The PM's arrogance...hurries past war graves
- Thread starter John Nayduk
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Marauder, I will **** kittens if the Militia allows you onboard an aircraft with live rounds.
I remember a great "live fire ambush" I did once. A night-long patrol to the friggin‘ Range, and all within sight of the Canex. Stop at the back of the range, go non-tactical, get issued ammo, form up long 100m line, waste a bunch of Fig 11‘s, go through a declaration, then run up to the targets where some Intelligence volunteers were pretending to be wounded and did a 3km stretcher carry and some first aid.
Somehow the guy with the spinal injury ended up on the ground sheet and the guy with the broken arm on the stretcher, but oh well....
I remember a great "live fire ambush" I did once. A night-long patrol to the friggin‘ Range, and all within sight of the Canex. Stop at the back of the range, go non-tactical, get issued ammo, form up long 100m line, waste a bunch of Fig 11‘s, go through a declaration, then run up to the targets where some Intelligence volunteers were pretending to be wounded and did a 3km stretcher carry and some first aid.
Somehow the guy with the spinal injury ended up on the ground sheet and the guy with the broken arm on the stretcher, but oh well....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
(oh course, the PM already has a musical fountain built at taxpayers expense in his home riding ... besides, he‘s probably thinking there‘s no evidence the Canadians killed in the World Trade Centre attack were card-carrying Liberals, anyway ...)
March 12, 2002
‘Cold‘ PM rejects memorial to Sept. 11
Criticized in Commons: ‘There are other tragedies that occur from time to
time,‘ Chrétien says
Tim Naumetz
Southam News
OTTAWA - Jean Chretien was criticized yesterday for rejecting a monument to Canadians killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by saying the
catastrophic event, which killed more than 3,000 people, was not the only tragedy in the world.
On the six-month anniversary of the attack, the Prime Minister told the Commons that Canadians have already expressed sorrow over the victims,
including 24 Canadians killed in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
In response to a question from Canadian Alliance MP Monte Solberg, who said the government has shamefully neglected to offer any memorial to the
Canadians, Mr. Chretien said he personally met victims‘ families in New York City and that the government is not contemplating a special monument.
"There are other tragedies that occur from time to time," Mr. Chretien said.
"I do not feel it is absolutely necessary to have a monument built for that occasion."
Mr. Solberg appeared shocked by Mr. Chretien‘s response but said: "I‘m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that we just caught him by surprise a little bit. I thought his answer was a little cold, to be honest."
Robert Basnicki, of Toronto, whose brother Ken died on the 106th floor of the Trade Center‘s north tower, was incredulous.
"Why can‘t the Canadians be recognized, just like the Americans are being recognized?" said Mr. Basnicki, who added the monument could be in Canada.
He said the government should have paid tribute yesterday to the victims.
"It wasn‘t just my brother, there were others," Mr. Basnicki added.
Opposition MPs criticized the Chretien government for failing to hold a special event to mark the occasion and also because more than 2,600 Canadian troops are taking part in the war on terrorism that was launched in response to the al-Qaeda attacks.
Joe Clark, the Conservative leader, said Mr. Chretien‘s reluctance to mark the anniversary suggests the government is a reluctant ally in the war on terrorism being waged by the United States and other coalition partners.
"I don‘t think this government thinks of itself as being part of that coalition and I don‘t think that our allies think of us as being part of the
coalition," said Mr. Clark, who added Mr. Chretien‘s comment trivializes the events.
While acknowledging Sept. 11 is not the lone tragedy the world has experienced, Mr. Solberg likened it to the Pearl Harbor attack that drew the
United States into the Second World War.
"I think people will remember that date [Sept. 11] forever," Mr. Solberg said.
However, Mr. Chretien noted Canada has contributed militarily in the response to the attacks, passed two anti-terrorist bills and committed itself to spend $7.5-billion in national security and defence.
George W. Bush, the U.S. President, led ceremonies yesterday to mark the date six months ago when four passenger jets hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists
crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a country field in Pennsylvania, killing at least 3,063 people.
Mr. Chretien has come under fire before because of his response to the events of Sept. 11.
