[CommanderSock]

$1:

He has to do it though, it is really hard to argue an engagement like Afghanistan for more then 10 years.

Agreed.

However, in a way, I'm sad to see Canada be one of the many "tried to tame the beast" nations who have failed.

Alexander of Macedon
The Romans
The British
The Russians
The Canadian?
The Americans?



No ancient empire could successfully occupy this sandy beast, and it now seems, no collection of modern nations can either?

Afghanistan is building a lengthy casualty list spanning more than 2 millennia.

[Scape]

Macedonians were nuts anyway.

[RUEZ]

When Afghanistan is led by the Taliban and Al Queada is freely training there again, that will be a failure.

[EyeBrock]

I think it's the right thing to do on a lot of levels. The end of 2011 is over three years away.
Plenty of time for the Euro-weenies to actually do some of the fighting.
Parliament has only voted on the mission being extended to 2011 anyway.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/346019

Or did you Libs and NDP types want to extend the mission past 2011?
Please spare me your partisan disgust and come up with a relevant plan "B" instead of just whining away.

I think most non-partisan people will agree with this decision. We can't be one of four nations out of the 26 NATO countries doing all the work for ever.
The Afghani's have to take responsibilty some decade for their own country.
I'm all for it as will be a growing number of people who will endorse this decision with a vote for the Tories. I think that's what's really bothering you guys.

Harper is going towards the centre and not the right, that's his 'scary agenda' and that's why he'll be staying on as the PM.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think it's the right thing to do on a lot of levels. The end of 2011 is over three years away.
Plenty of time for the Euro-weenies to actually do some of the fighting.
Parliament has only voted on the mission being extended to 2011 anyway.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/346019

Or did you Libs and NDP types want to extend the mission past 2011?
Please spare me your partisan disgust and come up with a relevant plan "B" instead of just whining away.

I think most non-partisan people will agree with this decision. We can't be one of four nations out of the 26 NATO countries doing all the work for ever.
The Afghani's have to take responsibilty some decade for their own country.
I'm all for it as will be a growing number of people who will endorse this decision with a vote for the Tories. I think that's what's really bothering you guys.

Harper is going towards the centre and not the right, that's his 'scary agenda' and that's why he'll be staying on as the PM.

Except for a few points:

1) Given the volume of insults leveled at those euro-weenies why shouldn't they just up and leave. It would serve us right.

2) Loads of us felt it was the afghans responsibility and not ours from day one and this is ignoring the fact that most of those fighting us ARE afghans.

3) Funny how just a few short months ago when the Libs and CPC were collaborating the Libs were villified for even suggesting 2011 yet now Harper is again the saviour for doing just that.

4) You seem to fully favour Harper but given the number of broken military promises and utter lack of increased military spending one has to wonder if the Liberals weren't so bad as you guys said afterall or you guys are blindly giving Harper a free pass for his hand in gutting the forces even more.

[EyeBrock]

The Euro-weenies might just leave. But that aside Bosnia had and end-ex date, we will have been in Afghanistan in one way or another for 10 years by the end of 2011.
Harper has done much to rebuild the military and at least we have a reasonably well equipped Army now. We can also deploy those lame duck units such as DART in the new C17's.

Remember how silly we looked when we couldn't deploy DART to the Indian Ocean after the Tsunami?

As for broken military promises, ask any of us in this forum who have and are serving who we vote for. I'd bet 95% of us vote Tory. Now why do you think that is?

[RUEZ]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Except for a few points:

1) Given the volume of insults leveled at those euro-weenies why shouldn't they just up and leave. It would serve us right.

They benefit as much as us from a stable mid east and shutting down Al Queada training camps.

$1:

2) Loads of us felt it was the afghans responsibility and not ours from day one and this is ignoring the fact that most of those fighting us ARE afghans.

It is their responsibility, and when the Taliban was the government they didn't want to do the job. Aren't most of the Al Queada now coming from Pakistan?

$1:

3) Funny how just a few short months ago when the Libs and CPC were collaborating the Libs were villified for even suggesting 2011 yet now Harper is again the saviour for doing just that.

I thought this was a done deal, I'm not sure what the uproar is about.

