Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Thanks for that post Ziggy.
There is an on-going smear campaign to paint Afghanistan as another war for oil but I never heard anything close to proof on this. It sounds like this pipeline is gas, and thats hardly worth the effort.
The last big oil fiasco was the Oil for food program by the UN.
Is that the people that Canada should support?

   

This isn't about the UN or Oil or a Pipeline it's about Liberals crying like little bicthes because they are no longer in power calling the shots on Afghanistan, if they were still in power there wouldn't be a word from them not a single peep. So now they play the Anti-American, Oil and Pipeline cards because they have nothing relevant to offer..

   

There are layers and layers to this.
Yes, you are right that the Libs are using this to beat on the Cons.
The Libs put us into a fight in Bosnia and they, nor the media bothered to tell Canadians. Same here in Afghanistan.

Pathetic that so many here would rather ally themselves a racist, radical religious faction tnan with our long time friend and neighbor.

   

That would be Cal123 et al.



Nice attitude. Real professional. A credit to the service.

Pilot in the CF? Doubting it.

   

We did deploy IAW a UN resolution to Afghanistan. We were justified IAW with the Atlantic Charter as well. So how does Article 5 not fit with the events of 9/11 and our (and other NATO member countries) subsequent deployment to Afghanistan? A member of NATO was subjected to attack. Doesn't matter which one, it could have been any of them. We were obligated to act IAW a collective security treaty Canada signed and supported.

Isn't fulfilling our international treaty obligations important? Do we do what we said we'd do, or do we just say we will and not actually do anything?



It isn't. But one of the things I'd like to see is for Canada to be a "stand up" nation. One that can be relied on when things are tough and will not shirk it's freely accepted responsiblities. No more "Stop or I'll say stop again!"

   

This quote from Eric made me laugh

"Many Afghans working for the foreign occupation are secretly in touch with the resistance."

Does he have a source on the inside or is he just taking a guess from behind his desk in downtown Toronto? Typical crap from Margolis

   

We just added $15 million more aid

   

Ziggy don't expect the jerk-off known as Figfarmer to be able to back anything up other than always saying "well my brother in-law told me" he is a non player when discussing this situation, especially given that he was on here several months back telling us all how suicide bombers are noble and deserve our respect.

   

I agree with her.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnis ... 64132.html

   

Whoops

   

Good article

   

She makes some good points except this;



The Canadian military such as it was in our first 60 years (1867-1937) as a nation was a joke (excepting our effort during WW1). The navy was created only 3 years before WW1 and even then was equipped with only two obsolete ships, while the army usually had only a four or five thousand regulars for most of that period, so this statement is total BS. As a nation, we have always been cheap when it comes to defending ourselves...which is pretty sad.

As 'weak' as our military is today (and it's still far better than most), it is far larger and capable now than it was before WW1 or between the world wars. In fact, with the exception of the Cold War years (1950s-80s), this is the largest peacetime military we've had.

Now had she compared the current state to the early Cold War years of the 1950s-60s, she would have been right. Back then we had about 100,000 in manpower, fighter squadrons and a full brigade in Europe, as well as a 50 ship navy, including a carrier. That was why Canada was resepected during the Cold War...

Still, it's very good to see our troops getting equipment they need to do their jobs. Too bad we also need new destroyers, icebreakers, and fighters in the next decade too...it's going to cost us a lot more.

   

It's been well known withing militray circles tht our equipment is aging and again there is noplan for renewal. Fortunately the CPF's aer for all ntetns and purposes still new (though they will have to go into major life extension refit soon) The Navy seems to have shot itself, or had its foot shot for it durng the Submarine fiasco. But the realy needy elements are the AirForce and the Army. The CF-18's re nearing thier life expectency and the Army though its has new equipment still needs much more.

   

The British Army is looking more and more similar. With budget cuts, manpower reductions and overstretching the Brit forces could be looking at serious problems in the future.As usual the government focused all its money on the Apache and so didn't leave anything aside for us, the guys on the ground. When you see troops in the desert wearing their normal temperate climate combats instead of deserts and not enough body armour to go arounds because of shortages, you have to laugh or else you'll cry. And when the MOD finally does look like it's procuring a bit of equipment that will be a revolution you find out it's not compatible with the Apache etc etc. I could go on and on about this but i don't want to put you all to sleep.

   

I said destroyers, not frigates. The Iroquois DDHs need to be replaced, they were built in the late 60's/early 70's and will have to be replaced by 2015 (40 years +) at the latest, if not earlier. As for the subs, they are a waste of money and time, and in this post Cold War era, pretty much useless, as our allies already dominate the world's oceans.

And yes, like I said we need new fighters, but seeing as how we appear to plan on buying the JSF, we won't get any of those until 2015 at the earliest, as the other major contributors (USA, UK, Australia, etc) have already placed firm orders while we are humming and hawing over how many we need to replace our Cf-18s. Odds are, we will only buy about 100 of them anyways (we are currently operating only about 90 CF-18s).

The Army is doing just fine. Once they get the Styker (MGS), they'll have quite a bit of very modern equipment (APCs, arty, IFVs, small arms, etc). They have had a lot spent on them in thepast decade, mostly because of their near continual deployment overseas (Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc). They might need the occasional bit of kit (specific for future deployments), but they have a lot of top line gear already and I don't foresee any other major purchases for the army in the next few years.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next