- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/albers102904.htm
Military Can't Stand On Guard For Free
by Paul Albers
October 29, 2004
It is often said that there are no atheists in a foxhole. People tend to reconsider their objections to religion when bullets start whizzing by only inches from their head.
It isn't much of a stretch then to say that there are no Liberals in a Canadian submarine. When you are nearly at 200-300 metres below the ocean's surface in a rusty sub with useless torpedo tubes, unreliable computers, leaky hatches, questionable electrical wiring, and little emergency equipment, the idea of drastically increasing military spending doesn't sound so bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It did sound bad to Liberals only a few months ago. During the election campaign they claimed that Stephen Harper's modest plan to slow the decline of the armed forces would create a $50 billion dollar black hole in the federal budget. They returned to power by stoking fears that the Conservative plan would force them to cut healthcare and other vital services, or run massive deficits.
At the time, the Liberals had projected a $1.9 billion budget surplus for this year. The Conservatives planned on there being a $4 billion surplus for 2003-2004, even though they expected it to be much higher. Now that the election is over and the facts have come back that the surplus will be in excess of $9 billion.
Harper was right, but if you think the Liberals are surprised, then you must accept the absurd idea that the Official Opposition had better information on Canada's financial state than the government itself. It is far more reasonable to believe that the government kept Canadians in the dark for their own purposes. By concealing the true size of the surplus the Liberals picked up the $7 billion difference with no strings attached and little public input on what should be done with it.
This illustrates a pattern of behaviour by the Liberals that has brought the armed forces close to the breaking point. The Mulroney years were famous for grandiose fiscal promises that were broken over and over, so the Liberal's tactic of keeping expectations low is frequently seen as a positive. What it really accomplishes, however is that it provides the Liberals with the means to manipulate the public.
With a secret surplus, the government can dress itself in the robes of prudence while throwing untold billions away on gun registries, sponsorship handouts, fat expense accounts (with no receipts) and every other form of waste possible. On the other side of the coin, when there is a call for tax cuts, they can point at the artificially small size of the surplus and say it can't be done, likewise with anything else they don't care for, like increasing military spending.
The inquiry into the Chicoutimi fire may put the blame on the insulation on the wires, or on some other faulty part aboard the submarine, but none of that absolves the government of its liability. Ottawa committed to an expensive lease-to-own deal with less caution than someone purchasing a used car.
Attempting to shift the blame to the military officials who recommended the subs doesn't wash since the armed forces are limited to making recommendations that fit within the financial and operational boundaries defined by the government. In this case, the choice was between old, problematic subs, or no subs at all.
Our armed forces have grown accustomed to working with old, worn, and faulty equipment. The planes used by the Snowbirds are older than the pilots in most cases, likewise for Sea Kings and their pilots. The Iltis jeeps are poorly suited for patrolling hostile territory, C-130 Hercules transport planes can barely get off the ground, and the new Cormorant helicopters are grounded for cracking tail rotors. From the military's point of view, 20-year-old subs are a step up.
It is unacceptable to watch the military suffer extreme neglect at the hands of the very government they have sworn to defend. It is all the worse when that same government has accumulated so much of the nation's wealth that there are still large surpluses even after billions are wasted or lost. And it is worse still to cheat the soldiers out of the help they need by misrepresenting the true state of the nation's finances. It is the government's job to ensure that the military has what it needs, and that tax monies are wisely spent. The Liberals have failed in both cases.
I have no idea how Lt. Chris Saunders voted in the past, or even if he voted at all, but his death is equally the result of, and a warning against further neglect of the military.
Military Can't Stand On Guard For Free
by Paul Albers
October 29, 2004
It is often said that there are no atheists in a foxhole. People tend to reconsider their objections to religion when bullets start whizzing by only inches from their head.
It isn't much of a stretch then to say that there are no Liberals in a Canadian submarine. When you are nearly at 200-300 metres below the ocean's surface in a rusty sub with useless torpedo tubes, unreliable computers, leaky hatches, questionable electrical wiring, and little emergency equipment, the idea of drastically increasing military spending doesn't sound so bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It did sound bad to Liberals only a few months ago. During the election campaign they claimed that Stephen Harper's modest plan to slow the decline of the armed forces would create a $50 billion dollar black hole in the federal budget. They returned to power by stoking fears that the Conservative plan would force them to cut healthcare and other vital services, or run massive deficits.
At the time, the Liberals had projected a $1.9 billion budget surplus for this year. The Conservatives planned on there being a $4 billion surplus for 2003-2004, even though they expected it to be much higher. Now that the election is over and the facts have come back that the surplus will be in excess of $9 billion.
Harper was right, but if you think the Liberals are surprised, then you must accept the absurd idea that the Official Opposition had better information on Canada's financial state than the government itself. It is far more reasonable to believe that the government kept Canadians in the dark for their own purposes. By concealing the true size of the surplus the Liberals picked up the $7 billion difference with no strings attached and little public input on what should be done with it.
This illustrates a pattern of behaviour by the Liberals that has brought the armed forces close to the breaking point. The Mulroney years were famous for grandiose fiscal promises that were broken over and over, so the Liberal's tactic of keeping expectations low is frequently seen as a positive. What it really accomplishes, however is that it provides the Liberals with the means to manipulate the public.
With a secret surplus, the government can dress itself in the robes of prudence while throwing untold billions away on gun registries, sponsorship handouts, fat expense accounts (with no receipts) and every other form of waste possible. On the other side of the coin, when there is a call for tax cuts, they can point at the artificially small size of the surplus and say it can't be done, likewise with anything else they don't care for, like increasing military spending.
The inquiry into the Chicoutimi fire may put the blame on the insulation on the wires, or on some other faulty part aboard the submarine, but none of that absolves the government of its liability. Ottawa committed to an expensive lease-to-own deal with less caution than someone purchasing a used car.
Attempting to shift the blame to the military officials who recommended the subs doesn't wash since the armed forces are limited to making recommendations that fit within the financial and operational boundaries defined by the government. In this case, the choice was between old, problematic subs, or no subs at all.
Our armed forces have grown accustomed to working with old, worn, and faulty equipment. The planes used by the Snowbirds are older than the pilots in most cases, likewise for Sea Kings and their pilots. The Iltis jeeps are poorly suited for patrolling hostile territory, C-130 Hercules transport planes can barely get off the ground, and the new Cormorant helicopters are grounded for cracking tail rotors. From the military's point of view, 20-year-old subs are a step up.
It is unacceptable to watch the military suffer extreme neglect at the hands of the very government they have sworn to defend. It is all the worse when that same government has accumulated so much of the nation's wealth that there are still large surpluses even after billions are wasted or lost. And it is worse still to cheat the soldiers out of the help they need by misrepresenting the true state of the nation's finances. It is the government's job to ensure that the military has what it needs, and that tax monies are wisely spent. The Liberals have failed in both cases.
I have no idea how Lt. Chris Saunders voted in the past, or even if he voted at all, but his death is equally the result of, and a warning against further neglect of the military.