$1:

4) You seem to fully favour Harper but given the number of broken military promises and utter lack of increased military spending one has to wonder if the Liberals weren't so bad as you guys said afterall or you guys are blindly giving Harper a free pass for his hand in gutting the forces even more.

He has broken a few promises that is true. Considering all that he promised it was inevitable. However he's pumped a lot of money into the military so I'm not sure why you think he hasn't.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The Euro-weenies might just leave. But that aside Bosnia had and end-ex date, we will have been in Afghanistan in one way or another for 10 years by the end of 2011.
Harper has done much to rebuild the military and at least we have a reasonably well equipped Army now. We can also deploy those lame duck units such as DART in the new C17's.

Remember how silly we looked when we couldn't deploy DART to the Indian Ocean after the Tsunami?

As for broken military promises, ask any of us in this forum who have and are serving who we vote for. I'd bet 95% of us vote Tory. Now why do you think that is?

Harper has done nothing less then continue Martins plan while actually cancelling several key Liberal purchase planes including the JSS and replacement SAR aircraft.

Either its a total load of shite that the Liberals underfunded the military or else Harpers cost of living increase for military spending is every bit as bad as what the Liberals were bitched at.

Think about it. Harper hasn't increased spending by leaps and bounds and is actually less as a %GDP then Trudeau.

The fact that (and its far less then 95%) you guys are now forced to support Harper is because you have nowhere to go anymore. You have bitched so much at the Libs and NDP you have no choice but to support Harper no matter how much he short changes the military but hey. If you guys honestly think that Harper is doing an excellent job keeping a whole 1 out of 4 big ticket promises while cancelling several key Liberal purchase plans then you willnever ever have reason to complain again about any possible lack of funding from the Libs or NDP.

[DerbyX]

$1:

They benefit as much as us from a stable mid east and shutting down Al Queada training camps.

A false premise. Al Queada up and moved at the drop of a hat. Our presence there has had no effect whatsoever and regardless. Why should our European allies support us when they are denigrated at every turn because they didn't demand to be in the thick of it like we did?

$1:

It is their responsibility, and when the Taliban was the government they didn't want to do the job. Aren't most of the Al Queada now coming from Pakistan?

If you believe propaganda. The fact is that even those coming from Pakistan are far more connected by blood and heritage then we will ever be. Funny how we Canadians make a big ruckus about supporting our neighbours yet condemn "the enemy" if they don't fight a unified NATO force of over 20 countries by themselves.

Thats not right.

$1:

I thought this was a done deal, I'm not sure what the uproar is about.

No. It was a hideous cop-out from Dion a few months ago and now a sensible intelligent response (disputed by alot of war supporters) now.

$1:

He has broken a few promises that is true. Considering all that he promised it was inevitable. However he's pumped a lot of money into the military so I'm not sure why you think he hasn't.

Martin pumped alot of money into the military and without promises to do so. Harper simply followed the trend and given that the Liberals were villified for lack of defence spending you would think that anything less then a significant raise in spending would be acceptable from a military saviour.

[EyeBrock]

Martin was going to order Chinooks and C17's?

Show me where he was going to order those two very large purchases?

Oh and the leopard 2's?

Come on Derby!

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Martin was going to order Chinooks and C17's?

Show me where he was going to order those two very large purchases?

Oh and the leopard 2's?

Come on Derby!

No. Martin was too busy purchasing all the other equipment like the LAV IIIs and a whole slew of stuff I listed in my debate with tricycle boy. They also finished paying off the Halifax classes (order by the Libs way back when), the subs, the griffons, etc.

Again you guys point to a Harper purchase as proof yet ignore the fact that he didn't have to purchase all the other things that Martin did.

In terms of money spent he didn't double Martin nor did he do so in terms of equipment purchased. He did cancel key plans for aquisition no less important then the helos in 93 and he did it with a 13 billion surplus rather then a 25 billion deficit.

The bottom line is this. You either agree that Harper has been rather awful at military funding for a so called saviour of the military handed a 13 billion dollar surplus or else you admit the Liberals were actually pretty good given that they had to reverse a 25 billion dollar defict all the while paying for already purchased military hardware.

Your choice. Which is it?