He was criticized for not going to New York to support to express support
until almost three weeks after the tragedy.
Opposition MPs noted a week before an official visit to New York, Mr. Chretien bypassed the city after a meeting with Mr. Bush in Washington and
instead flew to Toronto to speak at a Liberal fundraiser.
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister; Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese Prime Minister; Jacques Chirac, the French President; and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, all visited New York before Mr. Chretien‘s official visit.
Mr. Chretien defended his delay, saying he wanted to go immediately after the attacks but was advised state visits were being discouraged because they would affect security resources.
He said he went after finally getting approval from Rudolph Giuliani, then-mayor of New York.
The three-week gap was criticized as a lacklustre performance that failed to show support for Americans.
Stockwell Day, then-Canadian Alliance leader, said at the time he was glad Mr. Chretien was finally going to visit New York.
Mr. Chretien was also attacked because Canada was one of the countries last to declare a national day of mourning over the World Trade Center tragedy.
March 12, 2002
‘Cold‘ PM rejects memorial to Sept. 11
Criticized in Commons: ‘There are other tragedies that occur from time to
time,‘ Chrétien says
Tim Naumetz
Southam News
OTTAWA - Jean Chretien was criticized yesterday for rejecting a monument to Canadians killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by saying the
catastrophic event, which killed more than 3,000 people, was not the only tragedy in the world.
On the six-month anniversary of the attack, the Prime Minister told the Commons that Canadians have already expressed sorrow over the victims,
including 24 Canadians killed in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
In response to a question from Canadian Alliance MP Monte Solberg, who said the government has shamefully neglected to offer any memorial to the
Canadians, Mr. Chretien said he personally met victims‘ families in New York City and that the government is not contemplating a special monument.
"There are other tragedies that occur from time to time," Mr. Chretien said.
"I do not feel it is absolutely necessary to have a monument built for that occasion."
Mr. Solberg appeared shocked by Mr. Chretien‘s response but said: "I‘m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that we just caught him by surprise a little bit. I thought his answer was a little cold, to be honest."
Robert Basnicki, of Toronto, whose brother Ken died on the 106th floor of the Trade Center‘s north tower, was incredulous.
"Why can‘t the Canadians be recognized, just like the Americans are being recognized?" said Mr. Basnicki, who added the monument could be in Canada.
He said the government should have paid tribute yesterday to the victims.
"It wasn‘t just my brother, there were others," Mr. Basnicki added.
Opposition MPs criticized the Chretien government for failing to hold a special event to mark the occasion and also because more than 2,600 Canadian troops are taking part in the war on terrorism that was launched in response to the al-Qaeda attacks.
Joe Clark, the Conservative leader, said Mr. Chretien‘s reluctance to mark the anniversary suggests the government is a reluctant ally in the war on terrorism being waged by the United States and other coalition partners.
"I don‘t think this government thinks of itself as being part of that coalition and I don‘t think that our allies think of us as being part of the
coalition," said Mr. Clark, who added Mr. Chretien‘s comment trivializes the events.
While acknowledging Sept. 11 is not the lone tragedy the world has experienced, Mr. Solberg likened it to the Pearl Harbor attack that drew the
United States into the Second World War.
"I think people will remember that date [Sept. 11] forever," Mr. Solberg said.
However, Mr. Chretien noted Canada has contributed militarily in the response to the attacks, passed two anti-terrorist bills and committed itself to spend $7.5-billion in national security and defence.
George W. Bush, the U.S. President, led ceremonies yesterday to mark the date six months ago when four passenger jets hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists
crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a country field in Pennsylvania, killing at least 3,063 people.
Mr. Chretien has come under fire before because of his response to the events of Sept. 11.
He was criticized for not going to New York to support to express support
until almost three weeks after the tragedy.
Opposition MPs noted a week before an official visit to New York, Mr. Chretien bypassed the city after a meeting with Mr. Bush in Washington and
instead flew to Toronto to speak at a Liberal fundraiser.
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister; Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese Prime Minister; Jacques Chirac, the French President; and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, all visited New York before Mr. Chretien‘s official visit.
