# Military wins no matter what after election



## HADES 1962 (5 Dec 2005)

Taken form canoe.ca news 

Interesting read   ???

Military wins no matter what after election

By STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal Conservatives say if elected they'll boost the national defence budget "in magnitude," assuring the military a win no matter who's in after the Jan. 23 vote. The Liberal government committed $12.8 billion to military expansion in last February's budget, which will bring the total defence budget to almost $20 billion within five years. Defence Minister Bill Graham has dangled tantalizing toys before Canada's military - new planes, ships and vehicles. He's expanding the forces by 5,000 personnel. But the Conservatives say they'll do even more for defence. "Certainly the Armed Forces aren't going to get less," said the Tory defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor. "There's going to be substantially more for the Armed Forces - in magnitude different." The Tories will boost military spending significantly - O'Connor wouldn't say how much - and expand personnel by 15,000, to 75,000, said O'Connor, who drafted the party's defence platform. All Liberal defence policies will be up for review, said O'Connor, including last spring's defence policy statement that was supposed to set the course for Canada's army, navy, air and special forces for 20 years. "We will review everything," O'Connor said. "We have our own policy. It may support what they are doing or it may modify what they are doing." 
During the 2004 election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised an extra $5 billion in military spending over five years, 20,000 new soldiers, new tanks, new helicopter-carrying warships and muscular transport planes. 
O'Connor, who retired as the director of military requirements and later became an industry lobbyist, said airlift now is his party's No. 1 defence priority. 
But it's up in the air whether the Tories will go for 16 mid-range transport planes worth nearly $5 billion, as the Liberals announced Nov. 22, or opt for fewer of those supplemented by larger, heavy-lift aircraft capable of transporting troops and equipment over vast distances. 
Under a Conservative government, the Liberal procurement project may go ahead or it may be modified, O'Connor said. 
"We believe in airlift," he said. "I consider airlift as the No. 1 equipment requirement for the Armed Forces. 
"But an airlift solution based on our policy may be different." 
O'Connor said he expects Harper will announce his defence policy before Christmas. 
He said the party won't be bound by preconceived ideas. They want to look at requirements before settling on what combination of aircraft would best serve defence. 
A Conservative government would also buy more Arctic utility aircraft than the Liberals plan and base some of them further north, he added. 
"I believe we should have a firm deployment of new aircraft in the Arctic," he said. 
With the Liberals' blessing, navy planners are already in the early stages of acquiring new support ships and transport vessels, similar to those Harper promised in last year's election campaign. 
O'Connor said he strongly supports streamlined military procurement practices, but he says the Liberal method will hurt competition and favour certain products - Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport plane, for example. 
Prime Minister Paul Martin has said getting what the military needs takes precedence over regional and industrial benefits. 
O'Connor said he also supports what he calls the "sensible" Liberal concept of setting out requirements based on performance needs. But he said regional and industrial benefits are a must in any military procurement. 
"The biggest waste of time is in the Defence Department," O'Connor said. "They're spending four years now to arrive at a document that says this is what we want." 
He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up. 
"Things will be better for the military" under a Conservative government, O'Connor promised. 
"In funding, you're going to see a substantial difference - quite a bit more than the Liberals. We've got to get this Armed Forces out of a hole."


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

Fine -- IF he leaves the C130J issue well enough alone, they are needed - PERIOD.


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2005)

"He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up."

Is this not like saying that he does not want he opinion of the Cpl that employs the kit?   I bet listening to that cpl could have prevented things like the LSVW or the Ross Rifle.


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> "He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up."
> 
> Is this not like saying that he does not want he opinion of the Cpl that employs the kit?   I bet listening to that cpl could have prevented things like the LSVW or the Ross Rifle.



Yup or using the Babblefish decoder
 "I'm a pompus ass and know more than you peons..."

I'm out of the country and no logner a resident  - I would never vote Liberal just due to their Gun Control Fiasco, but I would not vote for the CPC with that man touching defence...


----------



## EhMust (5 Dec 2005)

Kevin, i love the babblefish comment, h2g2 is great.


----------



## clasper (5 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I'm out of the country and no logner a resident



You can still vote by special ballot- I registered last week.
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ele&document=index&dir=39ge/ec78610&lang=e&textonly=false


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (5 Dec 2005)

i want to get excited over all those big numbers and significant improvements, but now I know better   :-\

15-20,000 more troops would kick ass, and those transport planes, helicopters, warships.....

please Jesus, let it be so.


----------



## midgetcop (5 Dec 2005)

I'll believe it when I see it. 

ALL parties like to dangle that carrot in front the voters at election time.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (5 Dec 2005)

You guys sure could use the new kit and personnel that is for sure.

