A look at Canadian Conservative Defence Plans

[scott]

This one’s for the Canadians and authored by yours truly.
And rest assured, when the liberal policy paper is posted I will encourage and expect those who disagree to challenge in a meaningful and democracy encouraging way.
Let’s examine the Conservative Party of Canada’s plan for National Defence.

from http://www.robanders.com/Issues/Policy%20Paper%20-%20Defence1.pdf

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will progressively increase the strength of the regular force over the long term to at least 80,000 personnel, along with simultaneous increases in reserve personnel levels.
The one new recommendation that I agree with. Ask any defence analyst, along with the MHP the first priority of National Defence should be the acquisition of more personnel for the CF.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will give priority to strengthening high demand units, such as infantry, logistical, and medical units that are relevant to operations ranging from domestic disaster assistance to overseas peace support and combat operations.
Same as above, for the same reasons.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will reconsider the plan to replace Canada’s tank force with lighter wheeled vehicles, in favour of the acquisition of a modest number of main battle tanks from NATO allied stocks.
The first of several hints that Mr. Harper is moving towards higher profile projects that do not fit the needs of the 21st Century CF, but even seem like relics of the Cold War. Is the MGS the right choice? I don’t think so. But “a modest number of main battle tanks” in its stead is a fool’s errand. See http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-rea1-1.htm for well thought out solutions. Note: In the author’s opinion (in case its not clear already) even the MGS is a more viable solution that surplus MBTs.


Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will ensure that the army is large enough to deploy and sustain at least one all-arms brigade-sized formation (at least 5,000 troops) overseas to support and command multilateral missions when necessary.
Yes, good. Personnel again.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will ensure that the CF-18 fleet upgrades continue as a high priority and are accompanied by a purchase of modern ordnance to ensure the viability of the fighter fleet.
So, the Conservative government will continue the Liberal CF-18 Incremental Modernisation Plan… Good, so are the Liberals.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will immediately initiate a project to replace the older CC-
130 transport aircraft, along with a form of acquisition for heavy-lift transport aircraft.
Now this one will be interesting to watch. This is the 2nd large capital expenditure mentioned so far. First, let me mention an incontestable truth. The roles of strategic and tactical air lifter cannot be filled by the same aircraft in this context. There is one type that could fill both roles and that is the C-17, however, to buy it to fill both roles would prove too costly and in the end, impractical. The best option is clearly to either lease C-17s for CF proper, or to work with the German-led Prague commitment of pooling a common strategic air lifter. After which point the A400 or C-130J (or any other suitable tactical air lifter) could be purchased to replace the Hercs. I would be glad to discuss the merits and cost of strategic airlift capabilities in countries like Germany, France, Australia and Canada at a later time.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will ensure that a Sea King replacement is found promptly, in a manner that maximizes long-term cost-effectiveness and enhances the multi-mission capabilities of these helicopters.
This is the most prevailing legacy of Jean Chrétien’s failure for defence. Yet the call for tenders in the MHP has been made, fast track purchasing is underway and the CF will likely be receiving the EH-101 by 2008 or 2010. This was due to a failure on the Chrétien government. Paul Martin acknowledged that failure when he had Minister Pratt make the MHP DND’s number one priority after the new government took power.
What else can be expected? The Liberals are taking the exact same strategy as the Conservatives propose. In fact, when I wrote to Rob Anders, former Conservative Defence critic, his office dwelled on the errors of Liberals in the past and spouted the exact same strategy as is currently in place for the MHP.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will progressively introduce a new single surface combatant, beginning with the replacement of Canada’s ageing Iroquois-class destroyers.
A 5.25 billion dollar project called CADRE, already in the works. Expected by 2010.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will procure at least two hybrid carriers configured for helicopter support and vehicle transport with space for at least 800 soldiers and their armoured equipment, as well as sufficient deck and hanger space for up to a dozen maritime helicopters (composed of Sea King replacements – with an expanded order number as required).
The greatest new bone of contention. Does Canada need an LPH? This is also the question that merits the most debate on this forum. First, get acquainted with HMS Ocean, because that’s pretty much the template. Then take a good look at JSS, of which four should be put to see under present funding before 2010. And of course look at the Protecteur-class vessels which these options would be replacing. A utopian plan would be to replace Protecteur and Provider with one class of Oil Replenishment Ship and one class of Maritime Sealift ship. Unfortunately, JSS is the option in-between that will have to serve both roles. But how in god’s name can an amphibious assault ship with emphasized helicopter capability be bought instead? First of all, no refueling capability and I’m waiting on a letter back from Mr. Anders and his cadre of so called experts to see what they propose on that front. Second, an LPH? Honestly, the very choice of this type of extraordinarily expensive helicopter carrier when an LPD would be just as if not more suitable for CF’s needs. This is clearly a Conservative attempt for their “big Canada” to exercise some sort of maritime projection role when it simply does not adhere to Canadian foreign policy objectives.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will establish a single civilian agency for domestic maritime security enforcement – that is, a stronger, independent Canadian Coast Guard with new
duties for national security.
Rhetorical nonsense, I’m surprised Mr. Harper didn’t specifically name his Perimeter Protection Agency. First of all study the Canadian Coast Guard, evaluate its blue water needs, then make reform. Don’t just recreate a government agency because the United States says our shores are insecure.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will expand the High Frequency Surface Wave radar system for full coverage on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, effectively employ Canada’s satellite capability, and acquire long-range unmanned air vehicles (UAVs).
HFSW “expansion” due to an US-style insecurity dilemma, funds are better used elsewhere. UAV acquisition underway and being expanded in the same vague terms.