Mr. Chretien defended his delay, saying he wanted to go immediately after the attacks but was advised state visits were being discouraged because they would affect security resources.
He said he went after finally getting approval from Rudolph Giuliani, then-mayor of New York.
The three-week gap was criticized as a lacklustre performance that failed to show support for Americans.
Stockwell Day, then-Canadian Alliance leader, said at the time he was glad Mr. Chretien was finally going to visit New York.
Mr. Chretien was also attacked because Canada was one of the countries last to declare a national day of mourning over the World Trade Center tragedy.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Mar. 14, 2002. 05:57 PM
Liberals end Eggleton inquiry
Defence minister accused of lying to Commons over PoW capture
OTTAWA (CP) - Liberal MPs have cut off an inquiry into Defence Minister Art
Eggleton‘s flip-flop about Canadians taking prisoners in Afghanistan, saying
it was becoming a "witch hunt."
The opposition cried cover-up.
The Liberals used their majority on the Commons procedure and House affairs
committee today to reject opposition motions that would have recalled
Eggleton for more testimony and invited other witnesses to appear.
The committee will now work on its report. Opposition MPs said they‘ll
likely submit their own minority report.
After an hour discussing the report behind closed doors, Leon Benoit, the
Alliance defence critic, marched out, muttering: "What a charade."
Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish said Eggleton simply "goofed."
"His intent was not malicious," she said, "nor was it intentional."
The developments suggest the committee will rule that Eggleton did not
deliberately mislead the House.
The opposition argues that Eggleton‘s testimony contradicted the statements
of top military officers.
The Liberals said there were no contradictions and that the minister was
simply mistaken in his statements before the Commons.
Eggleton gave the House two different accounts of when he learned that
Canadian special forces soldiers had taken prisoners in Afghanistan and
turned them over to the Americans.
And he told the committee that he waited more than a week to reveal that
Canadian soldiers had captured suspected terrorists and turned them over to
U.S. troops because he was waiting for more details about the Canadian
involvement.
But top military officials testified Eggleton was fully briefed on the
operation and clearly understood the Canadian involvement.
While Eggleton kept the information to himself - not even telling the prime
minister - there was a public debate over the issue of what Canadian troops
would do with any prisoners. A week after the operation, Prime Minister Jean
Chretien said no prisoners had been taken.
Benoit said Eggleton should be recalled by the committee to ``explain the
direct contradictions between him and his top military people."
"If we leave these contradictions there, what are the public going to think
about the minister of defence?"
Benoit said there was a clear "coverup" in the committee proceedings.
Liberal Joe Jordan countered that the proceedings were "turning into a witch
hunt."
"I think it was very clear, the minister explained his actions," he said,
adding there‘s no proof Eggleton deliberately misled the Commons.
The minister wouldn‘t comment: "I‘m not going to discuss the committee‘s
matter, they haven‘t reported yet."
The controversy arose on Jan. 29, when Eggleton told the Commons that
Canadians had taken prisoners in Afghanistan and that he had learned of it
on Jan. 25, the previous Friday.
The next day, he said he had actually learned of the captures on Jan. 21, in
a phone briefing while he was on a government trip to Mexico. His reference
to Friday, he said, was to a news photo showing Canadian soldiers with
prisoners. He only learned of the photo on Friday, he said.
Brian Pallister, the Alliance MP who lodged the formal complaint against
Eggleton, told the committee he believed that Eggleton kept the capture
secret because he feared the issue would divide the Liberal caucus.
Some Liberal MPs were opposed to handing prisoners over to the Americans
without guarantees of fair treatment.
Liberals end Eggleton inquiry
Defence minister accused of lying to Commons over PoW capture
OTTAWA (CP) - Liberal MPs have cut off an inquiry into Defence Minister Art
Eggleton‘s flip-flop about Canadians taking prisoners in Afghanistan, saying
it was becoming a "witch hunt."
The opposition cried cover-up.
The Liberals used their majority on the Commons procedure and House affairs
committee today to reject opposition motions that would have recalled
Eggleton for more testimony and invited other witnesses to appear.
The committee will now work on its report. Opposition MPs said they‘ll
likely submit their own minority report.