I hate to say it, but it sounds too good to be true....

I am in the "see it to believe it" camp.

*fingers crossed*


----------



## SoF (5 Dec 2005)

A good reason to vote Conservatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2005)

This bothers me, a bit:



> {O'Connor} said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up.



If, big *IF* I thought Gordon O'Connor meant a return to procurement driven by a detailed analysis of policies and requirements, I would agree.

It sounds to me like he wants procurement to be driven by a bunch of his old cronies - lobbyists (including retired admirals and generals who (just like O'Connor was) are employed by big, rich lobbying firms) and politicians sitting around in the _Rideau Club_ - on top of a big office building which looks down on Parliament Hill.

This bothers me a lot:



> O'Connor said he also supports what he calls the "sensible" Liberal concept of setting out requirements based on performance needs. But he said regional and industrial benefits are a must in any military procurement.



This may be the dumbest thing any politician has said since those Liberal idiots introduced this highly flawed, wasteful _requirement_ during the CP-140 procurement process back in the early '70s.  *"Regional and industrial benefits"* have not accomplished anything except to:

"¢	Increase costs - always by more than even the most wildly optimistic _guesstimates_ of benefits;

"¢	Provide photo-ops (free re-election advertising) for government MPs; and

"¢	Line the pockets of lobbyists.

O'Connor is trying to perpetuate all that is worst in our defence procurement system; I have doubts if anything can ever be improved so long as *"regional and industrial benefits"* are part of the programme.

That being said, even Gordon O'Connor's inane blatherings are insufficient to make me vote Green or NDP or, even worse, Liberal.


----------



## Hunter (5 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> "He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up."



I suspect that this comment has been taken out of context.   It's hard to know exactly what he is referring to, because it is not a direct quote but the author's paraphrasing of Mr. O'Connor's comments.   



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Is this not like saying that he does not want he opinion of the Cpl that employs the kit?   I bet listening to that cpl could have prevented things like the LSVW or the Ross Rifle.



It's a good point but I have spoken to Mr. O'Connor a few times and he is genuinely interested in the welfare of the troops and interested in our perspective on how things are running.   

That being said while I am volunteering and voting for the Conservatives, I agree with CdnArtyWife - I'll believe it when I see it.   The Conservatives also cancelled the Avro Arrow project and decommissioned HMCS Bonaventure.   

But to me this election is not so much about military policy but the overarching issue of integrity in government.   Sure, the Conservatives are also guilty of a bit of pork-barrelling when they were in power, but what the Liberals have done is just theft plain and simple.   Would the Conservatives have done the same thing?   Maybe, maybe not.   I would rather put my vote with a party that may or may not steal from us, then a party that already has.


----------



## Slim (5 Dec 2005)

Well either Mr. O'Conner has had an attack of common sence ( less the C130 issue) which is a rare thing indeed amoungst elected officials, or someone has done some rather po0inted whispering in his ear...

I just cannot understand how it is that a bunch who are proven to be theives are ahead in the polls?!


----------



## MC (5 Dec 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Well either Mr. O'Conner has had an attack of common sence ( less the C130 issue) which is a rare thing indeed amoungst elected officials, or someone has done some rather po0inted whispering in his ear...
> 
> I just cannot understand how it is that a bunch who are proven to be theives are ahead in the polls?!



Unfortunately, my pet rock has more personality than Stephen Harper.  :-[ not that it influences my vote because I believe he's very intelligent, but that and the fact they keep bringing social issues that have been delth with years ago keeps them down. 

to get back on subject though.. I agree with the main idea though, that this is a win-win situation for the army.


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

MC said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, my pet rock has more personality than Stephen Harper.   :-[



Would you rather a personable con man?


----------



## MC (5 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Would you rather a personable con man?



should have finished my post befored posting.. just edited.. no, I wouldn't.


----------



## xFusilier (5 Dec 2005)

I don't know if Harper has no personality, his preformance at the Press Dinner a few years a while back was quite good, I think all in all he takes himself far to seriously.  That being said the Conservatives seem to have a real problem with giving details on their platform, there's nothing other than a few bullet points on thier website and any time they announce a plank they seem to be lacking in the details department, almost like their playing into the Liberals' "hidden agenda" accusations


----------



## onewingwonder (5 Dec 2005)

Hunter, HMCS Bonaventure was scrapped by Trudeau, not the Conservatives.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2005)

And the fastest ship in the world in it's day, the Bras D'Or?


----------



## Hunter (5 Dec 2005)

onewingwonder said:
			
		

> Hunter, HMCS Bonaventure was scrapped by Trudeau, not the Conservatives.



