# The Canadian Military Thread



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*I saw this headline, and thought it was the Onion. Oh my ****!*

*Canada considering international bases: MacKay*



> Canada is looking at setting up bases around the world to better position the military to participate in international missions, Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed Thursday.





> A report in Montreal newspaper Le Devoir said the Canadian Forces is negotiating to set up bases under a program known as the Operational Support Hubs Network. They've reportedly already completed negotiations with Germany and Jamaica, and are in talks with Kuwait, Senegal, Kenya or Tanzania, Singapore and South Korea.


(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*A great comment posted in reply to this story *(Environment Canada layoffs spook civil servants)



> 65 F-35s at $16 billion in total comes out to about $246 million per jet.
> 
> Buying one less plane could have allowed all of these 28 scientists to keep their jobs, at a salary of $100,000 a year, for over 85 years.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> *A great comment posted in reply to this story *(Environment Canada layoffs spook civil servants)


And that's a very low number being used.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

> 65 F-35s at $16 billion in total comes out to about $246 million per jet.
> 
> Buying one less plane could have allowed all of these 28 scientists to keep their jobs, at a salary of $100,000 a year, for over 85 years.


See that is the problem with people who know nothing about how government allocations and appropriations work. It isn't how things are decided upon, one less plan for this or that in exchange. Decisions are based on the needs in a given *department*. They don't haggle across departments. But yes National Defence has been set as a priority department by this government after the years of neglect under the Liberals.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> See that is the problem with people who know nothing about how government allocations and appropriations work.


That's quite an assumption on your part screature. I'll I know is the $16B figure is viewed as low even by military experts. Secondly there is great DND internal debate given that operational aircraft will be unmanned in the near future, making these models into dodos. There are several other points about their viability in cold regions like the arctic. This is a very poor decision.

In my opinion and others too.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> That's quite an assumption on your part screature. I'll I know is the $16B figure is viewed as low even by military experts. Secondly there is great DND internal debate given that operational aircraft will be unmanned in the near future, making these models into dodos. There are several other points about their viability in cold regions like the arctic. This is a very poor decision.
> 
> In my opinion and others too.


It's not an assumption at all if someone posts a comment like that. It quite simply is not how things work and demonstrates ignorance of the process.

If you think unmanned aircraft will fill the *role* of jet fighters I think you are quite mistaken. Unmanned aircraft will have specific roles to play but they cannot provide the versatility of a manned aircraft.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I don't see how setting up military bases internationally is a bad thing. _Shrugs._


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lars said:


> I don't see how setting up military bases internationally is a bad thing. _Shrugs._


Look a few miles South of the border my friend.

Those military bases around the world are costing the US big time. 

I would far rather see Canada maintain a good healthcare system than emulate the US military model. Yes it really is one or the other, the nation cannot afford both.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Lars, would you think it a good thing if Venezuela, or Mexico, or Uganda were setting up military bases around the world - maybe in Canada?

Why should Canada be positioning military equipment and personnel around the world? A military presence is the position of diplomacy-by-force, even if implied.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Lars said:


> I don't see how setting up military bases internationally is a bad thing. _Shrugs._


It costs Billions and things will have to be cut here at home. 

It's viewed upon internationally as imperialistic. The Roman empire and British empire din't see it as a bad thing. 

The US empire has spent trillions of dollars on foreign bases. They are *14 Trillion dollars* in debt and voting in the government right now trying to raise debt limits and have been on the brink of financial melt-down several times. 

Canada does not have a lot of money to play with right now. Starting to spend that money on foreign military bases right now would be an epic waste of money. It would equal only a one-term majority government for the conservatives.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Look a few miles South of the border my friend.
> 
> Those military bases around the world are costing the US big time.
> 
> I would far rather see Canada maintain a good healthcare system than emulate the US military model. Yes it really is one or the other, the nation cannot afford both.





CubaMark said:


> Lars, would you think it a good thing if Venezuela, or Mexico, or Uganda were setting up military bases around the world - maybe in Canada?
> 
> Why should Canada be positioning military equipment and personnel around the world? A military presence is the position of diplomacy-by-force, even if implied.





ehMax said:


> It costs Billions and things will have to be cut here at home.
> 
> It's viewed upon internationally as imperialistic. The Roman empire and British empire din't see it as a bad thing.
> 
> ...


Did any of you guys actually read the article...? 



> *There are no plans to set up permanent bases around the world*, but the planning happens to ensure Canada has options in case the military needs to deploy from another country, a government source said.
> 
> "As we look out into the future *what we obviously try to do is anticipate where and when we will be needed, but it's difficult with any certainty to make those plans, without talking to other countries,* without doing internal examinations," Mackay said.
> 
> ...


They are not talking about anything like what the US does with permanent bases and they would only be doing so at the invitation of the host nation, it has absolutely zero to do with imperialism.

Military support is not always about wartime activities either very often it is also for aid and reconstruction as in the case of Haiti.

Temporary international bases are par for the course for the Canadian military in the past.

How do you know what it costs ehMax there were no figures given?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Our participation in NATO is very much seen as Canada's contribution to imperialism.

Military "support" for aid and reconstruction in Haiti - well, we could talk about that one. At least Canadian soldiers spent more time delivering aid and setting up shelters than doing what the U.S. military did in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. 

As for "there are no plans" to set up permanent bases... yeah, like there were "no plans" to increase spending, "no plans" to massively cut jobs, "no plans" to attack Canada's social programmes. Sorry - I have a hard time trusting anything that comes out of a Conservative politician's mouth (not to mention the other parties).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Did any of you guys actually read the article...?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so does setting up these bases 'only by invitation' somehow make them cost less?

And your contention that it has zero to do with Imperialism, is simply your opinion, and I think you're very wrong on that one.




CubaMark said:


> Our participation in NATO is very much seen as Canada's contribution to imperialism.
> 
> Military "support" for aid and reconstruction in Haiti - well, we could talk about that one. At least Canadian soldiers spent more time delivering aid and setting up shelters than doing what the U.S. military did in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.
> 
> As for "there are no plans" to set up permanent bases... yeah, like there were "no plans" to increase spending, "no plans" to massively cut jobs, "no plans" to attack Canada's social programmes. Sorry - I have a hard time trusting anything that comes out of a Conservative politician's mouth (not to mention the other parties).


exactly. The screatures think that by the wave of their hands, they erase what the rest of the world sees this as.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There you go, screature, setting up a base is always Imperialism by definition, and just because there are no actual plans either announced or in the works doesn't mean that Canada won't impose its military might and evil will on the rest of the world.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and in chimes macfury, who by nature will twist everything anyone says either because he's just that way, or, doesn't seem to grasp what is actually being said.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I love how people think that setting up a military base automatically means we plan on enforcing our power on everyone else. There is evil in the world. Military might is in fact a necessity in this day and age. There's no point in denying this. The world is not at a place where everyone can drop their weapons and go home and give out hugs. That situation would be ideal but the reality is far from it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and lars takes macfurys twister a step further and suggests that we all just want to give out hugs.

And we wonder why, things aren't going so well out there.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

> *There are no plans to set up permanent bases around the world*, but the planning happens to ensure Canada has options in case the military needs to deploy from another country, a government source said.


It should be noted that most of those world wide Permanent US Military bases, which are bleeding the US taxpayer dry, started out as temporary "just in case we need them" bases. From there the US had to create a need for them hence the current mess the country finds itself in.

Of course the Banksters and the MIC love it and are no doubt an influencing factor in this current Harpo brain fart.

Again resources are limited. Expanding the military can come only by increasing debt load, increasing taxes or sacrificing medical care. It is too big of a financial load to be met in any other way.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> It should be noted that most of those world wide Permanent US Military bases, which are bleeding the US taxpayer dry, started out as temporary "just in case we need them" bases. From there the US had to create a need for them hence the current mess the country finds itself in.


exactly. couldn't agree more.

Canadian oversea bases are a stupid stupid stupid idea. Our military should be used for our defence. we should be buying planes to defend our borders, not ones designed to fly in the middle east.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Lars said:


> The world is not at a place where everyone can drop their weapons and go home and give out hugs. That situation would be ideal but the reality is far from it.


Exact same logic that started cold war. Others have the bomb, so we need more bombs. Well they have more, we need more. Eventually humanity saw the problems in that and we've slowly been disarming, but we still have a dangerous stockpiles of nuclear weapons. 

Setting up new international bases is a sign of aggression and a move *we can't afford*.