After an hour discussing the report behind closed doors, Leon Benoit, the
Alliance defence critic, marched out, muttering: "What a charade."
Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish said Eggleton simply "goofed."
"His intent was not malicious," she said, "nor was it intentional."
The developments suggest the committee will rule that Eggleton did not
deliberately mislead the House.
The opposition argues that Eggleton‘s testimony contradicted the statements
of top military officers.
The Liberals said there were no contradictions and that the minister was
simply mistaken in his statements before the Commons.
Eggleton gave the House two different accounts of when he learned that
Canadian special forces soldiers had taken prisoners in Afghanistan and
turned them over to the Americans.
And he told the committee that he waited more than a week to reveal that
Canadian soldiers had captured suspected terrorists and turned them over to
U.S. troops because he was waiting for more details about the Canadian
involvement.
But top military officials testified Eggleton was fully briefed on the
operation and clearly understood the Canadian involvement.
While Eggleton kept the information to himself - not even telling the prime
minister - there was a public debate over the issue of what Canadian troops
would do with any prisoners. A week after the operation, Prime Minister Jean
Chretien said no prisoners had been taken.
Benoit said Eggleton should be recalled by the committee to ``explain the
direct contradictions between him and his top military people."
"If we leave these contradictions there, what are the public going to think
about the minister of defence?"
Benoit said there was a clear "coverup" in the committee proceedings.
Liberal Joe Jordan countered that the proceedings were "turning into a witch
hunt."
"I think it was very clear, the minister explained his actions," he said,
adding there‘s no proof Eggleton deliberately misled the Commons.
The minister wouldn‘t comment: "I‘m not going to discuss the committee‘s
matter, they haven‘t reported yet."
The controversy arose on Jan. 29, when Eggleton told the Commons that
Canadians had taken prisoners in Afghanistan and that he had learned of it
on Jan. 25, the previous Friday.
The next day, he said he had actually learned of the captures on Jan. 21, in
a phone briefing while he was on a government trip to Mexico. His reference
to Friday, he said, was to a news photo showing Canadian soldiers with
prisoners. He only learned of the photo on Friday, he said.
Brian Pallister, the Alliance MP who lodged the formal complaint against
Eggleton, told the committee he believed that Eggleton kept the capture
secret because he feared the issue would divide the Liberal caucus.
Some Liberal MPs were opposed to handing prisoners over to the Americans
without guarantees of fair treatment.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
PUBLICATION: The Whitehorse Star
DATE: 2002.03.14
BYLINE: Robinson, Walter
Helicopter fiasco: paying for Liberal vanity
In 1993, the Liberals rode to power by promising to cancel the GST, roll back NAFTA, restore integrity to public life and cancel the Conservatives‘ $5.8-billion, 43-unit, EH-101 helicopter contract.
Of course, the GST is still with us, and Mr. Chretien is now a big free-trader. And when it comes to Liberal "integrity", just think of names like Dupuy, Minna, Fry, and Gagliano. Enough said?
Sadly, the one area where a promise was kept was on the helicopter file. In fairness, Canada did not have the fiscal capacity in 1993 to buy 43 helicopters at a price tag of $5.8 billion. But there was and is no doubt about the operational need for new whirlybirds. Now, nine years later, this need is even more acute.
The original Tory contract was for 15 new EH-101s for search and rescue (replacing the Labrador fleet) and another 28 EH-101s to replace the Navy‘s aging Sea Kings. These Sea Kings - 41 in total - were delivered between 1963 and 1969, and some were already 30 years old by 1993.
Since 1963, 11 choppers and seven lives have been lost in Sea King crashes.
It now takes over 30 hours of maintenance for each hour a Sea King spends in the air. And there have been six emergency landings of Sea Kings in the last year alone.
Nonetheless, Chretien and crew cancelled the contract in 1993 at cost of $500 million to taxpayers. And it wasn‘t until 1998 that Team Cormorant (the EH by another name) was awarded a $790-million contract to replace the 15 Labradors. To date, four units have been delivered, two more are en route from Italy and all will be in hand by late 2003.