Duly noted!  I should have known that.  My grandfather was a squadron commander on the Bonnie.


----------



## ExistancE (5 Dec 2005)

Jut my two bits:

I don't think that it is a certain win-win as suggested by this article. The problem lies in having a minority government in a house where defence is a low priority in general. If we see another liberal minority government we could see the situation now repeated, where the liberals rely on the NDP to keep them safe from a conservative-BQ vote and if Layton pulls a "spend the money on health care not defence or the NDP will help bring you down" do you think Martin will try to safeguard a military spending bill? We've already seen him alter a budget in significant ways and dangle cabinet appointments in front of dissenters in other parties to keep himself in power. It's really up in the air if we get another minority liberal government.

A conservative minority government would, I believe, see strong opposition from the house on traditionaly conservative issues such as defence. I'd wager the NDP would be against this spending, the BQ probably wouldn't support a Canadian defence spending, and given the pettiness of politicians in general the liberals might just vote it down for the heck of it. The conservatives will have a difficult time getting anything done without what would be a touchy issue for the socialist (NDP and BQ) parties.

I doubt we'll see a majority government however I'd love to see a conservative majority to set the nation up to surivive whatever center socialist agenda gets in after them.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Dec 2005)

I dont see a win win situation from an election. The problem is that defense isnt a hot button issue as it is in the US. I would think the conservatives would be the best shot for more defense spending. The Liberal Party will just do as they have done for years, they talk a good game but dont put their money where their mouth is. NDP would be worse I suspect.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2005)

Wow, the Conservative Party supports pork-barrel politics - add another check in the box to their stellar job on criticising defence.... :


----------



## Slim (5 Dec 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont see a win win situation from an election. The problem is that defense isnt a hot button issue as it is in the US. I would think the conservatives would be the best shot for more defense spending. The Liberal Party will just do as they have done for years, they talk a good game but dont put their money where their mouth is. NDP would be worse I suspect.



Not to mention foisting off the POS MGS on the Armoured Corps, instead of getting something that works (like a real tank for instance)


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2005)

Tracks!!!!!..............................Don't you remember?.........We are a kinder, gentler Army, and we don't want TRACKS.   :


----------



## karl28 (5 Dec 2005)

I really hope that we can get some more funding for the CF . I am most definitely a minority on that being a civy and wanting a bigger defence budget. Its sad that more Canadians don't see how important the military is. We don't need a huge military but we need one that is better equipped . That way we can handle situations that come up more easily.  I also  have a couple good friends in the CF and I worry about their safety using ancient equipment . I guess we will just have to wait and see  what's going to happen after the election. Here's to hoping for the best out come .         Just my two cents worth


----------



## Slim (5 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Tracks!!!!!..............................Don't you remember?.........We are a kinder, gentler Army, and we don't want TRACKS.     :



For all who think we're somehow better off without the toughest fighting vehicle on the modern battlefield I say:

                                                                                                    *SUCK ON THIS!*


----------



## Hunter (5 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Fine -- IF he leaves the C130J issue well enough alone, they are needed - PERIOD.



Scott Taylor was on CFRA this afternoon talking about the procurement of the MGS and C-130.  According to him the C-130 isn't big enough to carry the MGS.  And if our government is going to spend so much money on armoured vehicles (according to Mr. Taylor a design that has failed all of the testing criteria set by the US military), shouldn't the planes we purchase be able to carry them?  If anyone is interested in hearing what Scott Taylor had to say, the Michael Harris show is rebroadcast at 2000 nightly on 580 CFRA, or you can hear it over the 'net at www.cfra.com

I don't disagree with the fact that we need the airplanes, I just think that if the c-130J doesn't meet the requirements of strategic airlift, then maybe we should be re-examining this purchase?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2005)

Red herring - will Canada possess enough airlift to ever move a sufficient amount of Armoured vehicles into a distant theater.  Moving 1 LAV is fine, but how do you move 25?  100?  The A echelon as well.  All the stores and ammo that these vehicles need?  The soldiers too?  There is a RAND report that shows that even US strategic airlift will be strained to move a Stryker Brigade - I've linked it elsewhere - so how would our paltry lift capabilities (irregardless of what we bought) hold up?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2005)

Hunter

I too listend to that radio show.   There were a lot of mistakes on it.   First off the Americans HAVE NOT cancelled the MGS project, it is still going on.   Second, the Stryker can be stripped down and loaded on the Hercules.   Third, the Herc is not a Strategic Lift, it is a Tactical Lift, aircraft.   We desperately need those.   If we really drop that purchase in favour of Strategic Lift aircraft, that have not even been brought off the design board, we would truly be wasting our money, as then we would have to wait for it to be designed, built and then stand in line to wait for it to be delivered.   It would only be able to deliver a few pieces of equipment to a perfectly serviceable Airport, and then we would have to transport that equipment some how to the area that it is intended to be used.   The C130 does not need a perfectly serviceable Airport to land in.   It can land in a much shorter airport/runway also.   Not all of our equipment is too small for the C130, so just because one piece may not fit doesn't mean that we don't need that plane.   His little spiel about renting from the Russians is also a crock, because with the money we spent on renting Soviet aircraft, we could have bought C17s.   