Speaking of reality, touting them as just temporary, we only need look at history. Many of the existing hundreds of US military bases were supposed to just be temporary.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Lars said:


> ....There is evil in the world. Military might is in fact a necessity in this day and age. There's no point in denying this...


That's true. And for a sizeable portion of this planet's population, that evil arrives in camoflague with a US flag on the shoulder. The USA's military interventions around the world have rarely been for any reason one might call "humanitarian" or to truly "fight evil" - it has, rather, been to solidify foreign policy aims at the point of a gun.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Okay I'm late to this as usual, but I have to chime in here. First, we can't even protect our own borders, so why in hell would we even consider the thought of transplanting operational sites........and these are indeed operation sites or why on earth would they bother setting them up.

Cubamark is right this is the most insidious type of diplomacy, under the guise of potential what a joke, I see this a a way to justify the expense, create the expense then the budget will follow, this also supports Screature's comment on how things a funded by the government, so you're both right.

Second, I wouldn't send troops anywhere unless I was going to use them .... and if I used them they would be killing everything that moved....not peace-keeping from my end. Take a look at how well Afghanistan, Viet Nam and others have gone when you are trying to fight rebels vs governments, all that happens is you turn the non-fighters into fighters against you. 

Third, we are not equipped politically to handle the wall of hurt bad press and international hassles that we will be exposed to ... this will only cause internal problems. I say keep your armed forces at home to protect your country.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> Take a look at how well Afghanistan, Viet Nam and others have gone when your are trying to fight rebels vs governments, all that happens is you turn the non-fighters into fighters against you.


Not necessarily--though I would not assume that the following is a wide-spread result.

Canada a leader with helping Taliban flip sides


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

As a very wise man has said many times: " we shall see".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> and in chimes macfury, who by nature will twist everything anyone says either because he's just that way, or, doesn't seem to grasp what is actually being said.





groovetube said:


> and lars takes macfurys twister a step further and suggests that we all just want to give out hugs.
> 
> And we wonder why, things aren't going so well out there.


And anyone who disagrees with the mouthy simpleton doesn't have a thought of their own and are merely following the herd or twisting and distorting... why don't you stuff the 'tude dude it is very tiresome.  tptptptp


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *Our participation in NATO is very much seen as Canada's contribution to imperialism.*
> 
> Military "support" for aid and reconstruction in Haiti - well, we could talk about that one. At least Canadian soldiers spent more time delivering aid and setting up shelters than doing what the U.S. military did in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.
> 
> As for "there are no plans" to set up permanent bases... yeah, like there were "no plans" to increase spending, "no plans" to massively cut jobs, "no plans" to attack Canada's social programmes. Sorry - I have a hard time trusting anything that comes out of a Conservative politician's mouth (not to mention the other parties).


In your eyes and those with your common world view, it doesn't mean you are right.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> ... Again resources are limited. Expanding the military can come only by increasing debt load, increasing taxes or sacrificing medical care. It is too big of a financial load to be met in any other way.


Sorry I completely disagree, there are many, many other areas where expenditures can be parred back before having to cut back on health care transfers to the provinces.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ehMax said:


> Exact same logic that started cold war. Others have the bomb, so we need more bombs. Well they have more, we need more. Eventually humanity saw the problems in that and we've slowly been disarming, but we still have a dangerous stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
> 
> Setting up new international bases is a sign of aggression and a move *we can't afford*.
> 
> Speaking of reality, touting them as just temporary, we only need look at history. Many of the existing hundreds of US military bases were supposed to just be temporary.


We are not the US. Temporary international bases is the way the Canadian military operates and it is absolutely incorrect that international bases are necessarily a sign of aggression they exist for logistical purposes in order to get equipment and personnel to where they are needed in a more efficient and expeditious manner and not all military missions are aggressive they can and very often are defensive and humanitarian.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> And anyone who disagrees with the mouthy simpleton doesn't have a thought of their own and are merely following the herd or twisting and distorting... why don't you stuff the 'tude dude it is very tiresome.  tptptptp


You need to have a drink and realize that gracing our presence to tell everyone they just don't get it every chance you get isn't going to always be met with red carpets and flowers.

That, is very tiresome, er, "dude".


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Sorry I completely disagree, there are many, many other areas where expenditures can be parred back before having to cut back on health care transfers to the provinces.


sure! Like food inspectors, for instance.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Well we at least agree that this was a Harpo trial balloon. One I believe is made of either Lead or depleted Uranium.

Truth is if Harpo wants to balance the budget he needs to cut back a wee bit on the Military side of things and just let his MIC friends stew for another four years.

Again if we look South of the border, the cost of military spending is a national debt so big that virtually all of the nations taxes go to paying interest on the national debt.

Yet even though they must make cuts to get things under control, Congress tries to loot Social Security and Medicare. Programs that are running nicely in the black and can continue to do for at least another 40 years if Congress repays the money it has already stolen from them. As far as reducing the now useless bases in Japan and Germany not a chance. The US claims it is withdrawing from IRAQ but a it's a reasonably safe bet those bases will not be closed, rather they will most likely be used to stage an invasion of Iran, another war the country can ill afford.

If Harpo truly wants to expand military spending, the bill should include new taxes to cover the cost. Taxpayers should either be given the option to opt out or the entire bill be made dependent on passing a national referendum held in conjunction with the next federal election. I would go so far as saying that the referendum should have to receive majority support of the voters and majority support in at least six provinces.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

he has a majority now.

He doesn't need trial balloons anymore.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> You need to have a drink and realize that gracing our presence to tell everyone they just don't get it every chance you get isn't going to always be met with red carpets and flowers.
> 
> That, is very tiresome, er, "dude".


I didn't tell anyone *here* they didn't get it... do you even read the context of the posts here... I was referring to the comment that CM posted from the comments on the article not to CM..... try and actually follow along and then maybe your posts will make sense and have some credibility.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you often start your posts with telling people how they don't get it, ignorant or what have you.

So quit your whining. And for credibility, yeah, right back at ya.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> sure! Like food inspectors, for instance.


That is a very well reasoned and elucidated argument... but by all means continue, you have at least another 4 years of making such posts...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Yet even though they must make cuts to get things under control, Congress tries to loot Social Security and Medicare. Programs that are running nicely in the black and can continue to do for at least another 40 years if Congress repays the money it has already stolen from them. .


No.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> That is a very well reasoned and elucidated argument... but by all means continue, you have at least another 4 years of making such posts...


Man, your drama queen stuff just gets tiring.

If you didn't get the reference, that's fine, but please don't whine.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Well we at least agree that this was a Harpo trial balloon. One I believe is made of either Lead or depleted Uranium.
> 
> Truth is if Harpo wants to balance the budget he needs to cut back a wee bit on the Military side of things and just let his MIC friends stew for another four years.
> 
> ...


Sigh... when will people who make posts like this or any other US/Canada equivalents realize we are NOT the US.

LOL!!! Yeah like people without kids should be able to opt out of paying school taxes.... 

You really need to look at the big picture and how government works if you want your ideas to be taken seriously.

I guess if I am really healthy and have good genes I should be able to opt out of the health care portion of my tax bill as well.... think about it!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Sigh... when will people who make posts like this or any other US/Canada equivalents realize we are NOT the US.
> 
> LOL!!! Yeah like people without kids should be able to opt out of paying school taxes....
> 
> You really need to look at the big picture and how government works if you want your ideas to be taken seriously.


there ya go, and you whine about other people 'tude' 'dude'.

If you're gonna do some lite flaming don't whine when others do it?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> there ya go, and you whine about other people 'tude' 'dude'.
> 
> If you're gonna do some lite flaming don't whine when others do it?


No not in the least my comment was in direct response to a given post not some sort of irrelevant slight to another member based on other posts in other threads... like you are so fond of doing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Man, your drama queen stuff just gets tiring.
> 
> If you didn't get the reference, that's fine, but please don't whine.


Cry me a river.... I got the reference it was irrelevant.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well jeez perhaps there's some self help groups up there to deal with such horrible terrorizing posters like myself.

Of course you don't see the condescending nature of your post... that's fine, but don't whine when others do it back. That's just, well y'know.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> *Cry me a river....* I got the reference it was irrelevant.


exactly. cry me a river.

If you're gonna slam others with your posts pulling this you lack credibility blah blah, you're gonna get it back.