Conservative Commitment
A Conservative government will permit Parliament to debate and ratify overseas deployments of Canadian troops to combat missions and empower the House of Commons Defence Committee to review and influence annual funding levels for national defence projects, senior Defence Staff appointments, and legislated defence policy updates between election cycles.
Not a chance in hell, let isolationalist/realist Conservatives and BQ members userp traditionally Canadian interventionalist/human security initiatives and on sending troops to Haiti etc? A government is put in power based on the assumption that they are representative of the people, especially in matters of International Relations.


I've got to say the Conservatives have put alot of time and thought into their defence plan, even leading some to call them the friends of the CF. What this plan is is alot of finger pointing (though not undeserved) and few well thought out solutions- solutions that keep Canadian values and budgetary realism in mind.
Canadians see this as big spending, I wish I saw it as smart spending. Its just throwing money at an institution that needs genuine reform.
And at the end of the day, if this all goes through, we will have two LPHs, surplus MBTs and many of the same projects the Liberals are already undertaking at the expense of tax levels and social services.
Two Canadian values that should be going down and up, not up and down.
Some thoughts, discuss.

[EvanL]

dude. u didnt have to personally insult me.
I only criticize the current liberals policies because they have neglected the same people who have protected and served our country.

[scott]

im sorry if you felt i was insulting you
i meant and would take what i said as a good thing
ie meaningful discourse with no place for personal attacks

goes the same for scm and any other person who thinks likewise
(edit: and i am actually sorry for singling the two of you out)

[FRO]

Hi Scott

I don't mean to be pedantic--though I am about to be--and I do agree with what you've written, but I wouldn't exactly call it academic. I was expecting something much different when I popped in to check out the thread. To my mind--and this may just be me--academic indicates an objective, relatively dispassionate consideration of a subject with scholarly references. I think this is more an opinion piece than an academic look at the subject, and that's not a bad thing.

Take it as you will.

Also, I think Evan Lloyd has a point. I believe you had the best of intentions (based on your reference to "a meaningful and democracy encouraging way"), but perhaps you could edit the post to change the names mentioned to simply "others."

Sorry this is so negative. As to your points, I believe I agree in substance with everything you've stated. I'm also not a huge fan of the MGS and I had previously read the CASR and found much commendable there. The idea, though, that Canada would develop its own alternative to the MBT is exciting but--in the end--unlikely. Further, CASR also has an interesting article regarding the use of altered C2 as CIBUA vehicles. Another great idea considering the likely conflicts in which the CF will participate in the future. Again, however, I have little hope that DND could capitalize on such an idea. As you--and others--have pointed out, the continued marginalization of the CF has created problems that money and recruitment will not address. In my opinion, these cracks in the foundation must be addressed before we start building our new home.

But that's just me.

Take care all.

[scm77]

I respect FROs oppinions. I don't necesary agree with them but he's certainly allowed them.

