# 7 Oct TO Sun's letters to the Editor....



## Armymedic (7 Oct 2004)

Here is an idea how Canadians feel about our Military and its current state of affairs:

Thu, October 7, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Worthington ("Safety in their scope," Oct. 6) may not realize it, but his article demonstrates how profoundly Canadian troops differ from American soldiers. 

The Canucks in Kabul used night-vision technology to catch militants with a bomb. Our brave soldiers spotted suspicious activity and then checked it out with men on the ground. One assumes that no-one was killed or injured and arrests were made. 

That's how you defeat insurgents. Civilization wins against the barbarian at the gates only when it acts in a civilized manner. 

Who among us is dumb enough to believe that American troops would have acted in the same manner? Apache helicopters would have been dispatched and all suspicious bodies would have been blown apart by 30-mm cannon shells fired from a few kilometres away. Or perhaps a smart bomb or two. A little "collateral damage" would occur -- unavoidably, of course. 

It takes real guts to do what our troops do. It takes only firepower and a huge amount of arrogance mixed with indifference to non-American life to do what U.S. troops do. 

That's why they don't hate us as much as the Americans. We are civilized and we act it. (Most of the time -- let's call Somalia a one-off.) 

Steve Hine 

Madoc 

(We think you're being horribly unfair to the vast majority of U.S. troops) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When I read comments from Defence Minister Bill Graham such as, "we acquired those subs at a very attractive price to Canada," it makes my stomach turn. I am sure Mr. Graham would have looked at it a different way if his son was going to be on board one of those rusted, decrepit pieces of amazing technology from the '60s. We could eliminate these problems easily -- put the politicians on the maiden voyages of the equipment they acquire for our troops. 

Dave Kuhn 

Toronto 

(It might help) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


IT would seem that we've just purchased a bunch of sea-going submarine versions of the Sea King helicopters. 

Greg Knickle 

Kitchener 

(You're not the only one who thinks so) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DOES ANYONE remember the ads put out by the Liberals during the last federal election about how Stephen Harper and the Conservatives planned on spending billions for new aircraft carriers for the navy, and billions more for our troops and airmen to buy equipment needed to keep them safe? Forget for a moment that the Liberals were lying through their teeth about what Harper really said, and instead focus on the message. Harper was demanding we properly equip the men and women we put in harm's way, and he admitted this costs money. Shortly after listening to the throne speech, I saw on TV that 57 of our sailors were floundering in rough seas without power, without heat, and without hope of getting home without a tow from British warships. Maybe now Canadians will pay more attention to what Harper was saying about the state of our forces under the Liberal government. I'm sure people are willing to compromise, and instead of buying ships that our forces desperately need, perhaps the Liberals could at least cough up some extra bucks (the equivalent of Adrienne's lunch bill) to buy a few extra fire extinguishers. How embarrassing, how typical, and how very Canadian. 

James Lane 

Halifax 

(How sad, and how true) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RE "FIRE down below" (Oct. 6): Canada will never be able to shoulder a serious military role alongside our allies as long as we keep doing everything on the cheap. Sub-standard subs, and choppers that can't fly? What's next? An unarmed army? 

William Bedford 

Toronto 

(That's our fear) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RE Bob Macdonald's column on the purchase of submarines from England ("A sinking feeling," Oct. 6): How can anyone state with a straight face that this is a good thing? Would you buy a car that is 10 years old and brag about it? Would it even pass the road tests? Wake up, people! This is another waste of our hard-earned dollars and, worse, it is putting our armed forces personel in jeopardy. It has been well documented that our men are in danger having to serve on obsolete airplanes and ships and now we buy submarines that are in worse shape and expect people to risk their lives on them. Shame on us. 

Louise Mewhinney 

Whitby 

(Shame on us for re-electing governments that don't properly equip our troops) 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RE THE submarines purchased from the English: Anyone who has owned an English car could tell you that the English cannot build an electrical system worth a damn. 