Under the original Tory deal, the choppers would have been delivered starting in 1997 with all 43 in operation by 2003. But the expected delivery date for first of the 28 units (valued at $2.9 billion) needed by our Navy is 2005 at the earliest.
In the hunt for this $2.9-billion deal are Team Cormorant, Sikorsky, Eurocopter and NH Industries. The procurement itself has been mired with the usual competition between bidders but has been made worse by the government‘s dithering.
Ottawa has insisted in splitting the procurement into two parts, one for airframes and the other for internal avionics components.
This will move delivery from 2005 back to 2007 and will cost taxpayers an extra $400 million: $180 million for project and contracting overhead and an extra $220 million in risk liabilities.
To make matters worse, the contract specifications now on the street ask for shorter en-durance times, slower cruising speeds, lighter weight loads and minimal hovering capacity during crisis periods than even the Sea King could perform in its heyday.
Apparently, King Jean C. and his truth-challenged "minister", Art Eggleton, believe that saddling our troops with a helicopter for 25 years that can‘t even match a brand-new Sea King is good public policy. Well, it‘s not: it‘s an absolute disgrace!
Mr. Eggleton is destined to match First World War Col. Sam Hughes in the "incompetence" file. It was Mr. Hughes who gave us the Ross Rifle, a pull-back bolt design that killed our own soldiers! It wasn‘t even made for military use, and had to be replaced midway through the war.
This helicopter fiasco also reminds us of the early-1990s Griffon debacle: a civilian helicopter design that couldn‘t carry soldiers and their equipment at the same time.
It costs the military an extra $60 million/year to keep the Sea Kings in operation. With more than 15 years of delay, this will add up to an extra $900 million.
Add this to $500 million in cancellation costs, $790 million for the first Cormorant contract and now at least $3.3 billion for 28 new choppers and you get a cost of at least $5.5 billion.
The Liberal government is doing its best to stall this process and its own backbenchers admit as much. Sadly, it is taxpayers and our depleted military that will pay for this vanity.
The writer is the federal director of the Canadian Tax-payers Federation in Ottawa.
++++++
Friday, March 15, 2002
PM‘s act is Dino-mite
By ANNE DAWSON, Sun Media
WASHINGTON -- It was the luck o‘ the Irish that gave Prime Minister Jean Chretien his nickname "Dino."
That‘s according to the little guy from Shawinigan.
Chretien was well prepped and ready to fire yesterday when asked about a report out of Washington that revealed White House officials have dubbed him Dino -- like the prehistoric dinosaur on The Flintstones.
"Because it was at the time of St. Patrick‘s Day and the guy was speaking in the Irish way and he meant (to say) ‘Dean O‘ the G8,‘ " Chretien quipped.
It was even on the agenda of U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci, who was here yesterday.
"We can‘t find anyone in the White House who‘s ever used that word," he insisted, as he walked away laughing.
DATE: 2002.03.14
BYLINE: Robinson, Walter
Helicopter fiasco: paying for Liberal vanity
In 1993, the Liberals rode to power by promising to cancel the GST, roll back NAFTA, restore integrity to public life and cancel the Conservatives‘ $5.8-billion, 43-unit, EH-101 helicopter contract.
Of course, the GST is still with us, and Mr. Chretien is now a big free-trader. And when it comes to Liberal "integrity", just think of names like Dupuy, Minna, Fry, and Gagliano. Enough said?
Sadly, the one area where a promise was kept was on the helicopter file. In fairness, Canada did not have the fiscal capacity in 1993 to buy 43 helicopters at a price tag of $5.8 billion. But there was and is no doubt about the operational need for new whirlybirds. Now, nine years later, this need is even more acute.
The original Tory contract was for 15 new EH-101s for search and rescue (replacing the Labrador fleet) and another 28 EH-101s to replace the Navy‘s aging Sea Kings. These Sea Kings - 41 in total - were delivered between 1963 and 1969, and some were already 30 years old by 1993.
Since 1963, 11 choppers and seven lives have been lost in Sea King crashes.
It now takes over 30 hours of maintenance for each hour a Sea King spends in the air. And there have been six emergency landings of Sea Kings in the last year alone.
