# Jack Layton of the NDP Accuses JTF 2 Troops of Abandoning the CF.



## STING (21 Nov 2006)

I was watching Canadian Question Period on CBC today when I had to listen to Jack Layton of the NDP accuse JTF 2 troops of abandoning the CF to take up mercenary contracts in Iraq ..... Not only is Jack Layton openly against the Afghan mission , now he's trying to make our troops look bad as well .... This guy makes me SICK ..!


----------



## xo31@711ret (21 Nov 2006)

??? Is Jack living in the "bizarro world!?' or another freakin' dimension!?   :-X


----------



## Bobbyoreo (21 Nov 2006)

The question should be ask..Jack do you blame them? They get support, they get everything they need plus they get a good check and like the work...is that so bad...


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Nov 2006)

Yet another reason for me not to vote for Mr. Layton when i'm old enough, and another reason why I don;t like him.


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2006)

Did I mention I hate Jack Layton.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Nov 2006)

But it is ok for professors & doctors to go to the US to take high paying jobs, this smacks of discrimination.


----------



## Haggis (21 Nov 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> But it is ok for professors & doctors to go to the US to take high paying jobs, this smacks of discrimination.



Professors and doctors aren't recruited and trained on the public dime.  JTF2 Assaulters are.  We should protect our investment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2006)

Whether we like him or not, he's a Member of Parliment. We'll not entertain threads where we mount personal attacks on the person. Don't like his policies? That's fine, state the policy you don't agree with and why. Don't like what he's saying? Reproduce his statement and debunk it. Attack the person, we'll close the thread.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Nov 2006)

Sooner you stop listening to em', the sooner you'll stop feeling quite so angry at his ignorant, out of this world comments.  And, the sooner you won't be angered again by him.  

Would you listen to a 9yo kid talk about quantim physics, when he obviously has NO understanding of them?  Thats about the same comparison as listening to Jack Layton speak about the military.

<Sorry, you posted about not attacking the person at the same time I posted.  I still don't like him, but for the sake of peace, I'll just state I don't like any of his ignorant, shameless policies or ideas.>


----------



## RHFC_piper (21 Nov 2006)

I don't know what you guys are all crabby about... I think Jack Layton is doing a great job... He's got the right attitude and really represents the majority of people in Canada.  He would make a fine Priminister and would do Canada proud... unlike our soldiers in Iraq.


***This is what I'd say if I was living in the same bizarro world as this [insert horrible profanity involving monkeys, goats, and a rubber chicken]er***

But seriously though... what does this guy inject / snort / smoke just before he talks... or does he just have no filter between his demented brain and his mouth.  There aren't enough profanities to express my feelings towards him... and frankly, I just don't have the energy to comment more intellectually about his short falls.

CLOWN SHOES!!!


----------



## Harbl_the_cat (21 Nov 2006)

That pissed me off too.

You got to give it to Harper for laying the smack down on Layton for that remark; I won’t bother with a direct quote (can’t remember) but I will say it sure did make Layton and the NDP look like idiots.

It’s funny how on the petition here: http://www.ndp.ca/troops how  “The Government of Canada has committed Canadian Forces to an unbalanced counter-insurgent mission in southern Afghanistan that has no clear objectives, criteria for progress, definition of success or exit strategy.”

Because a UN mandated, international mission with the intent of routing out terrorist organizations, rebuilding a stable democracy with the core infrastructure to support future economic and social development for the purpose of collective international defence doesn't have a clear objective, criteria for progress, definition of success or an exit strategy.

It's also funny how every commited member of the CF voluntarily chooses to serve and being told that thier choice to do so is a mistake only demoralizes and frustrates them; and at the same time, the party telling them it's a mistake clearly advertizes how they "support the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces."  How's that for an oxymoron?


----------



## Harbinger (21 Nov 2006)

"Professors and doctors aren't recruited and trained on the public dime.  JTF2 Assaulters are.  We should protect our investment."

Nearly 70% of the tuition cost of any citizen that goes to university is picked up by the taxpayer in this country. So what do you suggest we do with their training?


----------



## spqr (21 Nov 2006)

He says this stuff because a lot of people agree with him.  Not the majority of Canadians, to be sure, but a signifigant enough amount that keeps him in office and elects his party to a few seats.  I don't agree with his politics and I find his views on the middle east policies to be rash and overly simple.  