Mark Slobodian 

Etobicoke 

(Be thankful the Brits were there yesterday)  


My personal favorite is James from Halifax.


----------



## pbi (7 Oct 2004)

Steve Hine doesn't know what the ***** he's talking about. I can assure you that without any doubt US troops are dealing every day with IEDs of all types, lots and lots of them, all across CJTF76's area of operations(the ENTIRE country of Afghanistan, not just Kabul City), and they are doing it without blowing anybody away. The US has its problems; of course--every military does--but that letter is just ignorant self-praising BS. Canadian and US soldiers are allies against a common enemy: ISAF is NOT a neutral UN blue-hat "peacekeeping force"-we are not here to give out candy bars. The Canadian Recce Squadron is the most powerful armoured element in the country including the entire US force (which has no tanks.) We are not here as "nice guys", although we can do that well, too. Let's get Canadians off this ****** high horse. Letters like this just drive an unnecessary wedge of sickening Canadian moral superiority between allies. We do not need to slam Americans in order to praise our soldiers-that is cheap. Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Oct 2004)

Thank you,PBI.
That post should be in there instead.
Stay safe.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2004)

Thanks, Bruce. Actually I am the safest little sod you could imagine ;D  Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Oct 2004)

Those subs don't represent 1960s technology, either, and in fact do represent a good bargain, if any actual submariners are to be believed.

Who wrote those letters?  Soda jerks from Yonge Street?  Glad they are such experts.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Those subs don't represent 1960s technology, either, and in fact do represent a good bargain, if any actual submariners are to be believed.
> 
> Who wrote those letters? Soda jerks from Yonge Street? Glad they are such experts.



The Sun is usually a pro-military paper, but it sometimes attracts some rather marginal types as letter-writers. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> The Sun is usually a pro-military paper, but it sometimes attracts some rather marginal types as letter-writers. Cheers.



My own letter to the Sun was reproduced on this forum about two months ago.   ;D

But I agree fully.  The letter from Halifax also ran today in the Calgary Sun.  The editorial response was different, though.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

pbi perhpas with your knowledge you could post in the editorials and educate certain authors.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> pbi perhpas with your knowledge you could post in the editorials and educate certain authors.




Hmmmmm. You might have something there, CFL. Does the Sun take e-letters? Maybe I could clean up my post and submit it? Cheers.


(And stop talking about my knowledge....I make up half the s**t I post--OOPS-just kidding....)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

I think they do


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Oct 2004)

Yes, of course the Sun takes eletters, look at the bottom of the letters page for the address.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2004)

Thanks. I'll check it out. Cheers.


----------



## Gunner (9 Oct 2004)

Toronto Sun's Letter of the Day (in response to Mr Hine's letter on 7 Oct 04) 

I AM a Canadian soldier serving in Afghanistan. My duties require me to work closely on a daily basis with the main operational headquarters of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and I am fairly well versed in their activities. 

I must question whether Steve Hine (Letter of the Day, Oct. 7) knows what he's talking about. I can assure you that without any doubt U.S. troops are dealing every day with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) of all types, and many of them, all across Afghanistan, not just in Kabul City. They are doing this without any excessive use of force, against an enemy who has no such scruples. In fact, they are doing it in an extremely professional manner, often at great risk to their own lives. 

The U.S. has its problems, of course -- every military does -- but Mr. Hine's letter appears to me to be nothing more than misplaced Canadian self-praise. 

Letters like this just drive an unnecessary wedge of presumed Canadian moral superiority between allies. And, let us make no mistake: Canadian soldiers and U.S. soldiers are allies against a common enemy: We are not here to give out candy bars to children; this is a force with combat power, in the air and on the ground. For example, the Canadian armoured reconnaissance squadron with its modern LAV-III Coyotes is the most powerful armoured element in the country, including the entire U.S. force. 

We are not here as "nice guys," although we can do that well, too. There is an enemy here: an enemy who is happy to slaughter people who want to exercise their right to vote, or children who want an education but happen to be female. We do not need to slam our American brethren in order to praise our own soldiers. That is cheap. 