[EyeBrock]

I'd say Harper equipped the Army for the mission that the previous government signed them up for, and we still need more.

No government prior to 2005 ( and I agree that Martin did start the rebuild) did anything. Chrétien was disastrous for the CF. Nobody could say the same about Harper. He has had to make tough decisions on where the little money is allocated to defence is spent.

I'm sorry, I have no confidence in Dion's vision for the military, for one I have not heard any policy re defence expenditure from him. All I have heard is him opposing every decision that Harper makes re defence.
I don't know where he stands on procurement. I know he opposed the Afghan mission in parliament and then voted to extend it.

Until you guys get a new leader or let us mere mortals know what the Liberal defence policy is, you won't be getting my vote.

PS, I wouldn't be bragging about the Sub purchase.

[roger-roger]

Thats a tough one, I like Harper and I like the Tories, but your right when you said

$1:

the Liberals were actually pretty good given that they had to reverse a 25 billion dollar defict all the while paying for already purchased military hardware.

When I joined in 05 the military was humming along quiet well since the cuts neglect that plagued the military 10 years earlier.

I will admit though that when it comes to past governments, I tend to forget who did what to the military. I just assumed that all the bad things were because of the liberals since that is what all my co-workers and family had said and also assumed . This is why I love going on forums like this, it forces you to cut through the rhetoric to either prove you point or find out your actually wrong.

[DerbyX]

$1:

I'd say Harper equipped the Army for the mission that the previous government signed them up for, and we still need more.

At the cost of the other 2 branches. The Liberals on the other hand tried to fund all three fairly and without the benefit of a clear cut military goal.

$1:

No government prior to 2005 ( and I agree that Martin did start the rebuild) did anything. Chrétien was disastrous for the CF. Nobody could say the same about Harper. He has had to make tough decisions on where the little money is allocated to defence is spent.

Bollocks. Utter bollocks. The purchases began way back in 97 when the deficit was truly defeated and decent payments to the debt made. Lavs, griffons, subs, etc all bought well prior to 2005. The really money started rolling in in 2001.

Visit the CF site to verify dates for equipment purchased. I posted this before but I'm too pissed off at the argos to do it now.

Chretien was not disastrous to the CF. He fucking saved them by saving us from bankruptcy.

In fact he was getting it right according to some experts.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... /PUB43.pdf

Of course the people who wanted Canada to have a much larger army villified himbut given the massive debt we were in that was just not feasible. BTW, why do so many people who bitch about the lack of defence spending also bitch about our taxes and ignore how much we spent servicing debt in the 90s. If anything Chretien was fair to the military.

You claim Harper is making tough descions????????

Thats not remotely fair. Harper is making tough descions with a 13 billion surplus but Chretien shortchanged the military with a 25 billion deficit.

C'mon. Thats not fair and you know it.

$1:

I'm sorry, I have no confidence in Dion's vision for the military, for one I have not heard any policy re defence expenditure from him. All I have heard is him opposing every decision that Harper makes re defence.
I don't know where he stands on procurement. I know he opposed the Afghan mission in parliament and then voted to extend it.

Why should Dion have a massive plan for the military when you are willing to accept so little from Harper especially considering you guys have been calling him an anti-military hating tosser from day one?

As for Afghanistan, he negotiated with Harper for out by 2011 and was villified for it. Now Harpers a hero and you are making excuses for us doing what Dion wanted all the while attacking him for a position he did not hold???

Thats dishonest.

$1:

Until you guys get a new leader or let us mere mortals know what the Liberal defence policy is, you won't be getting my vote.

PS, I wouldn't be bragging about the Sub purchase.

I don't want your vote as it is. You are woefully uniformed for a subject you should know alot about.

As for the subs..... Well 4 subs for 750 million from our trusted allies and the preminent naval power for more years the Canada has been inhabited by Euro-weenies I think we can give the nod to the LIbs.

Despite the fire they are still good subs and far more naval capability then Harper bought which is zero.

[Donny_Brasco]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

$1:

Alexander of Macedon
The Romans
The British
The Russians
The Canadian?
The Americans?

Reminds me of Civilization.

If we change our government to a Monarchy or Fundamentalist government we could fight this war for freedom easier...