Here's my take on the Liberal defence policy. If anybody asks about our defence policy, say "we are awaiting the results of the defense review". When the results are in the elections over so who cares?

I would rather have a conservative government that MAY lie, or MAY not do whats best for the forces, then a Liberal government that over the last 10 years has shown what they will do with Defence. The Liberals have been doing more harm then good, and it's not going to all of a sudden change now. If the Liberals were going to get serious on defence they should have don't it in the budget right after 9/11. But they only increased it by approx 600 million. After cutting it by around twenty billion in the previous eight years.

Like I said, I'd rather have someone who could dig the forces into a deeper hole, then someone who made the hole as deep as it is now.

P.S. I agree with you FRO on the MGS. I do think it's better then the current Leopard tanks, but that idea on CASR is the one I like best.

[scm77]

Here's an interesting article on this subject.

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2004.06.03
EDITION: National
SECTION: News
PAGE: A19
SOURCE: National Post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disinformation on defence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spectacle of two Liberal Cabinet ministers shoving their way through throngs of Conservative supporters to angrily confront Stephen Harper on the campaign trail Tuesday is perhaps the surest sign yet of Liberal desperation. In the past, parties have sometimes tasked "truth squads" of backbenchers to shadow an opposing leader's speeches and offer counterspin to reporters. But it is almost unheard of for ministers of the Crown to push through crowds like crazed anti-globalization protestors.

Paul Martin didn't help matters with his claim yesterday that John McCallum, the Veterans Affairs Minister, and Judy Sgro, the Immigration Minister, had not been put up to their protests by anyone at Liberal campaign headquarters. The PM insisted it was coincidental that two members of his Cabinet had spontaneously abandoned their own campaign schedules in an attempt to embarrass Mr. Harper in front of TV crews at consecutive events. This has now been contradicted by senior Liberal sources who say the two ministers were following the instructions of Mr. Martin's campaign co-chairman.

Even without his Cabinet colleague's hectoring, Tuesday was a bad day for Mr. Martin. First, he conceded his Liberals might lose -- honest, but strikingly defeatist this early in a campaign.

As well, Mr. Martin ominously and hyperbolically predicted that Conservative spending promises and tax cut pledges would plunge the Canadian economy into "great darkness." (He stopped just short of foretelling plagues of boils and swarms of locust.) Then he confirmed he had brought back three Chretien loyalists to help craft the Liberal message for the remaining three-and-a-half weeks of the campaign, inviting the question -- if his opponents are clever enough to ask it -- "You have brought back the old crew, Mr. Martin, are you going to bring back the old ethics, too?"

But perhaps the PM's most regrettable comments were reserved for the Conservatives' promise to rebuild Canada's military. Mr. Martin accused the Tories of advocating "Cold War-era" spending levels, even though he himself has repeatedly said restoring our Armed Forces is one of his priorities. He added, "I don't think Canadians really do believe that aircraft carriers are more important than investments in basic health care services."

Aircraft carriers? The Conservatives are talking about replacing 40-year-old helicopters, restoring troop strength to mid-1990s levels and actually coming up with the money the Liberals have promised again and again (but never delivered) for badly needed essentials. Mr. Harper has proposed nothing more than returning the military to the readiness it enjoyed at the height of its peacekeeping role -- a role, we hasten to add, that was an essential part of every Liberal election platform from 1965 through 1993. Indeed, it was a Liberal prime minister, Lester Pearson, who invented the modern peacekeeping mission.

On top of all this, the Post learned on Tuesday that the Liberals have told defence planners there will be no increase in spending for two or even three more years, if they are returned to power. There may even be a reduction in 2005. This contradicts their own promises of new equipment. What in heaven's name are we to believe?
-----------------------------
Paul Martin (as finance minister 10 years ago) and Jean Crouton cut the budget. Then he says rebuilding Canada's military is one of his "top priorities". But when Harper wants to rebuild what the liberals ****ed up (or atleast start towards it) he is a crazed war monger.


P.S. I don't have a link for that, but the source is clearly listed at the top.

[dacanadianbomb]

Never let parlament and MPs decde on military and international affairs.

[scott]

FRO you called me on it! well done
the subject was a silly error and truth be told i always stumble to figure out appopriate subject names- its been amended to reflect this error
also the "naming of names" is gone :)

does this mean im FRO's bitch?

yes. yes it does.

thoughts about the hybrid aircraft carrier?