I am surprised if the show doesn't get sued for comments stating that all our Top Brass should be admitted to AA.   At least to maintain some credibility of expertise, research the Military Journals that disprove everything that was said.

In the end there is no military in the world that can deploy any large amount of equipment in a 24 - 48 hour period by air.   Most large equipment will have to go by sea.   Another SHORTCOMMING in the CF.   Not all equipment will fit into aircraft.   Not enough equipment can be safely transported by air until a secure "Airhead" has been established.   

All the bickering of the 'experts' and politicians over these aircraft is based on ignorance, and lack of knowledge of what is really required.


----------



## Hunter (5 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am surprised if the show doesn't get sued for comments stating that all our Top Brass should be admitted to AA.



Heh heh yeah when he said that I wondered if I had heard correctly.

I don't pretend to be an expert on anything military, but I really enjoy reading what everyone else has to say on the topic.     ;D

FWIW here is Scott Taylor's editorial that they were talking about:

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/5.2%20billion.htm


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> "He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up."
> 
> Is this not like saying that he does not want he opinion of the Cpl that employs the kit?   I bet listening to that cpl could have prevented things like the LSVW or the Ross Rifle.



I wonder if that was his original meaning, though.   The Corporal doesn't know that the army will expand or which missions they will be going on.   The general knows how many trucks or rifles are needed, the corporal knows how good or bad they are.   Procurement on numbers come from the top, with reports from the field, trials, etc., conducted lower down to guage quality control.

No?



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> This bothers me, a bit:
> 
> If, big *IF* I thought Gordon O'Connor meant a return to procurement driven by a detailed analysis of policies and requirements, I would agree.
> 
> It sounds to me like he wants procurement to be driven by a bunch of his old cronies â â€œ lobbyists (including retired admirals and generals who (just like O'Connor was) are employed by big, rich lobbying firms) and politicians sitting around in the _Rideau Club_ â â€œ on top of a big office building which looks down on Parliament Hill.



Yes, it would need to be the former and not the latter.


----------



## mz589 (5 Dec 2005)

Hunter said:
			
		

> But to me this election is not so much about military policy but the overarching issue of integrity in government.   Sure, the Conservatives are also guilty of a bit of pork-barrelling when they were in power,




A bit?

Get back to me when the Liberals try to give away Pearson airport to thieir buddies. The last Conservative government set the precedent for pork barrelling.

And let's not forget all the grandiose promises that they made regarding nuclear submarines etc. Its one thing to campaign on increasing military funding but quite another to follow through on it when the electorate doesn't consider it a priority.

This election is in the bag, it'll be a liberal minority again, the real difference maker will be 18-24 months from now when both Harper and Martin will have been turfed byt their respective parties.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Dec 2005)

you're right, the liberals only gave away the 407 and ontario hydro.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Dec 2005)

mz589 said:
			
		

> A bit?
> 
> Get back to me when the Liberals try to give away Pearson airport to thieir buddies. The last Conservative government set the precedent for pork barrelling.



That party ceased to exist, remember?  When Kim Campbell was thrown out and the party was reduced to just two seats in Parliament?  They limped along then merged with the Reform party to create a new party.  I can't speak for their integrity, but I think the "old" party was properly punished even if its individual members weren't...


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> you're right, the liberals only gave away the 407 and ontario hydro.


Wasn't it the provincial conservatives that did that?


----------



## Hunter (5 Dec 2005)

mz589 said:
			
		

> A bit?
> 
> Get back to me when the Liberals try to give away Pearson airport to thieir buddies. The last Conservative government set the precedent for pork barrelling.
> 
> ...



I agree completely.  But I think pork-barrel politics is one thing and theft/fraud/racketeering/whatever you want to call the sponsorship mess is completely different.

I have volunteered for the Liberals in every provincial and federal election since 1977, but there will have to be big changes in the Liberal party before they get my support again.  I would also like to see the leadership of both parties changed - I don't think either of them are any good.  I wonder what it would take to tempt Gen. Mackenzie to run for the Conservative leadership.  I'm pretty sure he could whip Michael Ingatieff's arse in a fight, but it would be interesting to see those two in a debate.


