- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
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.
That makes all the difference. LOL
