly hi maintenance and in modern war soon to be obsolete

Sorry, the above quote from your disjointed prose led me to that conclusion.

As far as you using Spell Check, you may have misunderstood the meaning. You have to click the little button, in the Reply box. You'll find it under the >Additional Options,  after Save and right next to Preview.

Your next response should at least be coherent, if not, I'd say your trolling and I'll lock this.

Thanks for coming out.

 

[Dogboy]

and how is that saying decrese manpower?
we still need APCs
but relley wer not fighting USSR anemore, we dont need a army of MBTs

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Your getting worse. One more chance.

 

[Slim]

but relley wer not fighting rusha eney mor we dont need a army of MBTs

How do you know!? Have you ever operated a tank? do you know what it can do...or what protection it provides for the people around or in it. How about the best enviorment to utilize one it...?!

You don't have the answers top any of those questions do you!

If you are genuinely interested in the CF then be quiet and read. Either way you are wasting the time of the professionals and others who are serious about learning.

Also. When posting in the future (something worthwhile only!) use spellcheck. Then fill out your profile so that we know who we're speaking to.

Out!

 

[OLD F of S]

        Dogboy what makes you think the Russian bear is dead, pay attention to their leadership
Putkin was head of the KGB do you think it is all goodness and light. If it was why do you think
we still target Russia with our ELINT assets.

                Regards Old F of S

 

[Dogboy]

OK good point
Putkin is far from a nice guy
but the days of massive army and global war are gone (i certainly hope )
its not cost effective nor Vere PC to have large wars anymore.
what modern country's need is a flexible, fast, smart, army
not giant lumbering behemoths. that slug it out like dunking boxers 
thats my opinion

 

[Meridian]

Please correct me if Im wrong (I could be), but I think the reference to the top "20" in strength is a journalists interpretation of our stature as 16th in the world for Military Spending.... 

Can't remember my source for that, but I used it in a recent university paper..... if anyone wants the source Im sure I could find it......

 

[The_Falcon]

OK good point
Putkin is far from a nice guy
but the days of massive army and global war are gone (i certainly hope )
its not cost effective nor Vere PC to have large wars anymore.
what modern country's need is a flexible, fast, smart, army
not giant lumbering behemoths. that slug it out like dunking boxers  
thats my opinion

Again you seem to have trouble understanding how to spell, and use basic grammar structure and sentence form.  As for your opinions, you are entitled to them, but you might actually want to back them up, rather than just state random conjecture.  How do you define what is cost effective or PC in regards to war and on basis do you judge whether a war is large or not.  And where are you getting this ridiculus and ill-concieved notion that we no longer need heavy armour support?  What is your support for this, as was mentioned before, are you even remotely aware of the capabilities of armour?  My quess until you offer proof to the contrary is that you are some troll, who has learned everything there is to know about war from reading Tom Clancy's fiction novels, and playing the associated video games.  Here is a simple thought.  DO NOT REPLY to this thread until you can become intelligent.

 

[Dogboy]

OK I'm not a university educated kid.
Nor am I a long serving Army member.
but I'm definitely not some punk kid troll who's got all my info from Tom Clancy and vid.games.
iv done some research into modern warfair. (some personal and some for school essays) 
and Iv never calmed to be a "expert" I'm just giving my opinion, ill back it up when you back your up.
it this is the way you deal with a opposing view instead of having a reasonable debate with me the fine flame away. Ill go and find a different board.
and for the record, iv got a learning disability, I don't spell well. I use the spell check every time several times.