I vote each election and I have a hell of a time finding people to support.  I assume most people are like that so when one of them (elected officials) says these sorts of knee-jerk things I chalk it up to the fact they have to broadcast their positions to the many "shoppers" in the electorate and stand by that position in all the wierd ways that go a long with it.

It too bad that politicians with a nuanced and well though out platform cannot reach people because it looks like waffeling or flip flopping  when you try to clarify a fine distinction in a complex issue.

In other words, he has to say this kind of stuff to make sure than the small amount of people in society who believe it are represented in government so their points can be aired in the public body, wieghed and debated, and then passed over because they do not fit with the values of our citizens.

Rob


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2006)

There is no argument - nothing to debunk.

His comments are 100% baseless.  FWIW - He makes no policy, he has no authority to do so.

   Senior Officers and NCO's go off to work for companies at the end of their career, why not Assaulters?
His blatherings are the ravings of a madman -- he wishes to forcibly constrain people from occupying lawful employment.


----------



## STING (21 Nov 2006)

Ok Guys , I refuse to believe that the pride of our forces , JTF 2 , are abandoning the CF . Jack Layton did not use the words retired or former members . I believe he used the words " abandoning the CF" . Do you think our troops on mission in Afghanistan are going to drop everything to make a quick buck in Iraq . Don't think so . Say some JTF 2 troops did abandon , do you think Jack Layton would find out about it ... OPSEC ! ... Again don't think so . This leads me to believe Jack Layton has lied or has been lied too . Either way those comments are a direct shot at the integrity of our forces .. Someone should take a shot at Mr. Laytons face ...  :threat: ...


----------



## George Wallace (21 Nov 2006)

STING said:
			
		

> Ok Guys , I refuse to believe that the pride of our forces , JTF 2 , are abandoning the CF . Jack Layton did not use the words retired or former members . I believe he used the words " abandoning the CF" . Do you think our troops on mission in Afghanistan are going to drop everything to make a quick in Iraq . Don't think so . Say some JTF 2 troops did abandon , do you think Jack Layton would find out about it ... OPSEC ! ... Again don't think so . This leads me to believe Jack Layton has lied or has been lied too . Either way those comments are a direct shot at the integrity of our forces .. Someone should take a shot at Mr. Laytons face ...  :threat: ...



What ole Jack has done is exactly what all of his ilk do.  They make up a fantasy and spew forth all sorts of false rhetoric.  Look at what the rest of the NDP, CPA, Raging Grannies, Fransisco Juarez, etc. spew out.  They make this shit up.




			
				spqr said:
			
		

> He says this stuff because a lot of people agree with him.  Not the majority of Canadians, to be sure, but a signifigant enough amount that keeps him in office and elects his party to a few seats.  I don't agree with his politics and I find his views on the middle east policies to be rash and overly simple.



He says this stuff because a loud, but very small vocal minority are shaping his agenda, and then a heck of a lot of sheeple in his riding follow.  What is the actual voter turn out in his riding anyway?


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Nov 2006)

Edited:  Surplus to requirement.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2006)

I think it's been said, or at least inferred.  Once a member has served his or her contract with the CF and has been honourably discharged, it matters not where they seek their next employ.  Non issue.

So, how about them BC Lions?


----------



## Rodahn (21 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I think it's been said, or at least inferred.  Once a member has served his or her contract with the CF and has been honourably discharged, it matters not where they seek their next employ.  Non issue.
> 
> So, how about them BC Lions?



And there you have it the essence of this entire discussion......Mr. Layton and the rest of his NDPeons (I love that phrase) can go rot in the lowest depths of Helloooooo.... IMO.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> So, how about them BC Lions?



You're right.  Breaching my own guidelines.  Better luck next year for the Stampeders.


----------



## Trinity (21 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I think it's been said, or at least inferred.  Once a member has served his or her contract with the CF and has been honourably discharged, it matters not where they seek their next employ.  Non issue.



+1  Beaten me to the point.

Does this mean Jack Layton is against contract law?

What is the average life cycle of a JTF soldier? (rhetorical question.. do not answer)
My point being... maybe such a high stress situation only allows most people
to do this job for a five, six, seven year contract... and if that's true then there
is a whole new dimension to this debate that Jack isn't aware of.