[scm77]

I believe (I may be wrong) that the hybrid aircraft carrier, is the JSS. It's a hybrid AOR (Auxilliary Oil Replenishment) shipt, sealift/transport and helicopter carrier.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

They can talk all they want, the fact is a whole sweet f@ck all is being done about it at the moment but talking. I'll believe it when I see it, and I dont plan on voting either.

[FRO]

If I'm going to be pendantic about Scott's topic title, I'm going to have to make the call on this one as well. My problem with this? They call it news. News is a reporting of the facts. News--in my opinion--should not include comments like:


like crazed anti-globalization protestors.

or


(He stopped just short of foretelling plagues of boils and swarms of locust.)

That goes beyond spin. Honestly, is it just me or does stuff like that make you question the objectivity of the reporter.

Maybe I'm just really sensitive to this stuff. I don't know. :|

[FRO]

I respect FROs oppinions. I don't necesary agree with them but he's certainly allowed them.

I certainly am.


Here's my take on the Liberal defence policy. If anybody asks about our defence policy, say "we are awaiting the results of the defense review". When the results are in the elections over so who cares?

Quite likely. Quite likely this applies to every party in the election. There is ample evidence that every party makes promises they either have no intention of keeping or just can't be bothered to keep. Red, blue, orange or green, they've all done it--red and blue have for defence as well, the others just haven't had a chance yet.


I would rather have a conservative government that MAY lie, or MAY not do whats best for the forces, then a Liberal government that over the last 10 years has shown what they will do with Defence. The Liberals have been doing more harm then good, and it's not going to all of a sudden change now. If the Liberals were going to get serious on defence they should have don't it in the budget right after 9/11. But they only increased it by approx 600 million. After cutting it by around twenty billion in the previous eight years.

Like I said, I'd rather have someone who could dig the forces into a deeper hole, then someone who made the hole as deep as it is now.

Someone else (and it may have been Scott) in another thread said he considered it unwise to vote simply on defence policy statements. I agree. I'm not saying who I'm voting for, but I'm not basing my vote on defence policy. If I were to do so, however, I likely would be voting Conservative.


P.S. I agree with you FRO on the MGS. I do think it's better then the current Leopard tanks, but that idea on CASR is the one I like best.

A certain someone who will be reading this but not posting (as he is not interested in getting into a faeces slinging contest) knows the guys who use--and love--the C2 and they would disagree quite vehemently. Personally, I think there is likely a better answer than the MGS, but if it's a binary question (MGS or upgraded C2) I'd go for the C2.

But that's just me.

Thanks for keeping things civil scm77--and everyone in this thread. It's appreciated, I assure you.

[FRO]

FRO you called me on it! well done
the subject was a silly error and truth be told i always stumble to figure out appopriate subject names- its been amended to reflect this error
also the "naming of names" is gone :)

does this mean im FRO's bitch?

yes. yes it does.

Jeez, I thought I'd have to go to prison to get me a bitch! p-)

I don't think it makes you anything other than someone interested in keeping things civil. Mistakes happen. It's nice when we're able to correct them. I hope everyone is able to maintain the same civil attitude throughout the thread.


thoughts about the hybrid aircraft carrier?

Other than I disagreed with the idea when Lewis MacKenzie mentioned it and I remain opposed? At some point in the future, when the CF has been rebuilt back to a proper level, maybe that is something that we can look at. Right now, the JSS is the major capital project we should be focusing on. The AORs are older than the 280s and replenishment capabilities aren't something we can do without. At least the JSS include a sealift capacity as well as a flight deck.

Of course, I'm sure there are others with better informed opinions than I, and I'd be interested in hearing them.

[FRO]

I believe (I may be wrong) that the hybrid aircraft carrier, is the JSS. It's a hybrid AOR (Auxilliary Oil Replenishment) shipt, sealift/transport and helicopter carrier.

I assumed they weren't referring to the JSS project as they called it a "Conservative Commitment." Or maybe they'll pull a Chretien if they get elected and abort the JSS project until it looks like they won't win the next election, and then restart the project. p-)

Just hassling you. Seriously, though, as Lewis MacKenzie had forwarded a similar idea, and I had believed--also possibly erroneous--that the Conservatives had adopted this. I had heard on CBC Radio 1 news a few days ago that this hybrid was something more like a Landing Platform, Helicopter craft--like the UK's Ocean-class vessel.

