# Hillier Arming Canada For War



## scm77 (19 Dec 2005)

*Hillier arms Canada for war*
*Defence chief wants to upgrade military, add beef to Afghan role
By SCOTT TAYLOR*

ACCORDING TO OTTAWA insiders, Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier has put his senior staff at National Defence Headquarters on notice that as of now, the Canadian military is on a war footing. Armed with the moral support of Defence Minister Bill Graham, Hillier is trying to implement a rapid and radical rationalization of the befuddled bureaucracy and the ponderous procurement process. Those who voice objections to Hillier's reforms are being told to hand in their security passes and shuffle off into early retirement.

Using his vast operational field experience, Hillier is applying the combat arms "mission is paramount" mantra to remove or eliminate all obstacles in his path. The primary objective the good general has lined up in his sights is the deployment of a 2,000-strong, combat-capable expeditionary force in Afghanistan next spring. These troops are to serve as the nucleus of a NATO-based allied rapid reaction corps that will conduct offensive operations against the Taliban insurgents in the volatile Kandahar region. This new NATO force will ostensibly free up about 4,000 U.S. special forces personnel who will likely be transferred directly to Iraq.

To meet this challenge, the Canadian military procurement officials have gone on a spending spree. By begging, borrowing and paying a huge premium ($234 million), DND hopes to acquire 50 new armoured personnel vehicles, six new howitzers, airborne surveillance drones, John Deere utility vehicles and new communications systems â â€ all by February. As the new role in Kandahar will focus on aggressive patrols aimed at hunting down Taliban guerrillas, it is Hillier's intention to deploy an unprecedented number of our elite Joint Task Force 2 commandos. One source speculated that up to 200 operatives will be in Afghanistan by February â â€ nearly two-thirds of the unit's entire trained manpower. As an unorthodox special forces

unit, the JTF2 has a separate â â€ and highly classified â â€ procurement budget. Despite the secrecy surrounding this commando force, it is known that they, too, have been out purchasing a multitude of new hardware and vehicles for the upcoming mission. Everything from automatic grenade launchers and new assault weapons to armoured trucks has been hastily added to the JTF2's inventory.

Unfortunately, there are some things that simply cannot be obtained or produced before Hillier's expeditionary force heads off to battle. In the mountainous region of southern Afghanistan, the majority of the combat missions are facilitated by heavy transport helicopters escorted by heavily armed helicopter gunships. As Canada has neither of these types of aircraft, our troops will presumably be hitching a ride aboard allied helicopters. As well, to deploy and keep a 2,000-strong contingent supplied in theatre will require the use of strategic airlift, which Canada does not possess. If history repeats, we will either rely upon the help of our friends or rent some old Russian commercial airplanes.

While many senior Canadian officers are quietly wondering why Hillier is insisting on putting all his combat eggs in one basket called Afghanistan, there are now even more serious rumblings coming from the other NATO participants. The Dutch were to contribute up to 1,000 troops to the allied force â â€ including a number of Chinook heavy-lift helicopters (yes, the very same choppers that Canada gave them in 1992, when our policy-makers concluded there was no future need for such aircraft). But that decision has been delayed by the Dutch parliament, pending additional guarantees of support from the Pentagon.

The British defence minister is also reportedly having second thoughts about this new mission, with some senior officers suggesting the whole operation should be abandoned. Their rationale is that there is presently no stated end game for Afghanistan and no apparent exit strategy for the international community.

One would like to think that similar constructive consideration is taking place here in Canada and that someone somewhere is calculating exactly what Canada's long-term projected involvement in Afghanistan is. (Whatever happened to Osama bin Laden anyway?) But the signs are not hopeful.

With an election campaign in full swing and Canadian casualties already mounting, the only political leader to even raise this issue is Jack Layton of the NDP.

In the meantime, it seems that Hillier remains a man on a mission, and come hell or high water, next spring, our military is gonna kick some "scumbag" butt in Afghanistan.

(staylor@herald.ca)

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/472370.html
--------------------------------------
There is a discussion about this article here

Here are some of the comments some people have made...