As far as the reference, we were talking about what Harper could cut, and since there was a bit of a scuffle over cutting food inspection (listeria?) I wouldn't talk too loudly about credibility calling that irrelevant there, 'dude with the tude'.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> exactly. cry me a river.
> 
> *If you're gonna slam others with your posts pulling this you lack credibility blah blah, you're gonna get it back.*
> 
> As far as the reference, we were talking about what Harper could cut, and since there was a bit of a scuffle over cutting food inspection (listeria?) I wouldn't talk too loudly about credibility calling that irrelevant there, 'dude with the tude'.


Ahhh let's see who started this trend...



> groovetube said:
> 
> 
> > and in chimes macfury, who by nature will twist everything anyone says either because he's just that way, or, doesn't seem to grasp what is actually being said.




YOU reap what you sow dude... you reap what you sow. My god you have short term memory deficit... you sure it isn't early onset zimers? You may want to have that checked out.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*HEY!! * You guys wanna take this to direct PMs and outta this thread? _Sheesh!_


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Ahhh let's see who started this trend...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh look at you go! yapping about other's credibility, saying I have, "zimers" and stuff.

Seems you can get right in the muck all by your widdle selfie can you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *HEY!! * You guys wanna take this to direct PMs and outta this thread? _Sheesh!_


I'm outta here for the night anyway. He can whine to someone else about decorum while questioning -their credibility- and wondering if they have "zimers".


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Getting back on topic....:lmao:

I'm a firm believer that Canada should have a strong military, not to go tearassing around foreign jungles and deserts, but to protect and defend our sovereignty and patrol our coastlines for both defence and for SAR functions. 

For that we need ships, planes and helicopters...all of which we seem to lack at the moment. 

Any NATO commitments should be met, but certainly scrutinized against our capability and policy interests.

Anyway....my 2¢...carry on.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

We also need - in the very, very near future - Arctic disaster cleanup technology. As the polar caps melt, and Arctic powers alter their policies on oil exploration / extraction, our northern military bases should be equipped for that eventuality.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Our military has been starved for a very long time. There is going to be spending on equipment and because we have let it go so long it is going to be expensive. That being said, we should quit playing political games and get on with it. I believe that is what the current government is going to do, and quite properly so.

Comparing us to the U.S. is ridiculous. Their military spending is running at more than the total of the rest of the world. I would believe that this is cause for some private alarm in various world capitals. Even more so is the fact that their economy needs some cut backs but military is so entrenched in it there are regional fears throughout the country that "Things will be bad if they cut in my back yard.". So those needed cuts may not happen.

Canada historically has spent very little in terms of GDP on military in peace time. If my understanding is correct we maintain a very highly trained officer corps and a small armed forces. During conflict we ramp up to spending as much as 90% of GDP if my memory does not fail me. Hence ration coupons etc. during World War II. At the end of World War II we had a very large navy and the largest merchant marine in the world. I think we were also one of the largest airplane manufacturers.

The very large worry that I do have is that times have changed and our ability to re-arm in response to a threat is in jeopardy. Things happen much quicker now and on a global scale. Also, armaments are much more complicated now and have a far higher lead time requirement. There is a certain amount that we should have on hand and I believe that the amount of arms and quality of arms required is higher now than previously due to these factors.

Our peace keeping functions have been touted as one of our defining characteristics. Historically, that is not what we are about. It was a brilliant move on the part of Lester Pearson, allowing us to put off arming and sparing us from what we have always been since before confederation - Shock Troops. Prior to Vimy Ridge we were parceled out amongst our larger allies. From then on we have been under our own command. That is the prime importance of Vimy Ridge. Even in Afghanistan today, our replacements will outnumber the contingent leaving by 10 to 1. Apparently we are very efficient.

Talking about us being imperialistic is also ridiculous. Aside from religion, the greatest causes of war are trade restrictions. Control a territory either through debt, colonization or straight intimidation so that it's resources flow to the intimidator's borders is what it is all about. We have not followed that path. We are a trading nation. Both the Mulroney government and now the Harper government, are committed to free trade throughout the world. One of Harper's big things during the various meetings after the recession was trying to insure that nations did not close their borders to trade - the U. S. being notorious in that regard, especially under Democrat governments.

As for the article on military bases, we are a mobile force. Logistics is everything. In most wars more people are killed through bad logistics than through gun fire. We are very good at logistics. With the size of our country, we get a lot or practice moving things around. I would be greatly disappointed if base discussions were not happening on an on going basis. We lost one staging base. That can happen at any time and we have to be prepared for it.

Just my $.02 on a Friday night.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> We also need - in the very, very near future - Arctic disaster cleanup technology. As the polar caps melt, and Arctic powers alter their policies on oil exploration / extraction, our northern military bases should be equipped for that eventuality.


Assuming the current trend of ice thickening reverses in 10 or 20 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> We also need - in the very, very near future - Arctic disaster cleanup technology. As the polar caps melt, and Arctic powers alter their policies on oil exploration / extraction, our northern military bases should be equipped for that eventuality.


Yes. They'll need to protect the resource industry types who will be extracting the black gold on our behalf.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> No not in the least my comment was in direct response to a given post not some sort of irrelevant slight to another member based on other posts in other threads... like you are so fond of doing.


Seriously, screature, he can't understand what you're saying--and he'll drum you to death if you keep at it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

People who so obviously dislike what the military are doing should really join up and do something about it working from the inside. That or STHU and let them do their jobs.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> People who so obviously dislike what the military are doing should really join up and do something about it working from the inside. That or STHU and let them do their jobs.


I don't dislike the military. And being Canadian I'm already inside. And it's sad that you want to limit debate.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lichen Software said:


> Our military has been starved for a very long time. There is going to be spending on equipment and because we have let it go so long it is going to be expensive. That being said, we should quit playing political games and get on with it. I believe that is what the current government is going to do, and quite properly so.
> 
> Comparing us to the U.S. is ridiculous. Their military spending is running at more than the total of the rest of the world. I would believe that this is cause for some private alarm in various world capitals. Even more so is the fact that their economy needs some cut backs but military is so entrenched in it there are regional fears throughout the country that "Things will be bad if they cut in my back yard.". So those needed cuts may not happen.
> 
> ...


IMO worth way more than 2 cents Lichen Software... I completely agree with you, great post.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> I don't dislike the military. And being Canadian I'm already inside. And it's sad that you want to limit debate.


I don't dislike the military either. Don't know where -that- came from.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> People who so obviously dislike what the military are doing should really join up and do something about it working from the inside. That or STHU and let them do their jobs.


Sorry Don even though one dead relative is one too many, I do not dislike the military.

What I hate is seeing the military used to fight wars that are thinly veiled conduits to take taxpayer money and funnel it to; Banksters, military suppliers and weapons manufacturers, no matter the cost in human lives. 

Oh and there is that small bit about out of control spending as well. But I guess real conservatives no longer include fiscal conservation as part of their philosophy.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Oh and there is that small bit about out of control spending as well. But I guess real conservatives no longer include fiscal conservation as part of their philosophy.


Canadian conservatives are acting like sports fans cheering on their team. It doesn't matter what the actual *policy* is, they just want their team in control.

So we get "libertarian" conservatives supporting foreign military operations, and "fiscal" conservatives supporting buying f-35s that even Republican politicians in the states are saying are a waste of money.

I guess this is what happens when there is only one party on the right. You have to bite your tongue on things like principles you believe in in order to have a winning sign on your lawn.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> o we get "libertarian" conservatives supporting foreign military operations...


Hope you don't mean me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Canadian conservatives are acting like sports fans cheering on their team. It doesn't matter what the actual *policy* is, they just want their team in control.
> 
> So we get "libertarian" conservatives supporting foreign military operations, and "fiscal" conservatives supporting buying f-35s that even Republican politicians in the states are saying are a waste of money.
> 
> I guess this is what happens when there is only one party on the right. You have to bite your tongue on things like principles you believe in in order to have a winning sign on your lawn.


Sigh.... Once again...



> *Canada is looking at* setting up bases around the world to better position the military to participate in international missions, Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed Thursday.
> 
> The Canadian Forces does "*prudent planning*," MacKay told reporters, taking into account the ability to participate in international missions.
> 
> ...


Yep, big conspiracy here for those who make it a pastime to look for them....


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Hope you don't mean me.


I don't know. Do I?

It's hard to know your position. you're not actually *defending* the policy of potentially opening up military bases overseas, simply attacking people who disagree.