----------



## Eland (5 Dec 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> This bothers me, a bit:
> 
> If, big *IF* I thought Gordon O'Connor meant a return to procurement driven by a detailed analysis of policies and requirements, I would agree.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, Canadians generally have been sucking on the government teat for so long that they cannot conceive of any military procurement being done in Canada without 'regional and industrial benefits'. Want some sure votes? Set up a procurement project and promise that the industrial spin-offs will be located in your riding. If politicians could get rid of their own squeamishness in this area, and overcome the same thing in your average Canadian, then it would be an almost sure thing that we'd be building tanks under licence here in Canada.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2005)

The title of the thread is a misnomer. The Conservative "White Paper" was on extraordinary document, well thought out and responsive to the needs of the late Cold War, but since the government's since have never followed through, nor written a new White Paper, the CF has effectively been in limbo for almost two decades.

Any bets that any Liberal "commitments" to defence will be followed up if they are elected? (Hint, how many firm commitments from the 1993 Liberal "Red Book" were ever actioned?)

Sad to say, the only party that I implicitly trust to carry out their defence platform is the NDP; and I think we all know what that means.....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (5 Dec 2005)

I'm with a-majoor - I don't trust any of 'em.

Frankly, the Conservatives haven't offered enough detail to even begin to criticise their policy (such as it is) in a coherent manner.  What they have said over the last year has left me aghast at their abject stupidity and willingness to sacrifice military interests for political gain.  This is the party that promised, during the Goose Bay by-election, to station a battalion there.  No sense of strategic thought, no military purpose - just pork, pure and simple.  

I am mystified as to what their point is regarding the recent purchases.  Are they saying that the CF has no idea of what its operational requirements are?  It seems so.  What process would they have us follow - especially when the decisions are as clear-cut and urgent as the airlift project is?  Back to huge project offices, constant interference by local MPs trying to gain contracts in their constituencies, voracious lobbying by hired guns, crappy equipment designed more to bring in votes than against an actual need?  Remember, it was the PCs that gave us the LSVW for purely political reasons - with the direct interference of Mary Collins (then the Associate Defence Minister).

We have, for the first time in recent memory, a strategic plan, with a procurement plan to back it up.  The Conservatives would have us throw it all out in favour of the traditional BS involving industrial benefits and high-paying jobs for the lobby cartel.  Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Liberals and am skeptical of their intentions and revolted by their recent history.  However, the money for most of these recent project IS allocated and, barring huge scandal, isn't about to go away.  The Conservatives can only preach party politics and hare-brained schemes.

Until their defence policy becomes grounded in reality, they've lost my vote (not that the Liberals have gained it, mind you).

End of rant...

Teddy


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

Anyone want to start a "I don't like any of the Other Options" party

   Me -- I'm voting with my feet...


----------



## Pencil Tech (5 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> you're right, the liberals only gave away the 407 and ontario hydro.



Sorry, that was the Mike Harris Conservatives.

And lest we forget, the federal Conservatives got rid of the Chinook, Twin Huey and Kiowa helicopters and replaced them all with the Griffon (anyone remember MND Marcel Masse?).


----------



## mz589 (6 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> you're right, the liberals only gave away the 407 and ontario hydro.



The Liberals gave away the 407 and Ontario Hydro?

That was Mike Harris, what party was he with again? He was also the same genius that decided to cut taxes will running a deficit - that worked well.


----------



## midgetcop (6 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Would you rather a personable con man?



I would rather a leader that didn't feel that the definition of marriage is the most pressing issue in our country.


----------



## midgetcop (6 Dec 2005)

mz589 said:
			
		

> The Liberals gave away the 407 and Ontario Hydro?
> 
> That was Mike Harris, what party was he with again? He was also the same genius that decided to cut taxes will running a deficit - that worked well.



That's why Ontario has been the hardest province for the conservatives to win over - we're still reeling from the "Common Sense" Revolution.


----------



## mz589 (6 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> That party ceased to exist, remember?   When Kim Campbell was thrown out and the party was reduced to just two seats in Parliament?   They limped along then merged with the Reform party to create a new party.   I can't speak for their integrity, but I think the "old" party was properly punished even if its individual members weren't...



The policy differences are minimal and Mulroney's fingerprints were all over the merger between the PC's and Reform/C-CRAP/Alliance. Its also interesting to note that the formation of the "new"party itself was brokered on a false promise by Peter Mackay not to merge the party. He signed a document (which turned out to be not legally binding) in order to gain the votes carried by David Orchard's delegates in the last PC leadership convention.

At the end of it all, it doesn't really matter, Harper is unacceptable east of Manitoba, it'll be another Liberal minority.