Oh wait.. sorry, Jack isn't aware of most things. He just grabs headlines and runs
with them... failing to do any research.  :


----------



## Kalatzi (21 Nov 2006)

I think some of us are forgetting this is an open forum
One that from time to time come into the public eye in a very bad light
Think whatever you want - in private
As has been said disagree with the policies
The personal stuff ...

For the good of us all
GET A GRIP!


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (21 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .  What is the actual voter turn out in his riding anyway?



Since you asked:
 from the elections canada website (It's all scripts, so no direct link)
Toronto-Danforth
Total Eligible Voters 74862
Total Valid Ballots 50657
% 67.627
Clausen CON 4992
Coyne LIB 17256 
Hart GREEN 3583
Layton NDP 24412 = 32.6% of eligible voters
Rodden M-L  172


----------



## probum non poenitet (21 Nov 2006)

Does anyone know where to find a transcript of the actual exchange in Parliament?


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (21 Nov 2006)

It will probably be here tomorrow

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/ChamberHome.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1


----------



## Rodahn (21 Nov 2006)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> It will probably be here tomorrow
> 
> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/ChamberHome.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1



Look under the Hansard section....


----------



## geo (21 Nov 2006)

don't like Jack Layton........

no one else does - why should I be any different?


----------



## observor 69 (21 Nov 2006)

Jack's question was in the context of Col.Barr's comments to the Senate Defence Committee yesterday.

"In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, private contractors were dangling the promise of $1,000-a-day deals to poach JTF2 soldiers, said Col. David Barr, head of Canadian Special Operations Forces Command."

http://tinyurl.com/yevdnm

And wether or not you like Layton's comments on Afghan the NATO Operation there are regarded by most neutral informed observers  as a situation that presently could go either way.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Nov 2006)

Observer said:
			
		

> And wether or not you like Layton's comments on Afghan the NATO Operation there are regarded by most neutral informed observers  as a situation that presently could go either way.


but not by those who have served tehre, or are serving there presently. As for the "most neutral observers" crap: show me one.


----------



## niner domestic (21 Nov 2006)

This whole JTF2 going over to the Americans/contracting out once retired was discussed in 2004. This is not current news, Jack's staffers need to do better research. 



 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040409/jtf2_040408?s_name=&no_ads=


----------



## observor 69 (21 Nov 2006)

Paracowboy:  Just about every senior ISAF military  official,l including the commander Lt. Gen. David Richards, has stated that NATO has a very small window to gain the populations trust and support or the mission will be lost to the Taliban. I'm not trying to run the mission down but if you look at all the factors Gen.Richards is referring to, Pakistan as a secure base, farmers dependent on growing poppies etc etc you can see why it is a close thing.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Nov 2006)

Observer said:
			
		

> Paracowboy:  Just about every senior ISAF military  official,l including the commander Lt. Gen. David Richards, has stated that NATO has a very small window to gain the populations trust and support or the mission will be lost to the Taliban. I'm not trying to run the mission down but if you look at all the factors Gen.Richards is referring to, Pakistan as a secure base, farmers dependent on growing poppies etc etc you can see why it is a close thing.


it's not a close thing at all. More than half the nation is firmly pro-peaceful Afghanistan, one quarter is on the fence, twenty per cent want the status quo, and five per cent want to return to the days of Taliban rule/civil war. At least according to the rough tally we've been keeping in my Bn's Int cell, anyway.


----------



## Eland (21 Nov 2006)

Jack Layton, in my not so humble opinion, behaves like a complete ars*hole when it comes to the military and its role in Afghanistan. If I wanted to be charitable, I'd say he's an ignoramus.

He's like a lot of limousine leftists who think nothing about wearing Gucci suits while pontificating endlessly about the hopelessly unrealistic dreamworld (peace at any cost, brotherhood of man, and a chicken in every pot -ad nauseam) they want to create. At the same time these people fail to realize that the relative peace, freedom and economic prosperity that exists in the First World today was bought by force of arms and men and women willing to shed their blood and even die. 

I'll bet that Layton doesn't realize that the reconstruction and peacekeeping efforts he wants so badly to see Canadian soldiers involved in can't possibly begin, much less succeed unless and until the Taliban are neutralized. Besides, Canadian soldiers are not supposed to be members of a social welfare/humanitarian agency. Their job is to close with and destroy the enemy so that the real social welfare people can step in and do their jobs in relative safety in the first place.