[FRO]

Do I have to reply to every post in the thread? Well, no . . . but I'm going to anyway! BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH. Pure evil.


They can talk all they want, the fact is a whole sweet f@ck all is being done about it at the moment but talking. I'll believe it when I see it, and I dont plan on voting either.

I agree that none of the party's look likely to fix . . . well, any of the problems Canada is facing, but I would argue this means the imperative to register a protest vote is even greater. I really, really wish the Rhino Party still had candidates running. If there's no crazy-@$$ party on the ballot you can use to protest, spoil the ballot. Maybe if one of the party's saw a segment of the population was willing to vote, but weren't being persuaded to vote for any particular party, they might try to do something to attract the disaffected.

Then again, maybe I should just brew some mushroom tea and head off to fantasy-land.

In any case, I think it's important to be involved in the electoral process at some level.

Take care.

[scm77]

I would rather have a conservative government that MAY lie, or MAY not do whats best for the forces, then a Liberal government that over the last 10 years has shown what they will do with Defence. The Liberals have been doing more harm then good, and it's not going to all of a sudden change now. If the Liberals were going to get serious on defence they should have don't it in the budget right after 9/11. But they only increased it by approx 600 million. After cutting it by around twenty billion in the previous eight years.

Like I said, I'd rather have someone who could dig the forces into a deeper hole, then someone who made the hole as deep as it is now.

Someone else (and it may have been Scott) in another thread said he considered it unwise to vote simply on defence policy statements. I agree. I'm not saying who I'm voting for, but I'm not basing my vote on defence policy. If I were to do so, however, I likely would be voting Conservative.

If I was old enough to vote, I wouldn't base my vote on defense only. I was just making that point for this article. However it is on of the top issues for me, because that's where I'm most likely going to be working (if everyone goes according to plan ;))


Thanks for keeping things civil scm77--and everyone in this thread. It's appreciated, I assure you.

You're a poopy head. :lol:

[pAt]

the liberals only want 8,000 more troops wtf is that gonna do? nothin thats it

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Do I have to reply to every post in the thread? Well, no . . . but I'm going to anyway! BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH. Pure evil.


They can talk all they want, the fact is a whole sweet f@ck all is being done about it at the moment but talking. I'll believe it when I see it, and I dont plan on voting either.

I agree that none of the party's look likely to fix . . . well, any of the problems Canada is facing, but I would argue this means the imperative to register a protest vote is even greater. I really, really wish the Rhino Party still had candidates running. If there's no crazy-@$$ party on the ballot you can use to protest, spoil the ballot. Maybe if one of the party's saw a segment of the population was willing to vote, but weren't being persuaded to vote for any particular party, they might try to do something to attract the disaffected.

Then again, maybe I should just brew some mushroom tea and head off to fantasy-land.

In any case, I think it's important to be involved in the electoral process at some level.

Take care.

I agree generally with what you say, and I agree that I probably should take part in elections. But thats another topic and I wont push the thread any further off topic.

[scott]

ive just got to chime back in with a completely unrelated note...

GO FLAMES GO
i was at the dome and man alive, this city is electrified
make that- this country

now to read the liberal platform...

[marty649]

dacanadabomb wrote:


Never let parlament and MPs decde on military and international affairs.

Yah thats a bright one... lets let our non elected leaders of the Military decide that for us. Then we can join the ranks of North Korea, syria, cuba and other desirable locations in Africa.

[scott]

dacanadabomb wrote:


Never let parlament and MPs decde on military and international affairs.

Yah thats a bright one... lets let our non elected leaders of the Military decide that for us. Then we can join the ranks of North Korea, syria, cuba and other desirable locations in Africa.

maybe there is some confusion, well- hell im confused
as stated in the original post
"A Conservative government will permit Parliament to debate and ratify overseas deployments of Canadian troops to combat missions and empower the House of Commons Defence Committee to review and influence annual funding levels for national defence projects, senior Defence Staff appointments, and legislated defence policy updates between election cycles. "

my thought was that these decisions should lie in DND and with the PM in conjunction with CF. i understood this comment to mean that they (cons. party) would have such decisions be debated at the parliamentary level. thats what my beef was.
i believe dabomb might have been on the same track
ie not putting executive decisions in the hands of the military

cheers

[marty649]

Yah i dont think that is what is meant by the Conservative plan. When the Liberals decided to send troops to Afghanistan, Harper called for an open vote on that decision. I think the planning and what not and the feasibility would still be done by the DND.