----------



## Pte_Martin (6 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> I would rather a leader that didn't feel that the definition of marriage is the most pressing issue in our country.



that's important to some people, that's why i vote liberal and so do some of the others


----------



## midgetcop (6 Dec 2005)

RHFC said:
			
		

> that's important to some people, that's why i vote liberal and so do some of the others



I agree that it is. And I also vote liberal.  

But that's *past* us now, and there are other issues that need to be addressed.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Dec 2005)

RHFC said:
			
		

> that's important to some people, that's why i vote liberal and so do some of the others



What, like your husband, Dan?


----------



## KevinB (6 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> What, like your husband, Dan?



 ;D

ROTFLMAO


----------



## Pte_Martin (6 Dec 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> What, like your husband, Dan?



 Contrary to what you think I'm not gay I'm very much into the women race


----------



## Infanteer (6 Dec 2005)

I never knew gender was classified as its own "race".


----------



## Shadowhawk (6 Dec 2005)

I'm learning soooo much from the forums here. ;D


----------



## Gobsmacked (7 Dec 2005)

Jeezz, I think this thread is mis-labled.
Should read - 'Lets Bash the Conservatives formerly known as CRAP'.   

I would think that with an election almost 50 Days Off on the Horizon that a bunch of intelligent, for the most part other than the odd Ninja Sniper, Army types would be at least willing to give them a fair shake.   :-[    
Especially when most bones of contention are based on Second-hand wordings of reporters - who in this country are Ohh so accurate - sure, a Wheeled APC looks like a Tank to me - uh huh.

They have not even officially released their Def Policy yet - which I agree is letting it lapse a bit and giving the Fiberals some 'Hidden agenda' ammo - but most comments/points of contention are more of a jump-on-the-Bashwagon variety than truly grounded in reason.

Rec'd a call from a 'Very Polite' CPC staffer yesterday who was doing some polling, and when she asked what Issues were important to me - Defence was Top of the List.
She advised they would be releasing a Defence Policy very soon.

_"O'Connor . . . said *airlift is now his party's No. 1 defence priority*.   
There's going to be substantially more for the Armed Forces - in magnitute different."_
Well, wait and see what they offer or put forth before you bring out the clubs.   :argument:

Don't see the Fiberals saying airlift is now our party's No. 1 defence priority,
especially when both deployments - which need to cross a min of 3000nm of Ocean - or even domestic redeployments involve Strategic Distances, not tactical hops.
And heaven help you if you even utter Strategic Airlift - Hercules is sacrosanct.  
(Wouldn't want to actually be able to pull our weight in the world and provide rapid disaster relief - you know for the Quake that will Never Never Ever hit BC,  :dontpanic:  , the floods in Winnipeg or Ice Storms in Que/Ont that NEVER EVER require us to Beg a lift from our US allies who we continually like to Bash.  Or even provide a Vanguard force to a region before things either get out of hand, or blow over by the time we get there.)
Check their website, does not even mention Combat Capable Canadian armed (heaven forbid!) forces.


On the 'hidden agenda' front:

a. Health Care - The Fiberals have more of a Hidden Agenda here than anybody (look at the growth of private clinics across the country the past few years) - yeah, sure, its the fault of the Conservatives who have not even been in power the past 12 years.
At least Harper is Honest enough to recognize the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling and be willing to talk about it - the Fiberals try to hide behind the Flag and argue down anyone who even brings up the topic of Health Care reform.  'We are No 1 in spending on Health Care.'
Yup - I really want to keep throwing more and more Billions at the system - that works soo well that the UN says we are, I believe, No 34 worldwide in the Provision of Health Care.
Not to mention, can you honestly say wait times have gone down - or more realistically gone up.

b. Quebec Separatists - Which until gomery and Adscam it looked like the Bloc was on the verge of shrinking to a rump.  As that East Coast Premier noted, 'would you want to believe a Pyromaniac who, after lighting the fire (Separatism in this case - due to anger over Libs trying to Buy Their Vote) then say they are best suited to put it out - trust us.'  Suuurre, don't think so.

c. Gay Marriage - While I personally don't agree with the concept.  They, like everyone else, should have equal rights to gov't benefits and are welcome to their opinions - as long as they don't keep shoving it in my face with annual Pride parades.

All Harper has said is that he wants to put the matter to a Free Vote (unlike the Liberals who made their Cabinet vote For the proposal) in the Commons and if result is No - then matter would drop.
Irregardless, as a Vancouver Conservative candidate - who happens to be a lawyer - noted, Constitutionally you can't take away the right (of what is it some 3K couples) who have already been married.
I think it was very Austute of Harper to put this issue out their early - it is not 'Hidden' and should no longer be an issue.