> I can understand his wanting to get goodies while he can...and I can understand his insistence on speeding up the process and getting rid of the chair-warmers...but the warrior rhetoric needs to be toned down.
> 
> And of course I personally don't think we should be in Afghanistan anyway.
> 
> There are other places we could and should be. Being waterboys for the *US Imperial stormtroopers in Afghanistan* is not one of those places.





> Hillier 'arming Canada for war'
> 
> And the question arises...what war?
> 
> ...



Not everone is against him...


> Well, I only have an amateur's knowledge of these things, but I agree with your post.
> 
> Only in Canada could the purchase of six howitzers be considered a major military purchase, or, for that matter, fifty armoured trucks, which is essentially, what the new APCs are (a South African vehicle, the Nyala, which has excellent anti-mine protection).
> 
> These are, in fact, the minimum equipment purchases any responsible government would have to make before sending its soldiers into a dangerous area like southern Afghanistan. Rather than being surprised that this is being done we should be collectively outraged that the armed forces have been so starved of essential equipment for so long that it is now necessary to make these purchases in such an emergency basis.



But most people are...


> It's nuts that we're doing anything more than peacekeeping.
> Has the definition of "peacekeeping" changed along with marriage ?
> It's folly to "go after" a religious sect simply because they don't believe in the same things as us. We're forcing democracy upon countries that have little history of the concept. If only they could see just how fucked up democracies like the U.S.A. and Canada have become.
> So just remember the next time you're in a hospital waiting list for knee replacement that your Liberal government thought it more important felt it more important to spend the money fighting in a country that has never been our enemy before with bullets supplied by SNC-LAvalin no doubt....a big Liberal party donar and contract recipient.
> Somethings never change......



Your thoughts?

PS. If a mod thinks this will be better moved to an already existing thread, please do.  I searched and there was a couple threads where this could go, but I couldn't decide which one was best so I just made a new one.


----------



## Holk (19 Dec 2005)

Why not help in Afghanistan?

We're keeping a country that helped terrorist groups attack the US and the West,from falling back under the rule of the Taliban that would help them out again if gotten a second chance.

I know most people aren't big fans of the US,especially this adminstation,I'm not.
But as long as we're actually doing something to fight Al Qaeda,there's not much wrong with what we're doing.

After all Al Qaeda might one day find some fault with us as well.
It's better to get them now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Dec 2005)

>One would like to think that similar constructive consideration is taking place here in Canada and that someone somewhere is calculating exactly what Canada's long-term projected involvement in Afghanistan is.

Then one might seek to interview Paul Martin or someone from the PMO rather than to speculate Hillier is marching to his own orders.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Dec 2005)

Any way I can get a message to this guy:
Xian Crusade
Author Host/IP: pi7p43.ark.com / 209.53.215.171

It's nuts that we're doing anything more than peacekeeping.
Has the definition of "peacekeeping" changed along with marriage ?
It's folly to "go after" a religious sect simply because they don't believe in the same things as us. We're forcing democracy upon countries that have little history of the concept. If only they could see just how fucked up democracies like the U.S.A. and Canada have become. 
So just remember the next time you're in a hospital waiting list for knee replacement that your Liberal government thought it more important felt it more important to spend the money fighting in a country that has never been our enemy before with bullets supplied by SNC-LAvalin no doubt....a big Liberal party donar and contract recipient.
Somethings never change......


----------



## scm77 (19 Dec 2005)

CFL, if you click here you can reply to his message.

http://www.voy.com/178771/105866.html

Scroll to the bottom and you will find the box where you can type your reply.

There's already ~25 replies to his message and it doesn't appear that he has replied to any of them yet, so I'm not sure if you will get a response.  It doesn't appear that the site has any sort of Private Message system, and he's using a fake e-mail address...

Good luck.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Dec 2005)

nah.  a bunch of sheep.  no sense in trying to explain to them what the deal is.


----------



## Dog (19 Dec 2005)

I personally have no problem with the Military being armed for war.

If it means that we don't have to beg for transport, don't have to scramble for some kind of "niche" role, and don't have to worry about kit crashing, breaking, or otherwise not performing to standard, that we get to train live-fire more than once or twice a year, then what's the problem?