[dacanadianbomb]

dacanadabomb wrote:


Never let parlament and MPs decde on military and international affairs.

Yah thats a bright one... lets let our non elected leaders of the Military decide that for us. Then we can join the ranks of North Korea, syria, cuba and other desirable locations in Africa.

Sorry, my point was at first unclear but then pushed more into teh right light by a subsequent post.
Yeah marty IMHO it is bright.

You dont vote Chretien or Martin or Stockwell or Harper. You vote his local riding people. Thats what gets them power on the federal level.
NO matter if you like their views on anything , If you want to big honcho to be PM you have to vote for the local guy.

Do you want your local riding person having anything to say at all about military or international affairs?
I wouldnt want my local MP from discussing anything on military affairs.

Get my point?

[marty649]

I dont have a problem with it. The mp in my riding is an extremly intelligent person. What makes a cabinet minister or the PM so much better to make those decisions then the Parliament as a whole. The Cabinet and the PM are still just MP's, although supposedly they represent the country as a group themselves. However I think open voting in the Commons is part of a bigger plan to reduce regional alienation. Its hard to call the Cabinet a representative body for the whole country if no one votes Liberal west of Ontario.

[marty649]

Plus you have to remember that 60 perecent of the population of Alberta supported the War in Iraq. That is in direct contrast to the rest of the country. If an open vote was held in commons atleast it would have put the regional mp's on the record as to where their ridings stood on the issue.

[BOB1]

This is for Fro:
Hi there....You mention the person who vouches for the Lepard C2. Its an old tank are they credible enough to make a judgement like that? They won't post because of the feces flinging, if they have an opinion tell them to come in and state it. Let them be heard.

SCM77...so you consider the ALSC/JSS a hybrid aircraft carrier???

[dacanadianbomb]

I dont have a problem with it. The mp in my riding is an extremly intelligent person. What makes a cabinet minister or the PM so much better to make those decisions then the Parliament as a whole. The Cabinet and the PM are still just MP's, although supposedly they represent the country as a group themselves. However I think open voting in the Commons is part of a bigger plan to reduce regional alienation. Its hard to call the Cabinet a representative body for the whole country if no one votes Liberal west of Ontario.

LOl , the grassroots, good point. lol outside of ontario.
No I understand what you mean .

Another point to take into consideration letting the MPs decide on stuff.

If you want to take action on something you will have to go through a vote to get it passed. This isnt possible for some actions, they are split second ,must be done now, and one person must make the decision.And take responsibility for making the decision.
Here is a really hairbrained but point making situation.
PM gets awoken in the middle of the night, canadian soldiers have spotted OBL on a ledge grabbing for his dialysis machine, they request permission to eliminate him. The chief or the CF is going to ask for the PM, unless directives for such a situation were already given, and he wants the PM to carry the responsibility, and the burden internationally for any consequences coming out of this decision.

One has no time to start discussions and opinion polls, someone has to call the shot literally and take the **** for it afterwards.
It is clearly a military action because it CF personnel going to bag the guy, and they are under the chief of CF , who is under the PM.

So if one was to say, ok well for that kind of situation , there would be no discussion needed, well where does one draw the line where discussion is needed or not.

When military action has been decided on, one needs to stick with it, nothing worse than walking in and then deciding one cant stomach the situation. A handfull of mps who decide that they have changed their minds can have a serious influence on the outcome of actions, in a positive overrall or negative overall way.


60% of Alberta isnt 60% of Canada. Nor is 90 % of Ontario,

I understand your point, unfortunately I cannot speka many good things about my local mp.