As to the *RED HERRING* of "Regional and industrial benefits" - does nobody read the bloomin 'Transcript' - Bill Graham specifically states _"*Canadian Industrial and Regional Benefits equal 100% of the contract purchase.*  The Industrial and Regional Benefits package has been designed by Industry Canada and agreed to by defence officials."_  Its unfortunately part of the Cdn landscape and the price the gov't makes DND pay for major contracts.  As a former director of military req'ts O'Connor is well aware of this.
I don't see anyone jumping all over Graham for this.  :-X

Good ole, cross the floor and take a Cabinet post Fiberal Scott Brison (yeah Belinda got away with it too - its just UnEthical  :tsktsk: ) noted in the 22nd Nov 05 Conference that _"we will be posting the performance specifications for 30 days . . . that will probably be in another ten days or so."_ 
Well, lets see - The 24 Nov 2005 'Backgrounder' noted _'Letter of Interest and Qualification - January 2006'_.  *In just 2 days they changed their tune* from '10 or so' to '38 days or so'.
Lets hope it does not slip any more to the right than that.

Now lets see, Martin and Co really care about the Forces.  They have added, or a least Promised - in 4-5 years time - to up DND's budget to above subsistence levels - still below 1992 funding levels by 2010.  Assuming with Goodales'  'Wonky Economics' [Lets phase in Program Increases over 5 years and conversely, phase in Tax Cuts over the same five years] actually make some sort of fiscal sense - yeah, that only works as long as Oil revenue keeps coming in and the economy does not slip into a recession before then.  Oh, lets not forget the NDP - in another minority they might say cut your Militaristic increases and put them towards job assistance for Autoworkers (although after Buzz they may reconsider and put it towards yet more Social Programs) if you want NDP support.

Um, who was it that cut the Forces by 25% in early 90s to 'slay the deficit', and then ran at least 5 surplusses without any real consideration of Readding most of that back in.  Wait, could it be, yup - frmr Quebec Lt and then Finance Minister Paul Martin - otherwise known as Sgt Schultz (I know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing) when Adscam was publicly made known.   ^-^

Oh yeah, don't forget FWSAR!
BUDGET 2004, then Minister Pratt noted _"This includes $1.3 billion investment over several years to accelerate the acquisition of new Fixed Wing Search and Rescue Aircraft."_
in what Feb/Mar 2004 noted, _"Another major priority for Canada's military is the purchase of modern Fixed Wing Search and Rescue aircraft [FWSAR] to replace older Hercules aircraft and Canada's fleet of Buffalo aircraft. Under Defence's current plan, deliveries of the new aircraft will begin much later in the decade. This budget sets aside non-budgetary resources to allow the Department of National Defence to move this acquisition forward in time without displacing other planned capital investments. By doing so, *the Government will accelerate the process so that deliveries of the replacement SAR planes to Canada's military can begin within 12 to 18 months*. This measure will allow Defence to spend an additional $300 million on capital in 2005-06 and similar amounts in subsequent years until this procurement is completed."_

Lets see, its now what - 21 months   and DND and the Fiberals have yet to release a FWSAR RfP or SOR - you know, the one that keeps getting rewritten due to 'Politically Driven Interference'.  And, for a program that supposedly was not only good-to-go and going, is now stalled until after the election for who knows how long.

Don't even get me going on the lets scrap the 'Warlike' tanks and give them Politically Correct wheeled MGS.  Can't have the boys actually intimidating (or in Army Speak - Overmatch) any potential antagonist/opponent.  
Does it matter that the US is having problems getting it to work (with their focus on bunker busting - not AntiTank) - originally Cdn contract _"*no-later-than* Dec 04"_ - or that Survivability is an issue, or that most of the MGS is produced in USA and not by GDLS-C - no, damm the torpedoes and full speed ahead (at least once GDLS finally get it working).   :
Heck, DND was unable to even talk to GDLS or US Army (using the ITARS excuse) about it until recently mid-late 2005.

To paraphase a common saying,  Promise me 'Our Priority is Defence':
Once - but not follow through - still working on it, well thats ok, we'll believe you next time.
Twice, oh wait - can't deliver yet, don't worry - we are sure you really mean it this time.
Dozens of times, well, promise us the moon because we are so desparate to believe your promises that we'll compromise out Common Sense to keep alive the hope that you will finally deliver, someday, possibly, maybe, if the planets are aligned just right ....
I hope you finally get the picture.   :brickwall:

Thats all I have to say on the topic. Whew.
I will let Def Policy, and a good drab of Common sense, and Ethics influence my Vote!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Dec 2005)

Do you have any idea what you're talking about when you refer to defence issues?   :  Thought not...