It would be a good idea if he were taken to Afghanistan to see what our soldiers really do - and what they're up against I'll bet that Layton doesn't even know that Canada (outside of its US/UK allies) is shouldering the brunt of the combat burden in Afghanistan. You know that has to be true when a British MP (a *Labour* MP, no less) comes forward and heaps nothing but praise on Canadian soldiers and chides other countries for not giving them the help they really, really need. It's been a long time since Great Britain has praised Canada so effusively, and the point behind that praise should not be overlooked.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Professors and doctors aren't recruited and trained on the public dime.  JTF2 Assaulters are.  We should protect our investment.



According to Stats Canada, profs and docs trained in Canadian universities are _*generously*_ subsidized in their training on the public dime (+54% in 2006 across Canada), and lots of municipalities (in Ontario, at least) are working very hard  to get and keep doctors.  Based on this principle, if JTF-2 Assaulter training is 100% taxpayer subsidized, we should do what we can to protect our investment here, too.

Still, those talking about labour mobility rights are correct - we can't MAKE someone stay who doesn't want to - if we do it for Assaulters, maybe we could do it for doctors, too   Some say docs should pay back the am't taxes subsidized their education if they leave the country - methinks that would go over like a lead flatus if applied to Spec Ops types.....


----------



## APOLLOVet (21 Nov 2006)

A couple of points if I may,

First, WRT assaulters accepting civilian employment - no problem. If they have requested release, and have been granted release, they are free to do whatever they want as long as it falls within the legal restrictions of Canada (assuming that they retain citizenship). If they cannot do so, then they are indentured servants at best, and slaves at worst.

Remember, folks, CFAOs state in black and white that members have the right to request release. This request does not have to be granted. If we have such a severe shortage of assaulters that we cannot afford to lose a single one, then the CDS has to declare them all immediate operational requirements and refuse to grant release until the end of their contract.

Second, at what point do we complete paying back for our training? I remember well a case where a colleague of mine had just completed pilot training (at the public expense), and then was bought out under the provisions of the Force Reduction Program (FRP). So, not only did he not have to pay back his (very) expensive training as a pilot, he was actually paid a bonus to leave. (By the way, he immediately became a long-haul trans-Pacific pilot for BOAC at twice the salary that the CF paid).

I think that everyone outside the military needs to take a deep breath, and remember that we as citizens do not not necessarily surrender every right when we join the army.


----------



## ladybugmabj (22 Nov 2006)

Why are we wasting valuable "net space" on this guy??? (Mr. Layton....I use the term "Mr" very loosely!!). You guys who have been there, are there and are going to Afghanistan, you know we support you, always have and always will!!  

Now, on to a better subject...please!!

 :warstory: ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Nov 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Does anyone know where to find a transcript of the actual exchange in Parliament?


Here you go:

_*Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, there is more very serious evidence today that our mission in Afghanistan is seriously off track, that we are on the wrong track for the country. We learned today that our elite soldiers, part of the joint task force, are abandoning the Canadian Forces and taking on lucrative mercenary contracts in Iraq. At the same time, we learned from our commanders that they are having to call up more and more reservists to backfill for the inadequate preparations that were made to accommodate our obligations in Afghanistan.

    When will the Prime Minister finally realize that this Liberal-Conservative mission in Afghanistan is on the wrong track and is the wrong mission for Canada?

*Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): *  
    Mr. Speaker, the mission in Afghanistan is on the right track.

    We also have no problem recruiting people for our special forces, contrary to what the member is alleging. When we took over, the armed forces had been dramatically reduced; the training system was in great difficulty. What we are doing now is we are being innovative. We are using community colleges, we are using training institutions, we are using retired military to help train in the skills of the military, but everybody who is trained by these means must be fully qualified before they are accepted and tested.

*Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):*  
    Mr. Speaker, all this shows that we were completely unprepared as a country to be involved in this mission. In fact that is what our commanders advised the Liberals when they were contemplating this idea in the first place. Our generals told us that they wanted nothing to do with this mission at the time.

    What we see now is a scrambling by the government to try to salvage a mission that was wrong-headed in the first place. At the same time, we have experts telling us that we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people as well as our international reputation.

    When is the Prime Minister going to realize that we are on the wrong track and rethink it, get us onto a--

*The Speaker:  * 
    The right hon. the Prime Minister.

*Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  * 
    Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the leadership of the military and the men and women in uniform are fully committed to their jobs and to this mission.
    What I wonder is when the NDP will realize it is on the wrong track in opposing a mandate of the United Nations, when it is on the wrong track in being against the democratically elected government of Afghanistan, and when it is on the wrong track in not backing our men and women in uniform._


----------



## niner domestic (22 Nov 2006)

Like I said, all this was reported way back in 2004.  Layton's office is slow on the newsclipping readings and issuing briefing notes.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Nov 2006)

> ...In fact that is what our commanders advised the Liberals when they were contemplating this idea in the first place. Our generals told us that they wanted nothing to do with this mission at the time.
> 
> What we see now is a scrambling by the government to try to salvage a mission that was wrong-headed in the first place...



Mr Layton seems utterly unaware that there are two missions in this timeframe: Kabul (2003-2005) and Kandahar (2005--), and that the latter mission is of a very different nature from the former.  Or else he knows but willingly perverts the facts for political gain.  Either case is a disgrace and our media (and the government, damn it!) should be calling him on the simple facts.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Remius (22 Nov 2006)

The fact is that we have a retention issue in the CF.  And it isn't limited to JTF-2.  We lose qualified techs that go off for "lucrative jobs", guys who get back with operational experience who become cops, pilots working for Air Canada etc etc.  Plainly put, CF members are a known and valuable commodity.  This isn't new, and really has nothing to do with Afghanistan or any other operation.  Using this as an argument against the war is pointless as the cause for soldiers leaving the CF isn't necessesarily related to what we are doing overseas (mind you in some cases it can be).


----------



## Lost_Warrior (22 Nov 2006)

I honestly don't believe everything that comes out of Layton’s mouth are his exact views.  He is simply catering to his following.  This is the truly sad part.  He is willing to lie, demoralize our fighting men and women and create un-warranted controversy at the expense of the troops, all for his greedy lust for power.  That is truly selfish and disgusting.


----------



## probum non poenitet (22 Nov 2006)

Here's how it works:

The mission succeeds, the NDP loses ground.
The mission fails, the NDP gains ground.
Brutal, simple math.

A politician's goal is usually power, not virtue - and like any successful general, Layton is willing to sacrifice a few soldiers to win his battle. It's politics.

I'll bet Jack knows many of his anti-Afghanistan arguments are thin. He's a bright guy. This latest JTF2 "serious evidence" is just demagoguery and he knows it.

But as long as he can continually heap fear and doubt on the mission, it hurts Harper, separates the NDP from the Liberals in the minds of the Left, and may gain him a few crucial seats in the next election. (Providing we have lots of casualties, little visible success, and keep the public in despair, here's hoping, eh Jack?)

The only time Jack will actually outline in detail what a 'right mission' for Canada is, will be if the Liberals hold a minority again and need the NDP. Under those circumstances, the NDP _may _ cut a deal - they'll grudgingly support the 'new mission' in exchange for socialized something.

Or they may not. The Liberals might just chuck the whole thing, depending on which way the latest public opinion breeze is blowing.
But that's still a way down the road. So much can change. At that point, we're into Magic 8-Ball Country.

In the meantime, I'm drinking heavily. It's working so far.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Nov 2006)

ladybugmabj said:
			
		

> Why are we wasting valuable "net space" on this guy??? (Mr. Layton....I use the term "Mr" very loosely!!). You guys who have been there, are there and are going to Afghanistan, you know we support you, always have and always will!!
> 
> Now, on to a better subject...please!!
> 
> :warstory: ;D



+1 ladybugmabj.

I got sucked in earlier on this thread but decided to disengage.  Mr. Layton does provoke emotional responses (part of his charm to the true believers I think).  But better to leave the emotions out of the response.

On the other hand the issues of retention of personnel and skills retention are both relevant.  While the title of this thread is unfortunate and perhaps could be changed, the discussion on retention is of ongoing interest although it is covered on other threads as well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> While the title of this thread is unfortunate and perhaps could be changed .



As you wish.......


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Nov 2006)

Ta Much Bruce....


----------



## STING (22 Nov 2006)

By now most educated people know that Mr. Laytons comments and views on the military and Afghanistan come from the bottom of a trash can ... I usually laugh at him and promptly change the channel .. As for his comments yesterday ,  one statement really got to me was "We learned today that our elite soldiers, part of the joint task force, are ABANDONING the Canadian Forces......."  What our troops do after their contract is up is their own business . This particular statement implies that our soliders turn their back on eachother and our country .. A JAB at the character of our troops ... Completly Unacceptable ... !