[robmika]

We can all talk about what we would love to see and what we feel we should see, but lets ground our selves into reality. IT ALL NEEDS $$$$$. The politicos simply sway with the VOCAL will of the public. Until that public is willing to say defence is #1 on the priority list, it will not get the funding. Health care, education, and sending ****-loads of $$$ to 3rd world countries (my sarcasm) seem to be what the public wants. Defence is WAY down there. So... if you want to see some changes to the defence of canada you need to start at home. Convince everyone you know that it needs to be up there higher on the priority list. Until then the regs and reserves will continue to train by firing "budget cuts" blank ammo

[FRO]

Thanks for keeping things civil scm77--and everyone in this thread. It's appreciated, I assure you.

You're a poopy head. :lol:

Yes, yes I am. You're point being? ;)

[FRO]

This is for Fro:
Hi there....You mention the person who vouches for the Lepard C2. Its an old tank are they credible enough to make a judgement like that? They won't post because of the feces flinging, if they have an opinion tell them to come in and state it. Let them be heard.

Well, I have pointed the individual to this thread, but I honestly don't think he'll post. In all fairness, I don't blame him. For the most part this thread has been relatively civil compared to most of the threads on Militaryphotos.net, but it doesn't take much for threads to turn into the monkey cage.

As to his credibility, he's not the one making the judgement. He's passing on what he's heard from the tank-drivers. He was in mech and worked alongside them. He's still in the military and has kept in touch with them. The source is given to neither fabrication nor hyperbole.

Yes, the C2s are old. The point wasn't that the tankers don't want to trade them in for something better, the point was that they don't want to trade them in for the MGS. Also, with these old C2s, Canada still throws some weight around against the Abrams when they face off at the CANAM Cup tank challenge.

[memphiz]

ive just got to chime back in with a completely unrelated note...

GO FLAMES GO
i was at the dome and man alive, this city is electrified
make that- this country

now to read the liberal platform...
Wow, I was going to read this thread then I was like F*** it to much political crap, and you guys write WAAY to much. So I was just skimming for interesting stuff then BAM!!! I saw "GO FLAMES GO" and so I gotta add HELL F***ING YEAH!!!!!, Edmonton sent riot police down, and they're expecting 100,000 people on the red mile

[BOB1]

As to his credibility, he's not the one making the judgement. He's passing on what he's heard from the tank-drivers. He was in mech and worked alongside them. He's still in the military and has kept in touch with them. The source is given to neither fabrication nor hyperbole.


Mech as in mech infantry or mech as in mechanic?

I can also know what he means by how this board can go from nice to nasty in under 3 seconds. When you used to be able to post comments in the photoarea it was worse. Tell him we are not all a**holes.

[[AFSOC]]

The Conservatives wanna put a lot of money into the Canadian Armed Forces....but i'm wondering where that money is gunna come from??

Canada's main priority to the public is Health CAre cause most Canadians care more about that.

Dunno will see, would be nice to have lots of money into the Canadian Armed Forces again. Maybe even the CAR too :D

[FRO]

As to his credibility, he's not the one making the judgement. He's passing on what he's heard from the tank-drivers. He was in mech and worked alongside them. He's still in the military and has kept in touch with them. The source is given to neither fabrication nor hyperbole.


Mech as in mech infantry or mech as in mechanic?

Just got an email from my buddy. And I quote: "Saw your post in military photos...just a correction I was armoured not mech (twitch). "



I can also know what he means by how this board can go from nice to nasty in under 3 seconds. When you used to be able to post comments in the photoarea it was worse. Tell him we are not all a**holes.

He's been a lurker here longer than I've even been aware of the boards, so I think he's formed a pretty strong opinion. I think he realizes that there are some really good, knowledgable people on the boards, but he's mentioned about the huge number of loud, uninformed posers. I've noticed that myself (this is not a passive/aggressive swipe at you, BOB1--I'm sure you've noticed this phenomenon as well).

Take care all

[BOB1]

Fro said:
I've noticed that myself (this is not a passive/aggressive swipe at you, BOB1--I'm sure you've noticed this phenomenon as well).

More often then I would like it to be Fro. Too bad ,if he is legit, this place could always benefit from his views.

[FRO]

Fro said:
I've noticed that myself (this is not a passive/aggressive swipe at you, BOB1--I'm sure you've noticed this phenomenon as well).

More often then I would like it to be Fro. Too bad ,if he is legit, this place could always benefit from his views.

Well, if you are interested, head on over to army.ca. He posts there, as do lots of others.

Take care all.