All I've heard out of O'Connor is partisan static - and absolutely nothing to give me any faith that the Conservatives actually care more than anyone else about defence - some hare-brained schemes like Goose Bay aside.  As I said earlier, I don't trust any of 'em...


----------



## canuck101 (7 Dec 2005)

As always it is a wait and see operation when dealing with military purchases. We have to hope that the next CDS has the same in your face attitude and will tell the politician and public what is needed as our current one has.


----------



## Eland (7 Dec 2005)

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> Jeezz, I think this thread is mis-labled.
> Should read - 'Lets Bash the Conservatives formerly known as CRAP'.



<much stuff snipped>

Finally, someone on this board who thinks as I do. The MGS is a piece of junk, in my estimation. If deployed in combat
situations, it will cost lives, not save them. Let me put the argument more succinctly:

Modern MBT gun range = 8 - 10km depending on ammo, fire control system, weather, gunnery skills. Armour= usually sufficient to 
defeat HEAT and APFSDS ammo with penetration ratings of 650mm (or better) homogenous rolled armour.

MGS gun range = 2km (maybe) with de-powered M68 105mm ammo (de-powered to accommodate a main gun which can't
handle the regular rounds). Armour= 15 - 30mm maximum, insufficient to handle anything over .50 cal BMG AP rounds unless add-on armour is slapped on, thus interfering with the MGS' already deficient mobility.

There is no question that the Liberals are irredeemably corrupt. The Conservatives, for all their perceived faults, ought to be given a chance. The Liberals have no regard for voters, as evidenced by our rapidly collapsing military, and health care system. The truth is, without adequate defence, we run the risk of not being able to decide what kind of health care system we will have - in other words, how things are run will be dictated, not debated and decided on by the electorate. Someone once said that the best social service any government can provide is to keep citizens safe and free from attack. To do that you need combat capable forces. Period.

Responsible, accountable governments don't get into Adscam-like situations. I find it disturbing that anyone would seriously vote Liberal, just because they've bought the falsehood that the Tories have some horrible 'hidden agenda' that will just ruin life in Canada as we know it. How stupid can anyone be? Let someone rob you blind rather than face a boogeyman which doesn't exist?

As for Quebec, it's gone. The Liberal corruption has reached so far they are unlikely to get many seats in Quebec. If the BQ sweep the Quebec seats (and they will), the 'winning conditions' will be there for a successful referendum, like it or not.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Dec 2005)

Again, do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?

A quick search will illustrate that I am no defender of the MGS or of the concept which will see it fielded (particularly the farcical "system of systems" idea), but you're spouting nonsense.

First, show me the tank gun that fires 8 - 10 km direct.

Second, the Canadian MGS will be equipped with exactly the same gun as is currently on our Leopards (perhaps fitted with a muzzle brake) and will, by no coincidence, fire the same ammunition.

If you're going to engage, engage with facts, not with hyperbole.

The fact of the matter is that the MGS cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - be laid entirely at the feet of the Liberal government.  Instead, it was conceived by a group of military people within NDHQ as part of the so-called Army Transformation agenda.  It is this particular part of the transformation process that I personally cannot support, but I try to have good reasons for not doing so.

Lest you think I'm an apologist, I'm not voting Liberal.  However, I've heard nothing - zero - from the Conservatives that indicates that they deserve my vote either, particularly on defence matters.  I've hardly bought into the "hidden agenda" propaganda - the Conservatives have done a fine enough job scaring me with their bizarre pronouncements on military issues thus far.


----------



## KevinB (7 Dec 2005)

Thank You Teddy - you summed up my feelings (both about the Liberals and the issues mentioned above quite well)

Cheers


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Dec 2005)

O'Conner has even scared a large Reform-type guy like myself......he is on glue most of the time.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2005)

Bruce, cut back on the donuts and you will become a slim Reform-type guy!


----------



## KevinB (7 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Bruce, cut back on the donuts and you will become a slim Reform-type guy!



Ouch --  ;D

 Even funnier when Art goes on warning for discrimination/stereo typing...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Dec 2005)

...and wonders how his username keeps getting changed to........[no, I think I'll save that one]


----------



## FSTO (16 Dec 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Second, the Canadian MGS will be equipped with exactly the same gun as is currently on our Leopards (perhaps fitted with a muzzle brake) and will, by no coincidence, fire the same ammunition.



I may be just a Navy Guy but I can't believe that the same tube that is on a Leopard will be carried by the MGS. That would be like fitting a gun carried by the Missouri on HMCS SACKVILLE. If they are thinking of this then the boys and girls in NDHQ who came up with this great idea better be the ones firing it.


----------