These people who believe we are a "Peacekeeping Force"  have got their heads up their ass. While there's nothing wrong with peacekeeping per se, making yourself incapable to do anything than walk around with a blue helmut on, without the ability to affect change in areas of the world using force means that you have no right to criticize the American Government when they go and do it.... because no one else is going to.

Those same people would whine and complain that we aren't doing enough to help the oppressed people in the world if the only thing we did was hang out and direct traffic in Bosnia.

I think this is the first time I've felt so exasperated at the complete lack of support that the CF gets from some people.... maybe it's because I'm getting sworn in, in a few hours. 

How have all you guys who've been wearing the uniform been able to do it all these years??
I can see myself becoming dramatically more jaded in the next little while...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Dec 2005)

There are 3 groups of people in the world.
The sheep.  The sheep dog.  The wolf.

The sheep are afraid of the sheep dog as well as the wolf.  They know when push comes to shove the sheep dogs will be there for you despite how much you ignored them.

The sheep dog as badass as the wolves except that they live to protect the sheep.

The wolf is the baddy with no remorse, no hesitation no morals that is looking to snatch the sheep while the sheep dog is down and out.

the majority of the public are sheep.  The military, police are the sheep dogs and the terrorists are the wolves.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (19 Dec 2005)

It shows you what the Canadian public really thinks about us and how we do things and where we should do it! we will never shake that Peacekeeper title ever i think.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Dec 2005)

Well, in some hope that some folks might actually consider something if presented with new information, I replied to "begbie's" post here http://www.voy.com/178771/105935.html as skicanuck.  I think I will leave it as a "one-time post only"...unless they actually ask some questions that seem based in honest consideration of how things are over here.

Cheers
Duey


----------



## Armymedic (19 Dec 2005)

What gets me is that we should not be arming for war...

We should already be armed.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Dec 2005)

As you all know, I'm a liberal, so my liberal civvy cocktail party friends often seek my opinion on these matters. Obviously, since I speak from a biased position, I try to be a bit more reconcillatory than most, and I try to stay away from the "sheep" references. The following spiel usually puts me in good steed. 

I don't think the position that we should get out of Afghanistan and adopting an isolationist stance is necessarily an unreasonable one. I don't agree with it of course, because the only kind of isolationisim that can actually work, as a_majoor points out, in real life is the Swiss or Singaporean style "don't fsck with us" isolationism, where we arm ourselves to the teeth(nukes and all), develop an native arms industry, and introduce mandatory national service. 

We could do it, but I don't think anyone will like it. 

Same thing with the "there are other places we should be in instead of Afghanistan" thing. I'm all for getting out of Afghan and going to Sudan or DR Congo, as long as we're also getting our own heavy sea/air lift, tanks, tac hel, CAS, CVNs, etc. because there won't be any American B52s or Dutch helos for us to borrow in Dafur. That way, we'll be completely independent of US foreign policy, and able to represent the will of Canadians to maximum effect. 

We could do it, but I don't like that either.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Dec 2005)

I agree with Britney.

I think Afghanistan is a waste of time, it's problems are just too big for Canada to solve. I think a Canadian sized contribution from all of NATO could make a pretty big dent, but I doubt that is forthcoming.

Sudan needs our help more than a-stan, but we are simply too poorly equipped to go there.

None of this will keep me off the '07 rotos though!


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2005)

Scott Taylor said:
			
		

> *Hillier arms Canada for war*


I'm pretty sure it is the government that is "arming Canada for war."



			
				Scott Taylor said:
			
		

> The primary objective the good general has lined up in his sights is the deployment of a 2,000-strong, combat-capable expeditionary force in Afghanistan next spring.


... or maybe the deployment of said force next month?



			
				Scott Taylor said:
			
		

> While many senior Canadian officers are quietly wondering why Hillier is insisting on putting all his combat eggs in one basket called Afghanistan . . .


I recall a R22eR BG being validated at BTE 05.   That "egg" is not going into the Afghanistan "basket."


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Dec 2005)

bahhhhhhh
If not A Stan then were, Africa?
When did we get this peace keeping persona and by whom.  Surely not until after Korea.  So that means we need/have a few decades to "re-educate" the sheep, I mean public.


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Dec 2005)

That's the other thing that I find myself having to explain a lot: Peacekeeping.