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Nov 2006)

*Shared in accordance with Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act*

Jack Layton hates freedom.


----------



## nova_flush (23 Nov 2006)

How does Jack Layton know what's hapening with the JTF2? Isn't it classifies info?? and what does he care what our elite troops do agfter their contractc are over.


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2006)

Nova....
Think that Jack wants em to be lobotamized at the end of their contract so that their military skills can never again be used against


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Nov 2006)

Actually, they will be sent to planet where all of the junk in the galaxy is dropped and then the new improved genetically perfect JTF2 soldiers would go there to practice their skills...wait.  Wouldn't this be a great movie script? :  I wonder if Kurt Russell is free to take the lead role and say no more than...10 words....


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2006)

Hmmm..... New Democrat troopers?

Yikes......... whew, twas only a bad dream


----------



## gnplummer421 (23 Nov 2006)

One word: JACKASS

Gnplummer421


----------



## Jaydub (23 Nov 2006)

Thank god Taliban Jack is not destined for power...


----------



## mercury (24 Nov 2006)

Mr Layton, you are no friend of the Canadian Army.  I put this question forward.  The RCMP, Coast Guard and the Canadian Forces are all employed by the federal government.  Why then is there such a large difference in pay/benefits between these federal agencies.  They all serve the citizens of Canada and share the same dangers.  If our military was properly paid, maybe we would be able to retain them...


----------



## geo (24 Nov 2006)

mercury said:
			
		

> If our military was properly paid, maybe we would be able to retain them...



Huh? care to provide some forinstances?


----------



## GAP (24 Nov 2006)

mercury said:
			
		

> If our military was properly paid, maybe we would be able to retain them...



I may be out to lunch here, but I am of the impression that, overall, the Canadian Forces are one of the best paid armed forces in the world. I am sure there are issues in specific cases, but as a general rule, not that bad of a deal.


----------



## Trooper Hale (24 Nov 2006)

Pretty sure you earn more then us and definately more then the Yanks or Brits.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (24 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> *Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  *
> Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the leadership of the military and the men and women in uniform are fully committed to their jobs and to this mission.
> What I wonder is when the NDP will realize it is on the wrong track in opposing a mandate of the United Nations, when it is on the wrong track in being against the democratically elected government of Afghanistan, and when it is on the wrong track in not backing our men and women in uniform.[/i]



I love this part.


----------



## Guinness (24 Nov 2006)

I don't believe Jack Layton really believes in what he says, his statements are inflammatory and extreme in order to act as a counter-balance to the other extreme, the Conservatives. Similar to the women on "The View", where one is liberal thinking, the other is ultra-conservative and then Rosey, who is the extreme left, much like Layton. They all have their role, whether they believe in their paradigm or not. I think the parties in Canada are similar, putting on a front and playing their roles - don't hate poor old Jack, he just plays a jackass! Every government needs their pinkos, whether we like 'em or not.


----------



## rz350 (24 Nov 2006)

Once our JTF-2 soldiers (or anyone in the CF) finish their contract, IMHO, I think they *deserve* to be able to go off and earn a 1000/day or whatever the wage is as private contractors. They risked their lives, fought for, and worked very hard for the freedom we all enjoy. After they are done with their commitment, they deserve to take part in said freedoms. Now, it would be awesome if they chose to stay with the CF, but if not, they earned that right to enjoy the freedom to pursue any kind of legal employment they want...they've earned it more then Jack Layton or his hippie friends have.


----------



## white-rabbit (24 Nov 2006)

Politicians don't believe what they spout?
Politicans will jump from political party to suit their own needs. "Stronach"
They will change their views more often then most people blow their nose in a day.
When the Liberals were in power, they got us into Afghanistan and chose not to assist the US in Iraq w/ ground troops, We did send the Navy/Airforce, to assist.
Now the Liberals want us out of Afghanistan, but aren't really clear what they want the CF to do. They can't even decide on a leader. The NDP, who even takes them seriously anymore, Jack Layton spouts off about JTF and taking our stopping our committment to Afghanistan immediately.

My opinion is if you don't like what a politican says, use your democratic right that my Grandfather and many others fought/died for and vote them out/in.
You can also write to your MP and voice your opinion.

I choose to pretty much ignore anything that comes out of Ottawa, I find it is like the weather here in Victoria, if you don't like it go back inside wait an hour and then go back out again.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Nov 2006)

mercury said:
			
		

> Mr Layton, you are no friend of the Canadian Army.  I put this question forward.  The RCMP, Coast Guard and the Canadian Forces are all employed by the federal government.  Why then is there such a large difference in pay/benefits between these federal agencies.  They all serve the citizens of Canada and share the same dangers.  If our military was properly paid, maybe we would be able to retain them...



A DED 3 (leading seaman) makes around $42,000 in CCG, how does that compare to the Navy?


----------



## cplcaldwell (24 Nov 2006)

*Colin P*: Re: LS Pay rates, MarCom

From CBI 204.30

$50,112 (Basic Pay Rate, Standard Trade Group) to $52,992 (Pay Rate 4, Standard Trade Group).

Up to $66,396 (Pay Rate 4, Spec 2 Trade Group).

Operating Allowances not included. R&Q (etc.) not deducted.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Nov 2006)

Thanks, clearly no one is going to leave the Navy for the CCGs pay rates!!!


----------



## Stirling N6123 (28 Nov 2006)

I will share with everyone a letter I wrote recently to Dawn Black, the NDP Defense Critic for the NDP....



> Dear Dawn Black,
> 
> Your recent comments, regarding the swelling cost of the mission in Afghanistan and it's swelling cost worrying Canadians, seems a little out of touch with what Canadians really feel. Toronto Star Sept 21. Every NDP supporter I talk to, many of them here in Belleville, Ontario, not only support the mission in Afghanistan , but further support it's expansion and the use of CF-18's to keep our troops safe, is a prudent, smart step.
> 
> ...



I received a reply...but I am unable to locate it. In it she went off about not having an exit strategy, we spend more on combat than we do Humanitarian aid.

Do these people know that we are there firstly to provide security, and if that involves combat, we need to get it done, in order for us to provide food, shelter and infrastructure to these people????


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2006)

Screw "exit strategies", and focus on victory.  Imagine May 1944:

"OK, the invasion is set.  We land in normandy, drive through France and on into Germany.  Once in Berlin, we'll hoist Herr Schickelgrueber's body from the Brandenburg Gate.  Questions?"
"Um, yeah, I have one."
"Yes, what is it?"
"What's our exit strategy?"
"Our what?"
"Our exit strategy.  How do we get our guys back to Blighty?"
"Um....let's focus on the here and now, ok?  Let's focus on how we can defeat the Wehrmacht, alright?"
"Yeah, that's all fine and good, panzers, whatever.  But what's important here is to have a balanced approach, coupled with comprehensive talks and a firm exit strategy."
"Who are you?  What planet are you on?"
"That doesn't matter.  Remember, we declared war on _them_, not them on us, so why are we fighting again?"
*a shot rings out*
"OK, any more questions?"
"I have one."
"Yes?"
"Can I have his sandwich?  He's not going to eat it."
"Sure, go ahead.  Anything else?"
"Yeah I have one."
"Yes?"
"OK, this has nothing to do with exit strategies, or whatever that dead guy was talking about, but..."
"Yes?"
"Um...just wondering.  Will Bomber Command be supporting the landing directly or indirectly?"
"Good question.  Mr. Harris assures me that....."


----------



## rregtc-etf (28 Nov 2006)

Taliban Jack didn't have a problem with living in a taxpayer subsidised housing unit in Toronto while he was earning a better than average tax payer salary, now he has a problem with retired soldiers making money in Iraq.  The fact that they are free to do so doesn't enter the equation.  The use of the word 'mercenary' was no doubt calculated to add shock value to his idiotic statement.


----------



## spqr (28 Nov 2006)

Alert the press!

I have just learned that our MP's are abandoning the government.  It seems that as soon as they retire from parliment they are taking jobs as members of boards, lobbyists, proffesors with speaking deals, and other lucrative positions.  It seems that the ones who were cabinet members (I think of them as the elite MP's that do all sorts of secret stuff so I can sleep better at night) are getting the best gravy jobs.  All of this is on top of their pension and they are applying the skills and knowledge they aquired ON THE JOB while serving as MP's.

We must form a petition or write to our extremist friends in the government to put a stop to this bleeding away of talent from our already overstretched parliment.  How will we ever have the Olympics again in this country if we don't have enough MP's to wear the maple leaf Root's touques.

Will someone think of the nation(s) of Canada for once!


----------