Lt.-Col. David J. Banks 

International Security Assistance Force Liaison Officer to Combined 

Joint Task Force 76 

Bagram, Afghanistan


----------



## Lance Wiebe (9 Oct 2004)

Well done!

I wonder if they will print it?


----------



## Gunner (9 Oct 2004)

LCol Banks letter was indeed printed by the Toronto Sun as the Letter of the Day.


----------



## pbi (9 Oct 2004)

Well, well. And only slightly edited too.

Unfortunately, on  re-reading it, I don't think I followed a very logical succession of ideas-it jumps around a bit. 

Anyway, I'm glad they published it because that Steve Hines (an his ilk) need to be put in their place. I am not a cheerleader for the US: believe me when I say that I can see the bad along with the good: it all comes with being able to observe them first hand. However, I have just about had it with the moralizing pedestal-jumpers that our country seems to produce. Soldiers are soldiers, and these US folks are doing the best they can, which is usually pretty damned good on the EOD front. I can assure all readers that if not for the efforts of the EOD teams the death and destruction would be far, far higher than it has been during this Election period.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Oct 2004)

Let's see Mr. Hines suck on that one.


----------



## pbi (9 Oct 2004)

Hmmmmm-I suppose this makes me one of those "marginal types" I was slagging earlier. Cheers.


----------



## Marauder (9 Oct 2004)

The important thing to remember, Sir, is that you are one of OUR "marginal types".  That makes all the difference. LOL

 Excellent response, and good work.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Hmmmmm-I suppose this makes me one of those "marginal types" I was slagging earlier. Cheers.



I'd like to think you're now in good company.    I'll consider myself the same.


----------



## bigwig (9 Oct 2004)

> perhaps the Liberals could at least cough up some extra bucks (the equivalent of Adrienne's lunch bill)



I couldn't agree more. Just get rid of her all together.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Oct 2004)

bigwig said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more. Just get rid of her all together.



Brilliant idea.  You realize that puts more power in the hands of the Prime Minister then, yes?


----------



## bigwig (9 Oct 2004)

I don't think it would change a damn thing if we got rid of her, other than save the Country money.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Oct 2004)

Please, keep it on topic....

For those with the GG in their crosshairs, here is a playground for you.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/19722.0.html


----------



## Danjanou (9 Oct 2004)

Well done Sir. Made my day when I read it earlier today. Especially when I saw who wrote it.


----------



## pbi (10 Oct 2004)

Thanks, but it was not anything that anyone of us here could not do, and probably do in a more articulate (and somewhat less disjointed) manner than I was able to do. There is a great amount of collective experience, knowledge and wisdom amongst the folk who post in these threads, all of which can be put to good use against thoughtless, misguided or malicious public commentary. If you feel strongly enough about it. speak out. If you don't, who will? Cheers.


----------



## Storm (10 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Thanks, but it was not anything that anyone of us here could not do, and probably do in a more articulate (and somewhat less disjointed) manner than I was able to do.



No need to downplay the letter, I doubt it could have been done better. Mr Hine's foot is so far down his throat that he's probably standing on it again. Nothing like first hand experience to shoot down ignorance.  Well done sir


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> If you feel strongly enough about it. speak out. If you don't, who will?



And there is my lesson for the day - and something to think about.  Thanks Dave.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Oct 2004)

I don't know who this Hines guy is, except he felt strongly enough to post a letter. Even in his ignorance you must commend him for that.


----------



## pbi (10 Oct 2004)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I don't know who this Hines guy is, except he felt strongly enough to post a letter. Even in his ignorance you must commend him for that.



Exactly right, Armymedic. And if the ill-informed or misguided feel free to speak out, then so should those who have the ability to put them straight. Cheers.


----------



## Blindspot (10 Oct 2004)

What was the Sun's response? Don't they usually include an editorial message after the comment?


----------



## pbi (11 Oct 2004)

I don't know. I never looked. Cheers.


----------