The thing about peacekeeping is that it often involves killing a lot of people. If it didn't, we wouldn't need to send the army, we could just send Senators to talk at them and then laugh when they get beheaded on Al Jazeera. The French Foreign Legion  in Côte D'Ivoire and the Brit Paras in Sierra Leon were peacekeepers in every sense of the word: 1)They went in under a UN mandate, and 2)They were so ruthless in their methods(The FFL, as a reprisal for a "mistaken" bombing of their positions, summarily destroyed the entire Ivorian air force on the ground with a classic commando raid the very next day)  that all belligerent factions suddenly found themselves *really* wishing for peace to return. 

If this is the model that we are to follow, then I'm all for us becoming "peacekeepers".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Dec 2005)

well that's a peacekeeping force to be proud of.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2005)

I wasn't sure if I should just smack my head against the monitor in sheer frustration or what:

Arm Canada for War? What do these people think our job is? Not to mention the 80 odd Canadian civilians murdered in NYC Sept 11 2001, a pretty dramatic declaration of war by the other side.

Britney, if you wern't so young I would kiss you! Please continue to make these points to your Liberal cocktail party friends (I am available for speaking engagements, given enough notice  ). Canadians have been very insular for far too long, if they don't raise their eyes from their belly-buttons and take a clear eyed look at the world they will discover something very nasty is about to bite them in the A**.

Message to all: spread the word about what we do and why. Look at the Ruxsted Group editorials on the opening page of Army.ca if you need help with your speaking points. We need to elevate this debate from the total ignorance being displayed in headlines and responses like the ones we were treated to at the beginning of this thread. Once the debate is at some sort of informed and sensible level, then maybe some sensible solutions can be generated by the government of the day.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (20 Dec 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> bahhhhhhh
> If not A Stan then were, Africa?
> When did we get this peace keeping persona and by whom.  Surely not until after Korea.  So that means we need/have a few decades to "re-educate" the sheep, I mean public.



And yet you pass up your chance to go to that other site.

You know, if about 20 professional soldiers went over there, and posted with real names, in a dignified, professional manner, perhaps one or two sheep lurking there might actually learn something.

So what's stoppin' y'all?


----------



## baboon6 (20 Dec 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> That's the other thing that I find myself having to explain a lot: Peacekeeping.
> 
> The thing about peacekeeping is that it often involves killing a lot of people. If it didn't, we wouldn't need to send the army, we could just send Senators to talk at them and then laugh when they get beheaded on Al Jazeera. The French Foreign Legion  in Côte D'Ivoire and the Brit Paras in Sierra Leon were peacekeepers in every sense of the word: 1)They went in under a UN mandate, and 2)They were so ruthless in their methods(The FFL, as a reprisal for a "mistaken" bombing of their positions, summarily destroyed the entire Ivorian air force on the ground with a classic commando raid the very next day)  that all belligerent factions suddenly found themselves *really* wishing for peace to return.
> 
> If this is the model that we are to follow, then I'm all for us becoming "peacekeepers".



All the French troops killed in the airstrike were "Troupes de Marine", not Foreign Legion, and it was a platoon of them (from 2e RIMa) who destroyed two of the Ivorian SU-25s with Milan missiles. Also I don't know if you could call the operation a classic commando raid, since the French troops were already almost on-site ie. no infiltration was required.This was at Yamossoukro. Several other Ivorian aircraft were destroyed later that day by 43e BIMa (the permanent French unit in CI) at Abidjan airport, after their base (right next door) was attacked by Ivorian troops.


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Dec 2005)

Oh you know what I meant........


----------



## edadian (20 Dec 2005)

CFL re-educate implies there was education. With our obsession in this country lately of only teaching the 3 R's it shouldn't be surprising that people are ignorant of international affairs and defence. Maybe we should all write our MLA and have the role of DND added to grade 9 civics.

I agree with Britney that to be a good peacekeeper you have to scare both sides into compliance. Also mentioned the Foreign Legion, could a Canadian Foreign Legion/Brigade help our recruiting problem? Maybe a new thread in that question.


----------



## pbi (20 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And yet you pass up your chance to go to that other site.
> 
> You know, if about 20 professional soldiers went over there, and posted with real names, in a dignified, professional manner, perhaps one or two sheep lurking there might actually learn something.
> 
> So what's stoppin' y'all?



I did it! I did it!

Cheers


----------



## CanadianBoy92 (20 Dec 2005)

I think we need some combat aircraft and some aircraft to take us over there before going.  I think it makes no sense to rely on other countries to take us over.  We have to stop piggy backing other countries and get some our selves.  There is no way we can't afford aircraft such as these, we are the 2nd largest country and have 3rd largest land mass.  We should have enough resources to afford these things.  Also we only have a small polpulation.  We need chinooks, some nice combat aircraft, some humvees would be good to.


----------



## Dog (20 Dec 2005)

CanadianBoy92 said:
			
		

> I think we need some combat aircraft and some aircraft to take us over there before going.  I think it makes no sense to rely on other countries to take us over.  We have to stop piggy backing other countries and get some our selves.  There is no way we can't afford aircraft such as these, we are the 2nd largest country and have 3rd largest land mass.  We should have enough resources to afford these things.  Also we only have a small polpulation.  We need chinooks, some nice combat aircraft, some humvees would be good to.



^
^
^
That is, quite simply put, prose.

You should be writing defence policy.... or speeches for the PM.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2005)

Link to this discusion on VoyForums is now useless.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Dec 2005)

edadian said:
			
		

> I agree with Britney that to be a good peacekeeper you have to scare both sides into compliance.



This is the key point really, and it's why most arguments about international law are pointless.  In our own legal system, the state has the power to back it's decisions, and to enforce a compromise.  That's why we go to courts to settle civil disputes, because you know that, while you may not end up totaly satesfied with the outcome, it'll be a fair compromise and the state will use it's power to make sure the other guy meets his end of the bargain.  Peacekeeping is, or should be, the same deal.  The UN, or whoever the neutal party on the ground is, says "this is the way it's going to be".  And they bring enough boots and guns to make sure both sides know that anyone who violates the terms is not going to get away with it.  Without that, having troops there is pointless.  Who'd bother going to a civil court if you knew that any judgement was not going to be enforced?


----------



## ImanIdiot (20 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> This is the key point really, and it's why most arguments about international law are pointless.   In our own legal system, the state has the power to back it's decisions, and to enforce a compromise.   That's why we go to courts to settle civil disputes, because you know that, while you may not end up totaly satesfied with the outcome, it'll be a fair compromise and the state will use it's power to make sure the other guy meets his end of the bargain.   Peacekeeping is, or should be, the same deal.   The UN, or whoever the neutal party on the ground is, says "this is the way it's going to be".   And they bring enough boots and guns to make sure both sides know that anyone who violates the terms is not going to get away with it.   Without that, having troops there is pointless.   Who'd bother going to a civil court if you knew that any judgement was not going to be enforced?



Well said....you should post this in the other forum, perhaps it will further their education of what peacekeeping really is.....but I doubt it. Some people wont except anything other than us handing out teddy bears and bandaids, and that's the way its always going to be.


----------



## Haggis (20 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Arm Canada for War? What do these people think our job is? Not to mention the 80 odd Canadian civilians murdered in NYC Sept 11 2001, a pretty dramatic declaration of war by the other side.



It was only 23, Art.   (One of whom was an uncle of one of my soldiers.)   Lucky for Al Queda, none were killed with an unregistered firearm.   Otherwise, the Liberals would be on a CRUSADE to root out and legislate against Islamic terrorism.   Since the aircraft used on 9/11 were duly registered, 9/11 was no big deal to the Canadian ruling class.   Ergo, no need for a just "war" by Canada. 

... am I ranting???


----------



## TCBF (20 Dec 2005)

Hey, remember there are two Classes of Canadians.

In class two, you have Canadians working in dangerous places - like New York - not to mention "Working for the Yankee Dollar", so they don't really count in Ottawa.

Class two also includes Canadians of dual citizenship who refuse to divest themselves of the history, culture and politics of 'the old country' thus draging  Ottawa into a situation it finds inconvenient.  Like those poor souls on the bombed Air India flight.  None even counted as statistical 'Canadians killed by terrorism'.

To bad the bombers are Sihk and not AQ, or we could ship'em to Gitmo and 'put them to the question'.

Tom


----------



## Eland (20 Dec 2005)

Methinks the news media are blowing things out of proportion here (surprise, surprise). Buying barely more than a battery's worth of 155mm howitzers and 50 armoured patrol vehicles equipped with GPMG's is hardly what I would call true preparation for war. 

Now, if DND had announced large-scale purchases of tanks, tracked infantry fighting vehicles, attack helos and a requirement for large numbers of combat troops, then I would have no trouble believing the media reports.

I applaud the decision to start buying weapons and kit quickly to ensure, as far as is possible given the dilapidated state of the CF, that our troops have some of the essentials when they land. I wish that DND had gone a little further.

Hillier warned us that Afghanistan was going to be a twenty-year commitment when all was said and done. That said, I suspect that this deployment of 2,000 troops and the new kit purchases are just the beginning. I could easily see the Afghan mission being expanded in the next several years. That might even see very rapid expansion if Israel (or the US) jumps on Iran - at that stage, the US will need forces in Afghanistan to protect its northwestern flanks.


----------



## Dog (21 Dec 2005)

Eland said:
			
		

> Methinks the news media are blowing things out of proportion here (surprise, surprise). Buying barely more than a battery's worth of 155mm howitzers and 50 armoured patrol vehicles equipped with GPMG's is hardly what I would call true preparation for war.
> 
> Now, if DND had announced large-scale purchases of tanks, tracked infantry fighting vehicles, attack helos and a requirement for large numbers of combat troops, then I would have no trouble believing the media reports.
> 
> ...



While it's not feasible, nor strictly necessary, to buy the equipment you mentioned above, I fail to see why even purchases like that should be argued against. Buying some new tanks, instead of the MGS, and some Apaches, and maybe a few nuclear subs, with an aircraft carrier wouldn't be seen as a problem around here. And there has been talk by the Liberals and the Conservatives to increase the mapower of the CF by 5,000-15,000..... not a small jump when compared to total strength of the CF as a whole.... personally I think we should have a more robust army in order to assume a more independent and assertive role in the world, that way we can take people to task for situations like Darfur. But talk is cheap..... that's why politicians have gotten away with starving the military to the point where the purchase of a rifle can be noted and scrutunized.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Dec 2005)

Dog said:
			
		

> While it's not feasible, nor strictly necessary, to buy the equipment you mentioned above,



WTF? How many suicide bombs and IEDs have to happen before we get a real armoured patrol vehicle? That no one has died in an up armoured LUVW is a bloody miracle, and speaks more to the incompetence of the bad guys than the great kit that we use. It is adequate, but pardon me for saying that we deserve the best - not the bare minimum.

The Nyala will save lives, but apparently we are better off thinking along the lines of saving $40,000, per patrol vehicle and sending more flag draped coffins home.

What exactly is your definition of "feasible"?


----------



## kincanucks (22 Dec 2005)

I thought it would be appropriate to add this to the thread.  The CDS was the Attestation Officer at an enrolment ceremony in Ottawa today.  One of the enrollees was his son who is going to be an Armoured Officer under CEOTP.  Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, there was no media there to cover the event.  Too bad as it would have been interesting to see the headline: "Canada's top soldier does his part by enrolling his own son."


[EDITTED to remove " " from text.]


----------



## pbi (22 Dec 2005)

Gen Hillier was the Guest of Honour at the 09 Dec graduation for the Adv Mil Studies Course here at CFC. I finally met him, and heard him speak. He has more charisma and "people qualities" than almost all the Cdn generals I have ever met, with a very few notable exceptions. He is making some enemies, both internally and externally, but that is what happens when you try to change a military institution and a national way of thinking.

Cheers


----------



## Danjanou (22 Dec 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> I thought it would be appropriate to add this to the thread.   The CDS was the Attestation Officer at an enrolment ceremony in Ottawa today.   One of the enrollees was his son who is going to be an Armoured Officer under CEOTP.   Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, there was no media there to cover the event.   Too bad as it would have been interesting to see the headline: "Canada's top soldier does his part by enrolling his own son."



Sad, and it speaks to the mindset ( is that an oxymoron ?) of this once proud and great nation that for some perverse reason we still seem to love and defend. In almost any other "allied" nation US, UK Australia NZ etc this would have made the news. :


----------



## Dog (22 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> WTF? How many suicide bombs and IEDs have to happen before we get a real armoured patrol vehicle? That no one has died in an up armoured LUVW is a bloody miracle,....
> 
> What exactly is your definition of "feasible"?



It's not feasible because the Canadian public would create an uproar, and opposition to a plan that includes purchases of this magnitude would be impossible for our Parlimentary "leaders" to ignore. It would be the EH-101 all over again.

Could you imagine what would happen if we purchased M1's, Attack choppers, and a surface battlegroup? Let alone actually used them in an aggressive role? 

Don't get me wrong.... I'd love to see our Military get the best kit available, hell, I'm going to be heading to A'stan eventually.... but I'm perfectly willing to admit that even with our current CDS it's not going to happen.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2005)

Dog said:
			
		

> Could you imagine what would happen if we purchased M1's, Attack choppers, and a surface battlegroup? Let alone actually used them in an aggressive role?



He's talking about the RG-31


----------



## Dog (22 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> He's talking about the RG-31



I wasn't, otherwise I wouldn't have posted in the first place.

I think the RG-31 is a good idea.


----------



## RCD (22 Dec 2005)

I personally have no problem with the Military being armed.We need the equipment first before being commtied


----------



## CanadianBoy92 (22 Dec 2005)

Buying some new tanks, instead of the MGS, and some Apaches, and maybe a few nuclear subs, with an aircraft carrier wouldn't be seen as a problem around here. And there has been talk by the Liberals and the Conservatives to increase the mapower of the CF by 5,000-15,000..... 
[/quote]
That would all be great for the CF, and Hiller should consider this kind of stuff and act on it.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (22 Dec 2005)

CanadianBoy92 said:
			
		

> Buying some new tanks, instead of the MGS, and some Apaches, and maybe a few nuclear subs, with an aircraft carrier wouldn't be seen as a problem around here. And there has been talk by the Liberals and the Conservatives to increase the mapower of the CF by 5,000-15,000.....
> 
> That would all be great for the CF, and Hiller should consider this kind of stuff and act on it.



Hey big spender...


----------



## CanadianBoy92 (22 Dec 2005)

Its people like you that makes our CF in bad shape.  Big spenders are what make our army equipt well and with latest technology.  People like you dont want to spend a dime on our army.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (22 Dec 2005)

CanadianBoy92 said:
			
		

> Its people like you that makes our CF in bad shape.   Big spenders are what make our army equipt well and with latest technology.   People like you dont want to spend a dime on our army.



Clearly you dont know me, therefore im going to let that go...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2005)

I'm not.......CanadianBoy, PM inbound.


----------



## McG (29 Dec 2005)

CanadianBoy92 said:
			
		

> That would all be great for the CF, and Hiller should consider this kind of stuff and act on it.


You seem to have missed the whole concept that it is the government that arms & funds the military.


----------



## Chindian (31 Dec 2005)

Being a bit slow to respond  here. OK I sw this post and thought it was an interesting thread going in here. As I read through evry thing several comparisons come to mind. I watched a movie once called Canadaian Bacon and one scene was how Alan Alda (acting as the US president) made a joke at he Pentagon about how the US should find a new enemy. The conversation moved around different groups and eventualy landed on Terrorism as its final suggestion. The whole table bursts into laughter and agrees how riduculus that sounds. Scene fades to grey..... A movie from 1995 I believe making fun of the idea on how funny that would be to even think of. 10 yrs later we are living that running joke. Interesting.

Next observation. Soviet Union went into Afghanistan in December 1979 and left on April 15 1989. I realise Canada is not fighting a war how it is traditional the no one wins in Afgahanistan. The Brits have long ago tried. The UUSR found little luck there. Granted we are in for a different reason. We have different skills etc etc. What Ia m saying this is poven as an adavnced battle ground. Perhaps one of the most advanced on the planet. With little orno access from but a few well observed areas. Given our track record at proffesionalism at the international level I would say we should be using differnt areas for different levels of accomplishment. Set up a lower intensity areas to prove smaller units in. It may sound like some to mean a lot more money being put out it's not really what I am suggesting. I cant say I agree with Hillier's seeming plan however if accept it we then why not add a constructive suggestion forward. 

Not only is buying new equipment a fact of what we are heading into but demanding more complete training should also be done. Spending for new equipment and sending soldiers out proffesioanlly untrained for the levels of expectations is not heLTHY.

OK I'm done.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2005)

Am I the only one that couldn't make any sense out of that?


----------



## armyvern (31 Dec 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that couldn't make any sense out of that?


I'm probably a bit slower than you!! You are not alone.  ???


----------



## aesop081 (31 Dec 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that couldn't make any sense out of that?



Nope....i cant figure it out...maybe when i start drinking it will all become clear !!


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2005)

WTF, over?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Dec 2005)

Its New Years, he probably started early.


----------



## kincanucks (31 Dec 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that couldn't make any sense out of that?



I usually think better after the Captain Morgan and I have had a chat but I am at a lost here.


----------



## McG (1 Jan 2006)

Chindian said:
			
		

> Not only is buying new equipment a fact of what we are heading into but demanding more complete training should also be done. Spending for new equipment and sending soldiers out proffesioanlly untrained for the levels of expectations is not heLTHY.


I think your trying to introduce a tangent here.  Try it in its own thread, or do a search for existing threads on the quality of our trg.  Regardless, make your point/message more clear because we don't understand.


----------



## KevinB (1 Jan 2006)

I think his point is on the top of his head...
  I disagree wholeheartedly with everything that I pulled out of Chindian's post.
1) We are not occupying Afghanistan - we are supporting the Afghan government - that is a huge difference from the Colonial activities of the British and the actions of the USSR.

2) We are doing things small -- a Battalion Battle Group (TF1-06) is a small deployment in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## GO!!! (1 Jan 2006)

Chindian said:


> In addition to this why would you possibley feel you'd get the right info in a forum such as this. Most of the posts in here have a ring of truth but for the most part are far removed from any sembalnce of truth.


I assume that this would include your insightful and relevant posts?

then you said:


> Come on now get a f****ing grip...................................................


Touche...


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2006)

The Afghanistan debate has been moved to an existing thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37899/post-315557.html#msg315557

Lets get back on topic.


----------



## Pearson (11 Feb 2006)

Letter to the Editor 11 Feb 2006

I got a chuckle out of this. Even us Haligonians are catching on.   :dontpanic:

Taylor Off Target Again


Ho-hum. Scott Taylor is at it again (On Target, Feb. 6). For him to even suggest that Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier "quietly took this country to war" in Afghanistan shows how low he has sunk.

As any informed Canadian knows, the CDS in this country only acts on the direction of his political masters, and for Taylor to try to paint the situation differently — suggesting that somehow Gen. Hillier could unilaterally go to war — is the grossest of fabrications.

A couple of weeks ago, Taylor was knocking the Afghanistan mission because the British and Dutch had not signed on. Now that those countries have committed to it, he manages to continue to whine about it by finding something new to criticize.


John Boileau, Glen Margaret


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Feb 2006)

Someone get these guy's on this board.  What a refreashing breeze of common sense.


----------



## gnplummer421 (11 Feb 2006)

Any kind of new or used equipment is better than nothing. Certainly it is a step in the right direction. I believe we should be there for two reasons; 

We should try to ensure that the Al-Qaida training camps and the Taliban don't resurface, and this will require a sustained Operation spanning at least five or more years. 

Also, our troops gain invaluable experience in a combat environment.

Someone mention pulling out of Afghanistan and going to Africa.  I get the feeling from the posts I've seen, it is not a good idea.

We could pull all our soldiers back to Canada and hope that the mean terrorists will go away but...if life were like that, you wouldn't need a Visa card.

Gnplummer


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (11 Feb 2006)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> We could pull all our soldiers back to Canada and hope that the mean terrorists will go away but...if life were like that, you wouldn't need a Visa card.



Hahaha good one! :rofl:


----------



## Jones598 (4 Apr 2006)

My two cents and message to the government: build us an army or don't bother at all.

  :threat: 

ONT R


----------