Do you think it's a good idea that Canada has now dropped 240 bombs on Libya? That we're going to order 1300 more @ $100,000 a pop? That we're going to extend our mission there without actually having a mandate? What started under the guise of protecting civilians has morphed into something completely different.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> I don't know. Do I?
> 
> It's hard to know your position. you're not actually *defending* the policy of potentially opening up military bases overseas, simply attacking people who disagree.
> 
> Do you think it's a good idea that Canada has now dropped 240 bombs on Libya? That we're going to order 1300 more @ $100,000 a pop? That we're going to extend our mission there without actually having a mandate? What started under the guise of protecting civilians has morphed into something completely different.


I think it's possible that a military base _might_ be a good idea, but it would have to make economic sense. However, I disagree that such a base would automatically be an expression of Imperialism.

I never supported the Libya operation. We have no idea who would take power if the current regime was deposed.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> We are big players in NATO. We're a country that has become a go-to nation in response to situations like what we're seeing in Libya, what we saw in Haiti...


Haiti is at least in our continental sphere, while Libya is not. Let the British an French NATO contingent tearass around North Africa...god knows they have plenty of colonial skeletons there. 

Perhaps we're the go-to nation because we're suckers? Who gets the bill for these "expeditionary" junkets? Oh...wait...it's us.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I think it's possible that a military base _might_ be a good idea, but it would have to make economic sense. However, I disagree that such a base would automatically be an expression of Imperialism.


i would consider that counter to libertarian principles.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I will pre-apologize to anyone who finds the title offensive, but it was in my head before I got the camera out of the case and does complement the image perfectly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i would consider that counter to libertarian principles.


No. It's OK to conduct military operations against countries who are attacking or threatening you--however, the threshold on this has been extremely low recently. If there were such countries, however, a base near the theatre of operations would be a good idea.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

screature said:


> .... yes National Defence has been set as a priority department by this government after the years of neglect under the Liberals.


What does "neglect" mean in this context? In all those years. how many times has Canada been attacked?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> ... for a sizeable portion of this planet's population, that evil arrives in camoflague with a US flag on the shoulder. The USA's military interventions around the world have rarely been for any reason one might call "humanitarian" or to truly "fight evil" - it has, rather, been to solidify foreign policy aims at the point of a gun.


Okay, that's all true enough. Indeed, it is obvious if you study world history. So why is there a thread about this?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Dr T said:


> What does "neglect" mean in this context? In all those years. how many times has Canada been attacked?


Canada is continually being attacked...

...and


> Years of cost-cutting reduced Canada's ability to roam, let alone police, the waters it claims as its own. Canada's military presence in the North is limited to the Canadian Forces Northern Area (CFNA) headquarters in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, and two smaller detachments in Whitehorse, Yukon, and Iqaluit, Nunavut.
> 
> Col. Norm Couturier, the CFNA commander, acknowledges that he faces a huge logistical challenge. The CFNA is spread over 1.5 million square miles of some of the world's most inhospitable and sparsely populated regions. There are no roads connecting the region year-round with the rest of Canada, and virtually everything has to be sent by sea or airlifted.
> 
> To oversee this huge expanse, Couturier has a staff of about 200 Regular Forces soldiers with four Twin Otter transport utility planes and 1,400 Canadian Rangers on snowmobiles.


Source:As Arctic Ice Melts, Canada Reasserts Sovereignty Over Its 'Northwest Passage'

More: 
Battle for the Arctic heats up - Canada - CBC News


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr T said:


> What does "neglect" mean in this context? In all those years. how many times has Canada been attacked?


Since the war of 1812 when has Canada been attacked in any war we have participated in? We weren't attacked in either the World Wars. 

This is a naive way to look at the reasons for why we have a military and need to keep it up to date. Seriously, think about it a little.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

At Vimy CDN forces may have been under CDN command but strategy was directed by the Brits. Canada didn't even have a foreign affairs dept. until 1921. Canada did not officially conduct its own foreign affairs until 1931 (see statute of Westminster). At Dieppe (I lost an uncle I never met) we were still directed by the Brits but with consultation. 

To me the number 1 cause of war and many of the world's problems is over-population. Populations fight over resources especially when they are scarce and then use religion and ideology to justify war. This will only become worse as populations increase. 

Another thing that should be considered is the size of the military industrial complex outside of DND. Without answering the question where does the manufacturing of armourments and military software, services, etc., rank in Canada's GDP? Take a look at Peaceful Sweden, its number 1 export - military product. 

Some interesting posts here but some real misinformation within.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Since the war of 1812 when has Canada been attacked in any war we have participated in? We weren't attacked in either the World Wars.
> 
> This is a naive way to look at the reasons for why we have a military and need to keep it up to date. Seriously, think about it a little.


Our merchant marine was attacked by German subs in WWII.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> At Vimy CDN forces may have been under CDN command but strategy was directed by the Brits. Canada didn't even have a foreign affairs dept. until 1921. Canada did not officially conduct its own foreign affairs until 1931 (see statute of Westminster). At Dieppe (I lost an uncle I never met) we were still directed by the Brits but with consultation.
> 
> To me *the number 1 cause of war and many of the world's problems is over-population*.


I can't agree with this jimbo. Wars have been fought since the beginning of humankind, long before there was any sort of human overpopulation.



jimbotelecom said:


> *Populations fight over resources especially when they are scarce and then use religion and ideology to justify war. This will only become worse as populations increase. *
> 
> Another thing that should be considered is the size of the military industrial complex outside of DND. Without answering the question where does the manufacturing of armourments and military software, services, etc., rank in Canada's GDP? Take a look at Peaceful Sweden, its number 1 export - military product.
> 
> Some interesting posts here but some real misinformation within.


This is much more to the point and I agree as human population increases it creates a stressing factor for those resources and can be a contributing factor to the number of wars that will be fought. But the primary motivator for war is the control of resources, whatever they maybe. 

Currently the resource that is the prime motivator is oil, many believe, myself included, that in the future the primary resource that will be the motivator for war will be water.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Our merchant marine was attacked by German subs in WWII.


The reference was to Canada being attacked i.e. out national borders. Clearly our assets were attacked.



Dr T said:


> What does "neglect" mean in this context? In all those years. how many times has *Canada *been attacked?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> The reference was to Canada being attacked i.e. out national borders. Clearly our assets were attacked.


Canadian ships were attacked within our national borders in the St. Lawrence.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> I can't agree with this jimbo. Wars have been fought since the beginning of humankind, long before there was any sort of human overpopulation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can sort of agree with your first point in a pre-historic context. But of the prime motivator for imperialism in Greece, Rome, Europe was lack of living space at home (liebensraum). Malthus and countless others since have articulated this argument. 

The root cause of climate disruption is too many **** sapiens. Too many consumers. In 2011 starting a camp fire has very negative carbon consequences because there are too many people who continued to carbon growth. But in a natural state of being camp fires are of little or no consequence because populations were in balance. 

War in a modern context is primarily caused by too many people fighting over resources.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Canadian ships were attacked within our national borders in the St. Lawrence.


I know U-boats were in the St.Lawrence, but you will have to provide a link as to the history of when we were attacked by them within our national waters because I have not heard of this.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> I can sort of agree with your first point in a pre-historic context. But of the prime motivator for imperialism in Greece, Rome, Europe was lack of living space at home (liebensraum). Malthus and countless others since have articulated this argument.
> 
> The root cause of climate disruption is too many **** sapiens. Too many consumers. In 2011 starting a camp fire has very negative carbon consequences because there are too many people who continued to carbon growth. But in a natural state of being camp fires are of little or no consequence because populations were in balance.
> 
> War in a modern context is primarily caused by too many people fighting over resources.


We will have to agree to disagree as to the primary cause of war if you believe it is over population and the context I mention is far from pre-historic. Up until the 18th century over population could only be considered a problem in a urban context and that was because of the lack of sophisticated infrastructures. Lack of living space in and of itself does not indicate overpopulation what it does indicate is a high population density within a given area. If 10 people tried to live in my small house then there would be a lack of living space, i.e. population density is localized as was the case in Greece and Rome, overpopulation I would argue is, at least within the context in which you make reference to it, a globalized condition.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> We will have to agree to disagree as to the primary cause of war if you believe it is over population and the context I mention is far from pre-historic. Up until the 18th century over population could only be considered a problem in a urban context and that was because of the lack of sophisticated infrastructures. Lack of living space in and of itself does not indicate overpopulation what it does indicate is a high population density within a given area. If 10 people tried to live in my small house then there would be a lack of living space.


Suggest you look into feudal societies and the topic of sub-infeudation. There are countless academic studies about wars breaking out over a particular oasis. The people without power didn't want to endure the hardship of crossing the mountains or the desert, what have you. Lots of anthropolical studies. Not all this stuff is on the net. It is in books though. Nonetheless, too many people again and again.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Suggest you look into feudal societies and the topic of sub-infeudation. There are countless academic studies about wars breaking out over a particular oasis. The people without power didn't want to endure the hardship of crossing the mountains or the desert, what have you. Lots of anthropolical studies. Not all this stuff is on the net. It is in books though. Nonetheless, too many people again and again.


Resources first, too many people second, like I said we will have to agree to disagree. We agree on the general premise, it is just a matter of which comes first.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> I know U-boats were in the St.Lawrence, but you will have to provide a link as to the history of when we were attacked by them within our national waters because I have not heard of this.


Google it. I took a course on Canadian military history with Jack Granitstein and Des Morton where this was documented in academic studies. My first google search gave me a Wikipedia link to the battle of the St. Lawrence. Again much academic work especially Canuck history is not on the web.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

*The Battle of the Saint Lawrence*

Gentlebeings - this action was commonly known as the Battle of the Saint Lawrence (or Gulf of Saint Lawrence) and can be read about here:

Battle of the St. Lawrence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Not that Wikipedia is always right and %100 accurate, but it is a beginning. There are other links from there such as:

uboat.net has this:

uboat.net - Articles



> Where are our ships?
> The news of these two attacks alarmed the military and civilians alike. Bear in mind that Canada had not been directly attacked on its own territory since the War of 1812! Questions were raised from all corners as to how German submarines could have carried out such vicious attacks with complete impunity within Canada's territorial waters. Canadians, particularly Quebecers, suddenly realised that the war was on their very doorstep!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Of course another contributing factor is the all too uniquely human characteristic of greed and consuming far more than we *need*.

By weight ants and termites (all species) constitute more biomass than any other non-vegetative terrestrial organism on the planet yet that does not present a problem because they consume only that which they need for their colonies to survive. Of course they will invade other colonies when their resources become scarce. 

It is all about having enough resources for sustainability, the two factors, resources and population, are intricately linked and it is always a dance between the two, however because of human greed resources can be fought over even when resources are plentiful locally, i.e. imperialism and expansionism.

Additionally, wars have been fought over non-essential resources such as gold which is again where human greed comes into the equation and has nothing to do with overpopulation.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Personally, I don't have a problem with them securing relations with nations for bases if necessary on a temporary basis. We don't have aircraftcarriers, so it's somnething we need if action is sanctioned. Although on a side note there is discussion that DND wants to buy: 

Mistral class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Permanent bases are of course a bad, expensive, arguably unwelcome thing.

I do have a problem with the F-35 delivery schedule slipping (almost a forgone conclusion for everyone except Peter McKay) especially since the whole mess was partially justified by a good position in delivery...

If the planes don't arrive before 2018 we will have to start re-winging or CF-118s or grounding them...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Google it. I took a course on Canadian military history with Jack Granitstein and Des Morton where this was documented in academic studies. My first google search gave me a Wikipedia link to the battle of the St. Lawrence. Again much academic work especially Canuck history is not on the web.





eggman said:


> Gentlebeings - this action was commonly known as the Battle of the Saint Lawrence (or Gulf of Saint Lawrence) and can be read about here:
> 
> Battle of the St. Lawrence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Thanks for this I wasn't aware there were actual engagements in the St. Lawrence and my bad, I stand corrected. 

Ok so 5 times in two years during WWII, since the war of 1812 Canada has been attacked on our native soil er... waters.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Of course another contributing factor is the all too uniquely human characteristic of greed and consuming far more than we *need*.
> 
> By weight ants and termites (all species) constitute more biomass than any other non-vegetative terrestrial organism on the planet yet that does not present a problem because they consume only that which they need for their colonies to survive. Of course they will invade other colonies when their resources become scarce.
> 
> ...


Agreed. This is why we need government to regulate the greedy.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

smashedbanana said:


> Personally, I don't have a problem with them securing relations with nations for bases if necessary on a temporary basis. We don't have aircraftcarriers, so it's somnething we need if action is sanctioned. Although on a side note there is discussion that DND wants to buy:
> 
> Mistral class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


We already rent space on existing U.S. bases.

To your 2nd point it would be far less expensive extend the CF18's rather than purchase the 35's. As stated before we're entering the era of unmanned craft. There is a great debate about this within DND. The old guard is getting their way right now.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Agreed. This is why we need government to regulate the greedy.


Well that is rather idealistic I think as all too often governments are every bit as if not more greedy than individual citizens.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Well that is rather idealistic I think as all too often governments are every bit as if not more greedy than individual citizens.


Acquisitiveness is called greed only when we want that thing ourselves. Humans are naturally acquisitive.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> We already rent space on existing U.S. bases.
> 
> To your 2nd point it would be far less expensive extend the CF18's rather than purchase the 35's. *As stated before we're entering the era of unmanned craft. There is a great debate about this within DND. The old guard is getting their way right now.*


I don't see how unmanned aircraft can "replace" manned fighters in the near future... They certainly have their place as they do now, but to replace them altogether is quite away off yet IMO.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Well that is rather idealistic I think as all too often governments are every bit as if not more greedy than individual citizens.


Not really idealistic, more one of the fundmental foundations of government going back to Plato. Yes some govts do become greedy. Not all individual citizens are greedy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Not really idealistic, more one of the fundmental foundations of government going back to Plato. Yes some govts do become greedy. Not all individual citizens are greedy.


Plato *is* all about idealism/Utopianism... 



> Philosopher kings are the rulers, or Guardians, of Plato's Utopian Kallipolis.


Philosopher king

When have governments ever demonstrated the ability in the course of human history to even slightly diminish human greed? They have through coercion limited the ability of the individual to exercise and pursue their own individual greed all the while pursuing the greed of the "state"/Mother/Fatherland.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> I don't see how unmanned aircraft can "replace" manned fighters in the near future... They certainly have their place as they do now, but to replace them altogether is quite away off yet IMO.


I have several friends who are think tank officers who are the source of the internal debate.
Our local Liberal Fed candidate (she lost), Karen McCrimmon, the first female CF-18 squadron leader also buys into this line of thinking. Canada does not need the 35's. Bad timing on our part.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> I have several friends who are think tank officers who are the source of the internal debate.
> Our local Liberal Fed candidate (she lost), Karen McCrimmon, the first female CF-18 squadron leader also buys into this line of thinking. Canada does not need the 35's. Bad timing on our part.


So you and others say.... many others see it very differently. It is far from definitive.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> Plato *is* all about idealism/Utopianism...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Socrates and Plato, like it or not founded our polis.

Liberal Democracy has diminished greed. Not always successfully, but unchecked individualist greed is constantly questioned and in some cases put on trial. Madoff anyone?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> So you and others say.... many others see it very differently. It is far from definitive.


Since there is a debate as I have said, I agree, some others see it differently.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Socrates and Plato, like it or not founded our polis.
> 
> Liberal Democracy has diminished greed. Not always successfully, but unchecked individualist greed is constantly questioned and in some cases put on trial. Madoff anyone?


I don't see it demonstrably in any significant degree. Again we shall have to agree to disagree. 

Peace. (This is good fun though on a Sunday morning.  )


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> I don't see it demonstrably in any significant degree. Again we shall have to agree to disagree. Peace. (This is good fun though on a Sunday morning.  )


LOL! It is indeed. You don't see the demonstrable argument because the decision has been made. The majority government reinforces the decision. We will be spending billions of tax payer $'s on their acquisition to the detriment of (in my opinion) Canadian modern Art, our environment, the CBC, etc.

Peace to you too!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> LOL! It is indeed. You don't see the demonstrable argument because the decision has been made. The majority government reinforces the decision. We will be spending billions of tax payer $'s on their acquisition to the detriment of (in my opinion) Canadian modern Art, our environment, the CBC, etc.
> 
> Peace to you too!


I'm not talking about a Canadian but global context... we have drifted quite far from the initial discussion so that may not have been obvious. 

At any rate have a great Sunday jimbo.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> I'm not talking about a Canadian but global context... we have drifted quite far from the initial discussion so that may not have been obvious.
> 
> At any rate have a great Sunday jimbo.


I was in a hurry and mixed both. Me bad this time.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Sub HMCS Windsor back in water after 5 years*





> HMCS Windsor, one of Canada's trouble-plagued submarines, will go into the water this week after undergoing costly repairs for five years.
> 
> The Canadian Forces says the sub will be lowered into Halifax harbour either Thursday or Friday. A source tells CBC News it could even happen Wednesday, depending on weather and other considerations.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Army goes back to the future with return to British-style ranks and designations*



> As part of the ongoing image makeover of the military, Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced Monday that the army will replace the Maple Leaf rank designation on the shoulder boards of officers with the traditional "pips" and Crowns in a nod to the country's past.
> 
> The ranks of non-commissioned officers will also be returned to the original British Army and Commonwealth designations.
> 
> The decision means the rank of private, within the army, will be virtually eliminated and replaced with trooper, bombardier, fusilier, rifleman or guardsman, depending upon the unit.





> The Harper government, over the last couple of years, has returned different branches of the military to their 1960s pre-amalgamation names, re-introducing the Royal designation to the air force and navy.
> 
> In addition, it changed around the placement of flags on warships, moving the naval ensign — which is closely associated with the Royal Navy — back up to the mast and flying the Canadian flag from the bow whenever a ship was in port.





> Liberal defence critic John McKay was mystified by all the attention being paid to pageantry, and described it as a distraction from some of the real and substantive issues, particularly funding concerns, that are in front of the military.
> 
> "It is an announcement that is not substantive," he said from Toronto on Monday. "And I am not unmindful they would love to expunge anything Liberal out of Canadian history."
> 
> The unification of the military branches and common ranking system were introduced by the Liberals in 1968.


(Victoria Times-Colonist)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I really like these changes. Too much of Canada has been cut free from tradition.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wonder what this will cost.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Let's just call it a 'budget protection' move.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Liberal defence critic John McKay was mystified by all the attention being paid to pageantry, and described it as a distraction from some of the real and substantive issues, particularly funding concerns, that are in front of the military.
> 
> "It is an announcement that is not substantive," he said from Toronto on Monday. "And I am not unmindful they would love to expunge anything Liberal out of Canadian history."
> 
> ...


I guess if regression is your thing...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *Army goes back to the future with return to British-style ranks and designations*
> 
> 
> 
> (Victoria Times-Colonist)


My father who was a 30 year member of the Airforce (achieved the highest rank of enlisted men, Chief Warrant Officer, he was on several occasions offered to become an "Officer" but turned it down, because in his words, "I work for a living") was outraged when Trudeau pulled off the amalgamation of the various forces into one.

It was but one of the reasons why my father hated Trudeau, because he didn't understand or respect the Forces and thought his top down arrogant and ignorant approach was best.

I suspect the various Forces within the Armed Forces welcome this change and probably motivated it, despite the cries and caterwauling of the no Armed Forces respecting left. The change that Trudeau forced upon them was something they didn't want in the first place.

And yet those on the left are going to call it anachronistic... such arrogance and ignorance. Just like Trudeau. 

Trudeau never consulted with DND or the ranks when he made the change he just made it and yet Harper is the "control freak". 

It is to laugh.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Harper's Conservatives Launch Review Of Canadian History



> according to NDP MP and deputy heritage critic Andrew Cash, who also sits on the committee.
> 
> Cash told Postmedia on Thursday that Canadians ought to be worried that the Tories are seeking to revise Canada’s past.
> 
> “They’re obsessed with reframing history and rebranding it in the image of the Conservative party,” he said.





> Some have criticized the Tories for spending close to $30 million to celebrate the bicentennial of the War of 1812, with re-enactments, advertising, a commemorative coin, and upgrades to historical facilities.





> In 2011, former Harper adviser Tom Flanagan said a focus on “patriotic themes” was always an important part of the prime minister’s strategy.
> 
> “I remember him saying years ago that the Conservative party in any country ought to be the party of patriotism, that the Liberals in Canada had appropriated that role, and that the Conservatives had to win it back," Flanagan said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a sad document that ought not to be celebrated.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> ....despite the cries and caterwauling of the no Armed Forces respecting left. The change that Trudeau forced upon them was something they didn't want in the first place.
> 
> And yet those on the left are going to call it anachronistic... such arrogance and ignorance. Just like Trudeau.


I've never understood this slander from the Right that it is the Left that doesn't respect the Armed Forces. The Conservatives (and in the USA, the Republicans) are the ones who consistently defund benefits to servicepeople, bring cutbacks to medical care, money for funerals, etc. They love to wave the flag and send young men off to war to protect their precious oil... but actual support for the troops? Show me.

In Nova Scotia there is no stronger ally for veteran's rights than NDP MP Peter Stoffer, the opposition's Veterans Affairs critic (you may remember when he called Conservative MP Rob Anders a dickhead).

What many of us on the Left are critical of is not the Armed Forces - it's the political application of our Armed Forces to support unwarranted and usually U.S.-led military activity that we see as unjust.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> I've never understood this slander from the Right that it is the Left that doesn't respect the Armed Forces. The Conservatives (and in the USA, the Republicans) are the ones who consistently defund benefits to servicepeople, bring cutbacks to medical care, money for funerals, etc. They love to wave the flag and send young men off to war to protect their precious oil... but actual support for the troops? Show me.
> 
> In Nova Scotia there is no stronger ally for veteran's rights than NDP MP Peter Stoffer, the opposition's Veterans Affairs critic (you may remember when he called Conservative MP Rob Anders a dickhead).
> 
> What many of us on the Left are critical of is not the Armed Forces - it's the political application of our Armed Forces to support unwarranted and usually U.S.-led military activity that we see as unjust.


Nicely put CM.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Harper's Conservatives Launch Review Of Canadian History


Yep that all sounds about right... despite it being from the Huff.

The irony is that their "criticism" of the move to divide the roles of the Forces back to the way it was before is what many if not most of those in the Forces wanted before PT decided for himself and imposed the changes on them...

This seems lost on the left but it isn't entirely surprising because they want to impose their ideology on everyone regardless of whether they want it or not... It is just their way.

At least this government is actively rejecting some of the impositions of PT.

Thank god!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> I've never understood this slander from the Right that it is the Left that doesn't respect the Armed Forces. The Conservatives (and in the USA, the Republicans) are the ones who consistently defund benefits to servicepeople, bring cutbacks to medical care, money for funerals, etc. They love to wave the flag and send young men off to war to protect their precious oil... but actual support for the troops? Show me.
> 
> In Nova Scotia there is no stronger ally for veteran's rights than NDP MP Peter Stoffer, the opposition's Veterans Affairs critic (you may remember when he called Conservative MP Rob Anders a dickhead).
> 
> What many of us on the Left are critical of is not the Armed Forces - it's the political application of our Armed Forces to support unwarranted and usually U.S.-led military activity that we see as unjust.


:lmao:

You are just so wrong in so many ways it will take a while to compile a rebuttal..... 

The left in Canada supports their Forces....? :lmao:

Back in a while as this is going to take some time to get all the historical data together.

:lmao:

Just too funny. Hehe... This is going to be fun...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Yes laugh all you want. I too have a father who spent decades in the service and grandfather who served in wwII just like many other people I know but that doesn't give me any more credibility than you.

The cons have a horrible track record of supporting our military which any rebuttal would be an absolute joke.

But yes I could use a good chuckle


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> I've never understood this slander from the Right that it is the Left that doesn't respect the Armed Forces. The Conservatives (and in the USA, the Republicans) are the ones who consistently defund benefits to servicepeople, bring cutbacks to medical care, money for funerals, etc. They love to wave the flag and send young men off to war to protect their precious oil... but actual support for the troops? Show me.
> 
> In Nova Scotia there is no stronger ally for veteran's rights than NDP MP Peter Stoffer, the opposition's Veterans Affairs critic (you may remember when he called Conservative MP Rob Anders a dickhead).
> 
> What many of us on the Left are critical of is not the Armed Forces - it's the political application of our Armed Forces to support unwarranted and usually U.S.-led military activity that we see as unjust.


I'll add nicely put as well CM.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a sad document that ought not to be celebrated.


Riight... things like freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association... these are for wussies who don't like having to take up arms when they disagree with others.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Bryanc not everyone is on board with this whole notion that -everyone- should have freedom


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Riight... things like freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association... these are for wussies who don't like having to take up arms when they disagree with others.


Not at all. It isn't free enough and does not even protect property rights. A sad "mod" document, built by bureaucrats.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That editorial comic is well thought out for a change.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> That editorial comic is well thought out for a change.


I agree ............ and sadly, it is all too true.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Ottawa has no special obligation to soldiers, say federal lawyers*

Federal lawyers say Ottawa has no special obligation to those who’ve fought wars on behalf of Canada and that it’s unfair to bind the Harper government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.
** * *​*...federal lawyers argue that the lawsuit, if successful, would put disabled veterans ahead of all other Canadians in terms of their compensation and treatment by the federal government.

The B.C. court filing, obtained by The Canadian Press, also states that there is “social contract” between the nation and its soldiers whom are called upon to lay down their lives without question.

At issue is a 1917 pledge made by Sir Robert Borden, the country’s prime minister during the First World War on the eve of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which said:

“You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government I give you this assurance: That you need not fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and Empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done.

“The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.”​
The statement was nothing more than a speech by a politician; it cannot be considered applicable today, and was never legislated, federal lawyers stated.

** * *​*The soldiers are suing over the new veterans charter, which provides workers-compensation-style lump sum payments to wounded vets for non-economic losses, such as losing limbs, as opposed to the pension-for-life settlements provided after previous wars.

** * *​*The Royal Canadian Legion described the government’s position as “reprehensible” last October.

(GlobalNews)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think I would agree with the federal government on this one from a legal perspective. I support the pension approach over the lump sum approach for military vets, but whatever is agreed to needs to be codified in law.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Overseas war graves neglected, Veterans Affairs review finds - Politics - CBC News


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*I wonder what Fantino's replacement has to say about all this?*

*Advocate Keith Neville ordered to stop work with veterans' appeals*



> A veterans' advocate in Whitney Pier said he's been told by the federal government he can no longer help former military members navigate the bureaucracy of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
> 
> Keith Neville has successfully advocated for 48 veterans having their cases heard by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which provides veterans and other applicants with an independent avenue of appeal for disability decisions made by Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> ...





> several Veterans Affairs offices were closed last year, veterans were told they could get assistance at their local legion from the service officer. That officer is overwhelmed with cases,





> Frank Hawryluk, a veteran, said the other alternative Veterans Affairs gave him was to hire a lawyer.
> 
> "The last letter I got from the board, either get myself a lawyer because they do not want to have nothing to do him whatsoever,"



(CBC)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since when does a government board have the right to curtail the actions of a private citizen? Tell 'em to pound salt, I say.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

We shall see if Erin O'toole is just for communications or if the Minister has any real sway over his department of Veterans Affairs. This shall be an interesting test for the new Minister.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Since when does a government board have the right to curtail the actions of a private citizen? Tell 'em to pound salt, I say.


I agree with you and CM.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FYI--here is the "Practice Note" by which he is being excluded:



> Practice Note 1. As Members of provincial or territorial law societies and officers of the law, lawyers are bound to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with their professional codes of ethics and their work is expected to meet standards commensurate with their education. 2. Occasionally, persons coming before the Board are represented by non-lawyers. Although non-lawyers are not bound by these codes of ethics and professional standards, the Board is entitled to expect conduct from such individuals that will not impede the Board in adjudicating matters coming before it in a fair and expeditious manner. 3. The Board expects all representatives to accept the obligations of participating in the hearing process by: a. treating the Members and staff of the Board, as well as the other participants in the hearing process, with courtesy and respect; b. obtaining a clear written authorization from the person they are representing, signed by the person they are representing; c. being well informed of the case and the position of the person they are representing; d. being available for conference calls, hearings and other events scheduled by the Board; e. complying with any time limits set by the Board, as well as any other directions or orders given by the Board; f. fulfilling any undertakings given to the Board or Panel; g. refraining from any activity that would undermine the proper administration of justice, such as knowingly presenting false or misleading evidence, or failing to disclose the existence of relevant documents. 4. Finally, as these standards are necessary in order for the Board to function fairly and efficiently, it should be noted that the Board retains the authority to limit or exclude the participation of non-lawyer representatives where it has formed the opinion that such participation, for example, is likely to hinder, rather than facilitate, the process. (Lawyers who do not comply with their code of ethics may also be excluded from representing clients before the Board.)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Winnipegers, take note:*

_From Al Cameron of the Veteran's Voices of Canada project:_

Do you know of a Veteran in Winnipeg who may be interested in being interviewed and documented by my organization Veterans Voices of Canada later this week? Give me a shout! I'll be in the area to conduct interviews from midweek on.
Cheers!​
Al can be contacted via the website linked above, or:

[email protected]
Phone: 403.358.6313


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*HMCS Athabaskan sent back to Halifax for major engine repairs*



_The flagship vessel in the Royal Canadian Navy's East Coast fleet has been called back to Halifax from deployment because of serious engine problems._

HMCS Athabaskan — the navy's last destroyer — has been in service for 43 years and is starting to show its age. It needs major repairs to the propulsion system and there are other engine issues, the navy said Monday.

We're not able to control the engines and they were using secondary means to run the engines," said Rear Admiral John Newton.

There are also questions about the ship's weapons systems.

"I don't think it's a surprise to anyone, based on the age of the ship, that some of her primary warfare systems — we would not rely on them in this modern era," Newton said.

"It's not like we're being denied fleet size or fleet capability. We have lots in our account right now and our job is to employ it effectively."

Ken Hansen, a military expert, disagrees.

*"I think it is highly probable the Athabaskan will never sail again,"* said Hansen, a research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.

"The problem is that you couldn't send Athabaskan anywhere and reliably expect her to get there or to get home again. She's going to break down. You've got to be able to move to fight," he said.

"*If the navy thinks … that sending Athabaskan sends a strong signal to the Russians — it's the wrong kind of signal.* It's a signal that says Canada's navy has crapped out and they don't have to be worried."

HMCS Athabaskan is scheduled to take part in a large military exercise in October, as part of NATO. Hansen called that plan a "bad diplomatic move," given the state of the vessel.​
(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Veterans Rescue Homeless Comrades Because Ottawa Isn't, They Say*










Veterans issues in general have heated up the federal election campaign trail, but a quiet housing crisis in their ranks remains a rarely-addressed topic in Canada, although a long-simmering one south of the border.

But for advocates of those who have served their country, homelessness is top-of-mind.

“It continues to plague the veterans' community,” said Mike Blais, founder and president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, based in Niagara Falls, Ont. Blais served in Canada's infantry for 17 years, including time in Cyprus and Cold War Germany, leaving in 1993.

“A lot of them are barely making ends meet and living payday to payday,” he said. “Whether from the cycle of despair, the cost of addictions, or unforeseen medical issues, if there's an interruption to their income it can trigger a serious downward spiral.”

* * *​
Under previous governments, Canada provided lifetime financial support to many injured vets. The Harper Conservative government replaced those with a one-time cash payment.

But “that lump sum goes fast,” Peavey said with a wry chuckle. As a result, many wounded or PTSD vets sink into debt despite their payout. Marriages crumble and families fall apart.

He added, “For those who sustained mental wounds, often this is the defining point that sends them over the edge into homelessness or couch-hopping, staying with a friend for a couple weeks and either wearing out their welcome or moving on voluntarily to another friend's house."

* * *​
Faced with the challenge of returning to civilian life, veterans have historically banded together, as Royal Canadian Legion branches in many towns and cities attest. But with eight Veterans Affairs support offices closing in communities' from coast to coast since 2009 and the loss of 900 staff, those who served Canada once are now responding to another call of duty, to help comrades who feel abandoned by their country.​
(Full story at: HuffPo)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Yep the vets have joined millions of other Canadians who have been shoved under the Harper omnibuses.

Over all pretty shabby treatment for those who answered the call to fight for the Harper corporate cronies.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Canada's patched-up military: Too few dollars, too many missions*


_The last of Canada's seaworthy destroyers, HMCS Athabaskan, shipped out to a show-of-force NATO exercise in the 
Mediterranean earlier this month. But it almost didn't make it: this summer it was sent back to dock for extensive repairs, 
including a cracked hull. (Stephen Puddicombe/CBC)_​
Somehow we scrape by with a dilapidated navy, now forced to rent foreign supply ships on a day-rate just to keep our much shrunken fleet occasionally ocean worthy.

Then there is an air force still bewildered over when it will get to replace the CF-18s we bought back in the 1980s; and an army impatient to see delivery of the new trucks that have been promised for a decade.

Those steadily rising military budgets and bold new weapons promised by the Harper government back in 2008 under the Canada First Defence Strategy have been derailed by budget cuts, spending freezes and procurement foul-ups.

While the Conservative government claims its defence spending over the years has risen massively, independent studies show the Tories actually underspent their own approved military budgets by close to $10 billion. They also chopped nearly $5 billion from defence since 2012, in large part to help Stephen Harper reach his much proclaimed budget surplus.

"The spending now on the military, when you adjust for the inflation is back where it was … at roughly 2007 levels," says David Perry, senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.

* * *​
Leaders of the NATO alliance, especially the U.S. and U.K., nag that we should be spending twice what we're now doing, up from one per cent of GDP to the two per cent that NATO members have set as the common goal.

The last time Canada hit that two per cent mark was (surprise) under Pierre Trudeau over 40 years ago, and we're not about to get even remotely close in the foreseeable future.

* * *​
Two years ago, a very rare red-flag memo from then chief of the defence staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, warned that continued budget cuts threatened the availability of key fleets of aircraft, ships and army vessels while "this in turn has an overall impact upon training and readiness."

The navy, tasked with defending seven million kilometres of Canadian waters has essentially been reduced to little more than a modest coastal defence force.

It lacks modern destroyers as command ships, and the dozen frigates left now lack dedicated large supply ships, which are essential for deep ocean operations.

* * *​
...the Conservatives are vowing larger reserves and bigger budgets, but only starting two years from now.

Meanwhile the Liberals promise cheaper fighter jets and to make the navy "a priority," and the NDP vaguely vows to repair a military that both past Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed "to rust out."

Overall, it's pretty thin campaign gruel and perhaps what we've grown to expect.

Still, whoever gains power next month has a rude reality looming as the now staggering cost of delayed military modernization keeps escalating with inflation, and will be the bane of balanced budget hopes for many years to come.​
(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Engine failure sidelines Canadian destroyer HMCS Athabaskan involved in major NATO exercise*










An aging Canadian warship, on its way to military exercises that are designed to send a strong message to Russia about the West’s resolve over the crisis in Ukraine, is now sidelined because of engine troubles.

One of the four engines on the 43-year-old HMCS Athabaskan stopped working, sending the destroyer to a port in England for about a week, sources told the Ottawa Citizen.

Maintenance crews from Canada will be brought in to work on the ship.

Navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Al Blondin confirmed Athabaskan is in port in the United Kingdom and that technicians will replace one of the destroyer’s four engines. The ship has two main engines and two cruise engines.

The ship could continue to operate safely with one of the cruise engines not functioning but the navy “determined the repairs will be made immediately to maintain the most economical modes of propulsion while ensuring optimal propulsion redundancy,” Blondin said.

“Once the necessary repairs to Athabaskan have been made, it will return to sea to participate in Exercise Trident Juncture.”​
(National Post)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Anyone feel like weighing in on a WWII paternity mystery?_

*Searching for a Canadian soldier: Belgian woman makes last-ditch effort to find her father*









A Belgian woman's plea for help to find the Canadian soldier she thinks is her biological father has captured the attention of thousands of people around the world, prompting Canadians to dig into the military pasts of their own families and to scour archival websites to try to solve the mystery. 

Florence Heene, now 71, got her first glimpse at the man she came to believe was her father as a child. She was rummaging through a box of photos in her home in Eeklo, Belgium, and noticed most were pictures of soldiers.

** * *​*
Her mother eventually told Heene that her biological father was a Canadian soldier who was stationed in Ghent during the Second World War. Their relationship ended when he left to fight elsewhere and she married the man who became Heene's stepfather. 

Although her stepfather raised Heene as his own, and she had a happy family life with her brother and sister, Heene desperately wanted to know more about her personal history. 

"You miss a piece of your identity," she said. 

So she took to Facebook a week ago to ask the world for help — something she calls her last resort. 

** * *​*
In an email to CBC News, Library and Archives genealogy consultant Emily Potter said although the quality of the photos makes it difficult to tell, "*it does appear that he was a sergeant with the Royal Canadian Artillery.*"

Another researcher at Library and Archives Canada also looked at which Canadian regiments and divisions were stationed in Belgium in 1944 and 1945. Her findings narrowed down the search to:

*4th Canadian Armoured Divisio*n, including Governor General's Foot Guards (21st Canadian Armoured Regiment); Canadian Grenadier Guards (22 Canadian Armoured Regiment); 27th Canadian Armoured Regiment (Sherbrooke Fusiliers); the Princess Louise Fusiliers (Motor); 28th Canadian Armoured Regiment (British Columbia Regiment); and Lake Superior Regiment (Motor).
*2nd Canadian Infantry Division*.
*The Lincoln and Welland Regiment* (part of the 10th Canadian Infantry Brigade).
*3rd Canadian Infantry Division.*

"Unfortunately, we are unable to identify the soldier given the information provided,"​
(CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Land Battles - Vimy Ridge | Canada and the First World War

Canadian National Vimy Memorial - Veterans Affairs Canada

Battle of Vimy Ridge - Veterans Affairs Canada


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

A follow-up to my penultimate post about the Belgian woman looking for her missing wartime father: mystery solved, two weeks after the news hit the airwaves... 

*Mystery solved: Belgian woman finds 'new family' in Canada in search for soldier father* - Canada - CBC News

ALSO:

A few days ago, following a post I made to the Facebook Page of the North Nova Scotia Highlanders Museum (NNSH), a very kind fellow sent me the complete Service Record of an uncle who was KIA in Belgium during the Battle of the Scheldt.

This prompted me to finally shell out for a one-month trial subscription (don't forget to cancel if you don't need more than 30 days!) to Ancestry.ca, which has secured some pretty sweet (for itself) exclusive content deals with the Canadian (and other) governments for various kinds of documents, particularly those of military Service Records. If you have a soldier in your family who died in WWII, It's well worth the cost. WWI documentation is rather more challenging to find.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The Battle of Vimy Ridge, as it happened
*









Canada today commemorates the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge — a defining moment for our country. Watch our TV special and follow along as we highlight key events in the battle.

** * **​
“I walked along, foolishly, along the middle of No Man's Land and there were three or four shells dropped behind me and the boys thought I was smashed to pieces. Well, the Corporal had seen this flag and he took the rest of the men to this dugout. I finally saw it and got the the top of this dugout and I could hear the boys talking down below. ‘Poor old Secord, he got it. Yes, and the son of a gun had the rum ration with him.’ So, just then I appeared and said, ‘Alright boys I'm here with your rum ration. Three cheers.’” - _Harry Secord, 18th Battalion_​
** * **​
_One soldier, recovering at a hospital in London, England, describes his experience in an article titled, “Wounded are cheerful.”_

“I received my wound just as the Canadians were moving to see what the German trenches were like, but I knew by the yells of our fellows that Fritz was getting it. It was bad luck for me but I guess I shall get back again before it is all over. I shall be disappointed if I don’t. The spirit of the Canadians is great. Say, is it not good to be a Canadian to take that ridge?”​
(CBC)​


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

On reading about Vimy Ridge one of the things I discovered was the huge role sappers played in the assault. They were a big reason why Canadian victories were achieved with lighter casualties than in previous WWI battles.

I wonder how many of the tunnelers came from the Crowsnest Pass and Elk Valley communities? I bet Nova Scotia supplied a large number as well.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> On reading about Vimy Ridge one of the things I discovered was the huge role sappers played in the assault. They were a big reason why Canadian victories were much lighter than in previous WWI battles.
> 
> I wonder how many of the tunnelers came from the Crowsnest Pass and Elk Valley communities? I bet Nova Scotia supplied a large number as well.


Yes, from what I was told, miners from Cape Breton Island were essential WWI soldiers who came with tunneling skills.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Multibillion-dollar warship replacement plan 2.4 times over budget: PBO*










The federal government's multibillion-dollar effort to replace the navy's warship fleet could cost taxpayers 2.4 times more than first expected, Ottawa's budget watchdog warned Thursday in a new report.

And the longer a process tripped up by delays drags out, the more it's going to hurt the public piggy bank, the analysis found.

The parliamentary budget officer estimates Ottawa will have to spend nearly $61.8 billion to replace 15 ships — more than twice the original 2008 budget of about $26.2 billion.

Looking at a per-ship price tag, the cost is likely closer to $4.1 billion, rather than the $1.7-billion estimate released in 2008 by the then-Conservative government.

At that higher rate, the office believes the government would only have enough cash to buy six ships, if it still expects to keep the program on budget.

** * **​
The PBO model predicted the $61.8-billion price tag for the 15 ships would grow to $64.4 billion after a one-year delay and to $69.9 billion after a three-year delay.

When asked about the PBO's findings, the parliamentary secretary to Public Services Minister Judy Foote said the Liberals are aware the previous Conservative government was "low-balling" the price of replacing the warships.
(CBC)​


----------

