Neocons Blunder In Lybia
- Thread starter Unforgiven
- Start date
Paul Martin increased military spending by 13 billion....the largest increase in a generation.
Harper has cut his spending increase by 2.5 billion.
Mulroney cut defense by 3 billion.
Cretien cut it by a third to fight the deficit and he won that battle.....a decade of surpluses.
Why not go for the money and go Blackwater? A short stint in A-Stan will get you working a mine compound for huge money in Africa or South America. Why protect pipelines constrcution for such **** money?
Under Chretien we lost new helicopters.
Saw the Force Reduction Plan while he increased UN commitments
Sent soldiers into War zones with Vietnam Era Body Armour
I could go on and on, but what would be the point?
Martin had little choice but to increase spending after Chretien committed our troops to Afghanistan. When soldiers were killed driving a piece of crap Bombardier Jeep made out of fibreglass and white metal there really was no choice.
Watch the Price of Freedom. Interesting documentary on booby traps in the Former Yugoslavia. Shows what crap equipment Chretien was willing to send our troops into harms way with.
The best thing Paul Martin did was appoint an Army Commander named Rick Hillier to lead Canada's Armed Forces.
Prior to that they were led by Air Force "Yes Men."
Hillier gave them no choice but to increase spending, because he wasn't feathering his nest.
If your referring to my son I won't even dignify that with an answer.
I was responding to your comment about how Libs won't spend on the military.....clearly that has been played out in all parties.
It also has been played out the other way as well.
So your statement is unfair and biased.
Cretien not only balanced the books with tough decisions but kep us out of the expsense of that Iraq garbage....the one the Tories desperatly wanted to fight.
Thanks Jean.
I don't pray, but if I did, Jean would be in my prayers just for this. NOT being an ass licker. NOT being sucked in. Good man Jean.
Imagine all the Cannuck body bags coming back from Iraq.
Imagine the Con sudden anti-war-anything BS which would have been spread far and wide. Even farther and wider than it is today.
Stevo, we've got your measure as a man, and, as a man you make a great amoeba. fukk you
Its not unfair and biased. Its based on operational effectiveness then and now. We had to beg a ride from our British and American cousins everytime we were deployed, prior to the purchase of the C17's.
I did not say Paul Martin was responsible for Chretien's neglect. But then again, now that you mention it Paul Martin was the finance Minister so I guess his balancing the books on the backs of our troops and cutting transfer payments to all the provinces and downloading costs to all the provinces does set responsibility squarely on his shoulders. But then again he knew nothing of the sponsorship scandal even though he was finance minister.
And while Chretien kept us out of Iraq (which I think was a wise decision) he sent our soldiers ill equipped into a war zone. As a result there were deaths which could have been avoidable.
People seem to forget that. So who is being biased?
We had soldiers in Iraq and even if Chretien gave a nod I highly doubt our commitment would have increased. We didn't have the manpower.
Any support of the Iraq war would have been largely symbolic as the Army was heavily undermanned due to the FRP.
Sorry, but that is how deficits are reduced without tax increases.....could have been avoided but that is the mindset now.
The Libs never get any credit for that and Reform were the ones howling about debt and deficits. Now they have the biggest deficit in history.....fitting.
I'm not being biased.....I said all parties have cut military spending.
They have also raised spending.
Laying it at the feet of one party is simply obtuse.
I also think the Afghan war was a mistake....an unwinnable waste of life and resources to chase the boogyman.
I'll ignore the obtuse comment, because it hardly seems worth diverting this over. I'm not disputing that other parties have cut spending. What I am disputing is that the military is far more effective operationally under the present federal leadership. (Although there is still plenty of room for improvement)
I did not deny Mulroney wage freeze and cancellation of the white paper and purchase of new subs.
But if we are are to commit soldiers to places like Aghanistan, the FY, Rwanda, or any other special duty area we should be prepared to equip them to do their job. Otherwise don't commit them. Sending them to Afghanistan and not providing proper support is less than obtuse, it's wrong. No matter what party you are in.
Avro are you from Ontario?
I think it was Liberal John Manley who said that we can nor run for the bathroom every time its our turn to pay for our Nato commitments. Not word for word but close enough.
Last edited:
People join the military to serve their county, not the pay. But you raise an interesting point, regarding the importance of their mission's purpose. If the cause is just, then soldiers who do their duty with honor deserve respect.
When I say "I support the troops", I mean our veterans deserve preferential health care as well as educational and employment opportunities.
But if our leaders abuse their authority, Canada's finest could effectively be poorly paid mercenaries. That would make me angry at our leaders, not our soldiers..
I support our troops, not necessarily our leaders...
A soldier who does not do his duty is subject to charge under the Queens Regulations and Orders.
Well good luck with that. Our veterans have to fight tooth and nail for any and all support and employment opportunities don't even figure into it.
Well that is what democracy is all about. Another right afforded to you by the sacrifice of a soldier.
In what conflict since WW11 have Canadian soldiers sacrificed for our freedom? And judging by the heavy handedness at the TO G8 summit, we are getting farther and farther from those ideals that our fathers fought for.
Whether you subscribe to a particular conflict as protecting your freedom is irrelevant to whether a soldier has heeded the call of his/her (your) Country. I already see where you are going with this,
I may check back later when I don't work in the morning, but I'm guessing anything I say to you will fall on deaf ears anyhow.
You confuse duty with orders. They aren't the same. Sometimes the soldier's duty is to disobey orders....
timesofmalta.com - Updated: Libyan Mirages being disarmed
I believe that we were fed a pack of lies by the Bush administration regarding Iraq. The cause was to seize control of Iraq's oil wealth for the benefit of wealthy powerful people. That would make the soldiers poorly paid mercenaries.
That I believe was the point Petros was trying to make with this comment
The generals should have refused civilian orders to commit the war crime of starting an unprovoked war.
When it became clear that we'd been lied to about Iraq's WMD threat and involvement in 9/11, the people responsible should be arrested for war crimes.
Last edited:
