# paul martin?



## private_cowboy (22 Jan 2004)

is our new pm going to improve the canadian forces budget? or is he another useless pm? gahd. thats one thing i hate about canada. we are so ignorant, we always think every country loves us, and  the ones we do bussiness with might but that doesnt mean there isnt lots of countries that hate us. and we always expect the united states to protect us. one day im gonna love it when our pm gets into a argument with  the president and they turn their baCk on us, and  not protect us anymore. what we need is a country to threaten us. or something to make the people scared and want to raise military budgets....  sounds stupid... but im sick of everyone living in the past everyones like oh yeah if anything did happen we would do this and do that we can hold our ground look at ww1 and ww2. but i can almost guarntee i wouldnt happen like that now.. gahd anyone else feel what iam saying?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jan 2004)

I have heard this a few times how people would wish something bad would happen to Canada to make the goverment spend more on defence, I ask you this though how wishful would you be if that tragedy strikes you or the people you care about?
:< Word of advice never wish for bad things to happen it always ends up biting you on the @ss.


----------



## scm77 (22 Jan 2004)

Dragoon is right if something like a big terrorist attack happened it probably would wake up our government but nobody wants to see 5000 canadians killed just so the PM will give us more money.  I don‘t think he is another useless PM.  He has frozen all the spendings in the government.  But he went ahead withe the Seaking replacement project and apparently the Iltis replacement and I heard something about the Stryker is still on right now.  He is doing that white paper review thing which is one of the reasons that he can‘t just give us a big chunk of money.  That will tell us where we really need it once we find out what we want our military to be in the future. 

I don‘t think that he will be able to solve all the problems that have been allowed to happen in the past.  That will take many years of solid funding.  I don‘t think Paul Martin will screw us like past PM‘s.


----------



## private_cowboy (22 Jan 2004)

ya. its not so much that i wanted something horrible to happen. im just frustrated. in almost every other country its respected that your in the military. in canada people dont really show any respect they just say what do you use rocks? we as canadians are just ignorant. its because of those people that our military is underfunded. but yet they say they would support more funding if it was needed. but it is needed. gah im just spouting crap cause im frustrated and i was never good at saying anything in well formed sentences. so it turns out like crap lol


----------



## nULL (22 Jan 2004)

When has Canada ever been attacked by a foreign enemy which outgunned us? When has the US ever had to come to Canada‘s defence? Canada needs a military to enhance it‘s international reputation, not defend it against a domestic attack which realistically will never happen. That‘s up to CSIS and the RCMP, and their budgets seem to be doing just fine these days, judging by the number of arrests and whatnot they seem to be making as of late.

Perhaps the government should take away some money  to those organizations which protect us against legitimate threats (the kind you speak of) so they can give you more ammo to shoot at paper targets? 

If you are really concerned about the country‘s security, you‘d be best off paying to get into the US missile defence program, completely abolishing the army, relegating the air force and navy to coastal defence, and giving all the spare $$$ you can find to CSIS.

If you want respect in life, goto school, learn how to make well-formed sentences, and go do something more productive than wishing harm on your fellow Canadians.


----------



## Pikache (22 Jan 2004)

Best left in the new politics forum.


----------



## Enzo (23 Jan 2004)

Null - "Perhaps the government should take away some money to those organizations which protect us against legitimate threats (the kind you speak of) so they can give you more ammo to shoot at paper targets? "

Are you serious? Do you feel that the CF doesn‘t contribute to national or international security?

"If you are really concerned about the country‘s security, you‘d be best off paying to get into the US missile defence program, completely abolishing the army, relegating the air force and navy to coastal defence, and giving all the spare $$$ you can find to CSIS."

I am going to assume that you‘re being sarcastic. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

"If you want respect in life, goto school, learn how to make well-formed sentences, and go do something more productive than wishing harm on your fellow Canadians."

Your run on sentence proves your point beautifully.


----------



## Jungle (23 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by nULL:
> [qb]
> Perhaps the government should take away some money  to those organizations which protect us against legitimate threats (the kind you speak of) so they can give you more ammo to shoot at paper targets?
> [/qb]


Stupid comment. The point of participating in overseas operations with armed force is to keep trouble away from Canada... What you imply is that we should wait for trouble to get here, then take action. History would have been very different had countries done that... imagine how WW2 would have turned out ?
Finally, if you are against the Military and do not respect what Soldiers do (shooting at paper targets     ), why don‘t you go play somewhere else...


----------



## q_1966 (29 Nov 2004)

Lets hope he isnt a sell out to the U.S.
And takes Canada in CANADIAN Direction

- Shawn


----------



## Disillusioned (29 Nov 2004)

private_joker said:
			
		

> is our new pm going to improve the canadian forces budget? or is he another useless pm? gahd. thats one thing i hate about canada. we are so ignorant, we always think every country loves us, and   the ones we do bussiness with might but that doesnt mean there isnt lots of countries that hate us. and we always expect the united states to protect us. one day im gonna love it when our pm gets into a argument with   the president and they turn their baCk on us, and   not protect us anymore. what we need is a country to threaten us. or something to make the people scared and want to raise military budgets....   sounds stupid... but im sick of everyone living in the past everyones like oh yeah if anything did happen we would do this and do that we can hold our ground look at ww1 and ww2. but i can almost guarntee i wouldnt happen like that now.. gahd anyone else feel what iam saying?




If the U.S. is the biggest military, who exactly are they protecting us from? Everyone except themselves.


----------



## Disillusioned (29 Nov 2004)

Shawn Papke said:
			
		

> Lets hope he isnt a sell out to the U.S.
> And takes Canada in CANADIAN Direction
> 
> - Shawn




Here's someone who's on the same page as me. I don't think you'll get your wish regarding the sellout thing, but at least he's only got a minority government.

As for his Canadian-ness, or lack therefof:     www.paulmartintime.ca/where_paul_stands/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2004)

Quote,
If the U.S. is the biggest military, who exactly are they protecting us from? Everyone except themselves.

Allright I tried but you won't listen, everyone say goodbye to disillusioned.


----------



## 48Highlander (1 Dec 2004)

good riddance.  he got more than his fair share of warnings.


----------



## NavyGrunt (1 Dec 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Allright I tried but you won't listen, everyone say goodbye to disillusioned.



With dry wit like that you could be an action hero....


----------



## RCD (1 Dec 2004)

HE 'S JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL WINBAG. BECAUSE THE CONSERVATIVES MENTION DEFENCE IN THE LAST ELECTION HE HAD TO SAY SOMETHING.


----------



## GrimRX (1 Dec 2004)

That Paul Martine Website lost all credibility when I read this:

"More recently, Paul Martin was complicit in the US-backed overthrow of Haiti's democratic government. Now, Canadian troops are aiding the "reform" of Haitian government along lines favourable to US and Canadian business interests."


----------



## Canuck_25 (2 Dec 2004)

I laugh when people think the U.S. protects us. Canada is a buffer zone ok, if anything, we protect the U.S. with time, and time is crucial.


----------



## Disillusioned (5 Dec 2004)

GrimRX said:
			
		

> That Paul Martine Website lost all credibility when I read this:
> 
> "More recently, Paul Martin was complicit in the US-backed overthrow of Haiti's democratic government. Now, Canadian troops are aiding the "reform" of Haitian government along lines favourable to US and Canadian business interests."




It's your job tp prove the Aristide coup  was not U.S. sanctioned. You should have to prove that just as I  have to prove what I say.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Dec 2004)

The site fails to prove both that the coup was US sanctioned and that Paul martin was "complicit" in it.  Either one of those ideas would be laughable on it it's own....grouped together like that, they're demonstrative of a deeply disturbed mind.  Anyway, since the website fails to prove those statements, Grim doesn't need to prove the opposite.  Just like when you make an idiotic statement and fail to provide any info which proves you right.  If you want to run around screaming that the sky is falling, I have very little rason to try and prove otherwise.


----------



## Storm (7 Dec 2004)

Innocent until proven guilty...

That's the way things work in this country Disillusioned.


----------



## Disillusioned (10 Dec 2004)

Storm said:
			
		

> Innocent until proven guilty...
> 
> That's the way things work in this country Disillusioned.




It's not easy to find anymore, but even the Toronto Star reported it as a U.S. coup.


I of course can't prove it--wasn't there.....this being said, it's not a new concept for a superpower to manipulate a foreign election, is it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> It's not easy to find anymore, but even the Toronto Star reported it as a U.S. coup.



Well that clinches it in my mind, if the left wing, commie, pinko, comparable to "The News of the World" Toronto Star says it's true, I guess it must be.

Gimme a break. If that's the source you take as gospel, you better reline your aluminium foil hat. :


----------



## Disillusioned (11 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Well that clinches it in my mind, if the left wing, commie, pinko, comparable to "The News of the World" Toronto Star says it's true, I guess it must be.
> 
> Gimme a break. If that's the source you take as gospel, you better reline your aluminium foil hat. :




It's the most-read newspaper in Canada, with a circulation of 600,000 copies a day.....at least they are open-minded.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

With all of this crap about arresting George Bush as a war criminal, ( Not that I support all, or even most, of his actions. ), what does anyone think about the chances of trying our "honourable" PM for treason are?

After all, Mr. Martin and a long line of his predecessors have prattled on for decades about social justice for this, political correctness for that, and equality for all. 

During which time they have been ignoring the fact that a country without the ability to defend it's territory, people, and ideals is not really much of a nation at all.

Is it going to take a major security incident or, God forbid, an act of war for the Canadian people to wake up and depose those in Ottawa for this gross negligence of their duties?   They were elected to look out for the interests of Canadians and they have failed on their most basic duty; to ensure that the people of Canada are safe and free from external threats to their security and well being.

Mr Martin, you and your government are a farce, and are not worthy to occupy Canada's highest offices.   I am ashamed that the people of Canada are so taken in by your propaganda that they have elected your party to another term.

I only hope that we still have a military by the time you bastards are though another four years of giving the army another beasting.

Up yours, Paul Martin.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

Give it up already..........Your time might be better spent trying to convince people to put pressure on the gov then to type useless rants about fantasy ideas on an internet forum......better yet, why don't you run for office ??


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Dec 2004)

Controversial, politically incorrect, somewhat biased and probably a mostly flawed analysis......I like it.....But not so much the part about deposing a legitimately and legally installed government, which most members of this forum and the rest of the CF have sworn to defend and serve.......I'm no big fan of the government, the military brass at the moment, or the system in general, and I agree it needs to change, but for now until the bottom falls out, it's all we have.

TM


----------



## Canuck_25 (21 Dec 2004)

People like him shouldnt run for officer.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Dec 2004)

Officers aren't elected.........


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2004)

too bad   imagine an officer corps elected by NCM's.....


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

I think the meaning of my poste was missed...too bad......


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> Controversial, politically incorrect, somewhat biased and probably a mostly flawed analysis......I like it.....But not so much the part about deposing a legitimately and legally installed government, which most members of this forum and the rest of the CF have sworn to defend and serve.......I'm no big fan of the government, the military brass at the moment, or the system in general, and I agree it needs to change, but for now until the bottom falls out, it's all we have.
> 
> TM



Controversial - yes.

Politically incorrect - this is a convenient rebuttal to minimize views you may not agree with.

Deposing a legitmate government - I did not condone any such thing. I am merely speculating on the repercussions should years of neglect for the military come back and bite us in the a**. 

Aesop081 - Far from this being a rant, I was merely trying to instill some debate into this forum.   If you feel that is useless, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

Geee....thanks......i didn't know i was alowed that !! what would i do without you !!!


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I think the meaning of my poste was missed...too bad......



    No, it was ignored   all of us are too honest to run for office.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Dec 2004)

Meow. :mg:


----------



## Slim (21 Dec 2004)

Oh Boy...Here we go again. :

Yup. I agree that as Canadians we are unsuited to revolutionary style actions...We do waht a govt that will stop trying to run us into the ground though!

Slim


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> No, it was ignored    all of us are too honest to run for office.



Couldnt care less..........but i did laugh.........

maybe if honest people ran for office..............


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Dec 2004)

And which particular points would you like to see debated; the tactical options?, the legality?, the government to be instituted in its place? And to what end?


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> And which particular points would you like to see debated; the tactical options?, the legality?, the government to be instituted in its place? And to what end?



As far as the leaglities are concerned...for us CF members anyways.....isn't "advocating government change by force"  an offence under the good old QR&o's ???


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Dec 2004)

Not sure about the QR&O's portion of it, wouldnt doubt it.....I'm not sure of the legality of anyone talking about the overthrow of a legally installed government......

TM


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Dec 2004)

Here is the particular artcle from the QR&O:



> 103.15 â â€œ ADVOCATING GOVERNMENTAL CHANGE BY FORCE
> 
> (1) Section 82 of the National Defence Act provides:
> 
> ...


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Dec 2004)

What he said.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

See...i knew i didn't sleep trough the last 12 years of my career........


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> And which particular points would you like to see debated; the tactical options?, the legality?, the government to be instituted in its place? And to what end?



I think that the tactics of overthowing our government are not grounds that I wish to tread upon lightly. 

As to the legality of trying senior government officials for gross negligence of our national defense, I challenge anyone to dispute that Canadains have a strong case morally, and possibly legally.   This trial, howver, will never likely occur unless the negligence of the military comes back to haunt Canada in a most undesirable way.

As to instituting a gov't in in place - I don't feel there would be a need to ever subvert the democratic process in this county. However a constitutional amendment ensuring that our military must always be able to adequately defend our territory would be enough to make the average Canadian sleep well at night, regardless of the stupidity of future generations of politicians.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> .
> 
> As to instituting a gov't in in place - I don't feel there would be a need to ever subvert the democratic process in this county. However a constitutional amendment ensuring that our military must always be able to adequately defend our territory would be enough to make the average Canadian sleep well at night, regardless of the stupidity of future generations of politicians.



The why don't you enlighten us as to what the military should be to adequately defend this country...be specific please....and also, how do you propose to fund it , sustain it, recruit for it.....


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Dec 2004)

In order to help you make your case for discussion, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what proof you have that the average Canadian isn't sleeping well at night because of his concern that defence is underfunded.


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> The why don't you enlighten us as to what the military should be to adequately defend this country...be specific please....and also, how do you propose to fund it , sustain it, recruit for it.....



I feel that Canada's military should be able to totally defend Canada's population centres and be able to rapidly mobilize to protect our interests in our underpopulated areas.   It would not bankrupt the country to maintain a force that is capable of meeting these requirements.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> In order to help you make your case for discussion, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what proof you have that the average Canadian isn't sleeping well at night because of his concern that defence is underfunded.



Yeah......i could definetly enjoy you position on this as well as what i asked previously

Good call Michael


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I feel that Canada's military should be able to totally defend Canada's population centres and be able to rapidly mobilize to protect our interests in our underpopulated areas.   It would not bankrupt the country to maintain a force that is capable of meeting these requirements.



You didn't answer my question !! I'm still waiting.....


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> In order to help you make your case for discussion, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what proof you have that the average Canadian isn't sleeping well at night because of his concern that defence is underfunded.



I know that the average WESTERN Canadian has grave misgivings with the state of the CF.   I would hope that those from more, shall we say, enlightened areas of the country will be able to recognize this   state of affairs for the serious problem that it is . . .


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

. ..  look two posts above your last for my reply to your question


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2004)

How in the hell did this thread get this long.  I was sure it'd die a lonely death after the fifth post or so...


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> . ..   look two posts above your last for my reply to your question



I asked you for specifics not a general " i don't have an answer " statement.   You have stated that the CF as they are now are inadequate to defend this country.   What i would like to hear from you is what would be adequte ????? What type of troops...how many...what kind of ships planes...bases.....etc...


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> How in the heck did this thread get this long.   I was sure it'd die a lonely death after the fifth post or so...



Made you look. Hope I made you think.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Dec 2004)

Yes, you did. It made me think you made statements that you don't have answers for and are just trying to BS your way through.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I know that the average WESTERN Canadian has grave misgivings with the state of the CF.  I would hope that those from more, shall we say, enlightened areas of the country will be able to recognize this  state of affairs for the serious problem that it is . . .



Interesting, the survey conducted by the Canada West Foundation, dated May 2004, which surveyed the opinions of 3200 WESTERN Canadians, had a different result for their major concerns. In fact, page 3 of the report doesn't list Defence in the top thirteen high priority topics at all. 

http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/...87256ea2004c2276/$file/Western Directions.pdf


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> How in the heck did this thread get this long.   I was sure it'd die a lonely death after the fifth post or so...



Well...mo-lita brought out some problems and still will not offer what his solution is.............


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I asked you for specifics not a general " i don't have an answer " statement.   You have stated that the CF as they are now are inadequate to defend this country.   What i would like to hear from you is what would be adequte ????? What type of troops...how many...what kind of ships palenes...bases.....etc...



I have to allow that it would be better left up to the generals to come up with a complete defence plan for this nation.   But I hope you are not trying to insinuate that 80 fighter aircraft and an army smaller than the New York City Police Department can actually defend this great nation to the degree that it deserves . . .


----------



## leopard11 (21 Dec 2004)

_*trea ·son   (trzn) n. 
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. 
A betrayal of trust or confidence.  *_* 

I find it rather odd that you want the Prime Minister of our country arrested for treason, when as a soldier your comments look alot like they could be interpreted as treason, im pretty sure i saw somewhere in either the QR&O's, or the CFAO's or similar documents stating the fact that your not publicly allowed to state your opinion about the government...correct me if im wrong. 

*


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I have to allow that it would be better left up to the generals to come up with a complete defence plan for this nation.   But I hope you are not trying to insinuate that 80 fighter aircraft and an army smaller than the New York City Police Department can actually defend this great nation to the degree that it deserves . . .



I wasnt implying anything at al...i want to hear what you propose is "adequate forces"..........so far you have put forward nothing....


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

m_a_r_c said:
			
		

> _*trea ·son   (trzn) n.
> Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
> A betrayal of trust or confidence.  *_*
> 
> ...


*

You are correct which is whay i made the QR&O comment earlier*


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I have to allow that it would be better left up to the generals to come up with a complete defence plan for this nation.  But I hope you are not trying to insinuate that 80 fighter aircraft and an army smaller than the New York City Police Department can actually defend this great nation to the degree that it deserves . . .



Against what threat? Based on what intelligence?


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Dec 2004)

m_a_r_c said:
			
		

> I find it rather odd that you want the Prime Minister of our country arrested for treason, when as a soldier your comments look alot like they could be interpreted as treason, im pretty sure i saw somewhere in either the QR&O's, or the CFAO's or similar documents stating the fact that your not publicly allowed to state your opinion about the government...correct me if im wrong.



See reply #16


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> Interesting, the survey conducted by the Canada West Foundation, dated May 2004, which surveyed the opinions of 3200 WESTERN Canadians, had a different result for their major concerns. In fact, page 3 of the report doesn't list Defence in the top thirteen high priority topics at all.
> 
> http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/...87256ea2004c2276/$file/Western Directions.pdf



The wonderful thing about surveys is that you can usually find one so support any viewpoint.   Come out to rural Alberta and ask a sample group of people what they think of the state of Canada's military is and see what type of responses you get.

As to the 3200 Western Canadians who did not rate defense high on their list of priorities, that is a shame.   But are you trying to assert that just because people don't place national security at the top of their priority list in a survey, we should forfit all interests in actually defending this bation and just sit back and be happy with the current situation?


----------



## leopard11 (21 Dec 2004)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> See reply #16



seen, must have missed that post, thanks for the re-direct


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

Mo-litia....are you gonna answer my question this century......i'm not the only  one waiting you know !!!


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

m_a_r_c said:
			
		

> _*trea ·son   (trzn) n.
> Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
> A betrayal of trust or confidence.  *_*
> 
> ...


*

Take a long hard look at everything I have written. I have brought forth questions, but never proposed any treasonable activities. Read from the top of the post.*


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Take a long hard look at everything I have written. I have brought forth questions, but never proposed any treasonable activities. Read from the top of the post.



You have brought up some points to which you have no solution...........either answer our questions or be on your way (IMHO)


----------



## Scott (21 Dec 2004)

Having travelled the Northwestern parts of rural Alberta quite extensively I must say that I haven't heard an overwhelming amount of concern for our CF. Sure they all wish we could have more money for the forces but also agree that there are many other programs/organizations that need funding as well.

$0.02


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> Against what threat? Based on what intelligence?



I wish I could share your optimism, but history tells me that I can't.

Aseop - I have already stated that a complete military plan is beyond my area of expertise, as well as the topic of the thread.   I was merely trying to stimulate some debate about the accountability of our elected officials to maintain our military in an adequate manner - which they have not done for a long time - not to get bogged down in the technicalities of what constitutes an adequate military.

I can however, tell you what an inadequate military is composed of: dedicated and motivated troops frustrated with poor funding, aging equipment and government neglect.


----------



## leopard11 (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> trying our "honourable" PM for treason are?





			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> those in Ottawa for this gross negligence of their duties?   They were elected to look out for the interests of Canadians and they have failed on their most basic duty





			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> Mr Martin, you and your government are a farce, and are not worthy to occupy Canada's highest offices.   I am ashamed..





			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> by the time you bastards are though another four years of giving the army another beasting.





			
				mo-litia said:
			
		

> Up yours, Paul Martin.




treasonous activities, no?
treasonous thaughts, in   my opinion yes?
these comments dont exactly paint a pretty picture for the government, and once again in my opinion, doesent show much loyalty to the government.

theres a difference between trying to institute a change in the military, and bashing the government and the members of the government who make the decisions.


----------



## Scott (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> .   I was merely trying to stimulate some debate about the accountability of our elected officials to maintain our military in an adequate manner.



You wanted debate so don't be so surprised when people disagree with you as well as demand you back up your claims. Foolishness.


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> The wonderful thing about surveys is that you can usually find one so support any viewpoint.  Come out to rural Alberta and ask a sample group of people what they think of the state of Canada's military is and see what type of responses you get.
> 
> As to the 3200 Western Canadians who did not rate defense high on their list of priorities, that is a shame.  But are you trying to assert that just because people don't place national security at the top of their priority list in a survey, we should forfit all interests in actually defending this bation and just sit back and be happy with the current situation?



So we will simply discount opinions and polls that don't agree with your opinions? That doesn't lead to much of a reasoned debate, which is what I thought you were seeking.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

And i beleived that an aswer to my question would further the debate........i think i understand what your idea of an inadequte military is but i'm sure that i have no idea what would be adequte for you because you have not answered that yet.  I understand your level of expertise but even i could give you an educated force composition as to what would IMHO be adequate for Canada......


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

m_a_r_c said:
			
		

> treasonous activities, no?
> treasonous thaughts, in   my opinion yes?
> these comments dont exactly paint a pretty picture for the government, and once again in my opinion, doesent show much loyalty to the government.



Treasonous activities - NO.

Treasonous thoughts - If demanding that our gov't be held accountable for our national defence is something that you wish to call treason, so be it. I prefer to call it patriotism. As to loyalty to the government, they have mine - they have to - but they do not have my respect, and nor will they until they rectify the CF's many serious problems.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2004)

I give up...getting an answer from you is like getting an answer from my 9 year old kid.....


----------



## mo-litia (21 Dec 2004)

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> You wanted debate so don't be so surprised when people disagree with you as well as demand you back up your claims. Foolishness.



I have made no claim as to what the technical state of readiness for the military should be. Again, I am merely stating that I feel that our elected officials should be held accountable for the condition of the CF.

Do you disagree?


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Dec 2004)

Loyalty or respect for the serving government is not mandated. However in public we haven't the right as members of the military to discuss policy. I do not respect or like the serving government, nor do I consider myself loyal to it. As a voter, I am entitled to that private opinion, but as a soldier I am bound to serve at the pleasure and policies of the legally elected government of Canada, regardless of my own political leanings.

TM


----------



## leopard11 (21 Dec 2004)

i edited my above post before while you responded, 
i added that   "theres a difference between trying to institute a change in the military, and bashing the government and the members of the government who make the decisions."

if you want a change so be it, im sure youre not the only one that wants a change. However i believe there is a better manner to go about professing your thaught then the comments i quoted from your original post


----------



## Scott (21 Dec 2004)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> I was merely trying to stimulate some debate about the accountability of our elected officials to maintain our military in an adequate manner



Here's your quote to read through again. As I said, you stated you wanted debate, debate means that people are going to disagree with you. They want substantiation for your arguments and are calling on you to qualify your remarks, there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2004)

Anyone else think this has run it's useful course?


----------



## Scott (21 Dec 2004)

Yessir


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Dec 2004)

The horse is dead.  :crybaby:


----------



## Scott (21 Dec 2004)

Thread now locked. Subject has run its course.


----------