Nonetheless, Chretien and crew cancelled the contract in 1993 at cost of $500 million to taxpayers. And it wasn‘t until 1998 that Team Cormorant (the EH by another name) was awarded a $790-million contract to replace the 15 Labradors. To date, four units have been delivered, two more are en route from Italy and all will be in hand by late 2003.
Under the original Tory deal, the choppers would have been delivered starting in 1997 with all 43 in operation by 2003. But the expected delivery date for first of the 28 units (valued at $2.9 billion) needed by our Navy is 2005 at the earliest.
In the hunt for this $2.9-billion deal are Team Cormorant, Sikorsky, Eurocopter and NH Industries. The procurement itself has been mired with the usual competition between bidders but has been made worse by the government‘s dithering.
Ottawa has insisted in splitting the procurement into two parts, one for airframes and the other for internal avionics components.
This will move delivery from 2005 back to 2007 and will cost taxpayers an extra $400 million: $180 million for project and contracting overhead and an extra $220 million in risk liabilities.
To make matters worse, the contract specifications now on the street ask for shorter en-durance times, slower cruising speeds, lighter weight loads and minimal hovering capacity during crisis periods than even the Sea King could perform in its heyday.
Apparently, King Jean C. and his truth-challenged "minister", Art Eggleton, believe that saddling our troops with a helicopter for 25 years that can‘t even match a brand-new Sea King is good public policy. Well, it‘s not: it‘s an absolute disgrace!
Mr. Eggleton is destined to match First World War Col. Sam Hughes in the "incompetence" file. It was Mr. Hughes who gave us the Ross Rifle, a pull-back bolt design that killed our own soldiers! It wasn‘t even made for military use, and had to be replaced midway through the war.
This helicopter fiasco also reminds us of the early-1990s Griffon debacle: a civilian helicopter design that couldn‘t carry soldiers and their equipment at the same time.
It costs the military an extra $60 million/year to keep the Sea Kings in operation. With more than 15 years of delay, this will add up to an extra $900 million.
Add this to $500 million in cancellation costs, $790 million for the first Cormorant contract and now at least $3.3 billion for 28 new choppers and you get a cost of at least $5.5 billion.
The Liberal government is doing its best to stall this process and its own backbenchers admit as much. Sadly, it is taxpayers and our depleted military that will pay for this vanity.
The writer is the federal director of the Canadian Tax-payers Federation in Ottawa.
++++++
Friday, March 15, 2002
PM‘s act is Dino-mite
By ANNE DAWSON, Sun Media
WASHINGTON -- It was the luck o‘ the Irish that gave Prime Minister Jean Chretien his nickname "Dino."
That‘s according to the little guy from Shawinigan.
Chretien was well prepped and ready to fire yesterday when asked about a report out of Washington that revealed White House officials have dubbed him Dino -- like the prehistoric dinosaur on The Flintstones.
"Because it was at the time of St. Patrick‘s Day and the guy was speaking in the Irish way and he meant (to say) ‘Dean O‘ the G8,‘ " Chretien quipped.
It was even on the agenda of U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci, who was here yesterday.
"We can‘t find anyone in the White House who‘s ever used that word," he insisted, as he walked away laughing.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
PUBLICATION WINNIPEG FREE PRESS
DATE : MON MAR.18,2002
Chretien dithers while troops fight
Fred Cleverley
When President George Bush divided the world
between "those who are with us and those who are with the terrorists," most Canadians knew
where they stood and where they thought their government stood. During the six months that have passed since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, most Canadians still
stand with their friends and neighbours to the south. Where the Canadian government stands is anyone‘s guess.
Last Monday, on the six-month anniversary of the attacks, Prime Minister Jean Chretien equated those attacks with "other tragedies that occur from
time to time." He said the government had no plans to erect a memorial to the two dozen Canadians who died, but would "look into" such a memorial if others suggested it. "But I don‘t feel that it‘s absolutely needed."
He expanded his remarks by pointing out that Canada had 4,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. This, obviously in the prime minister‘s mind, gives ample proof of Canada‘s whole-hearted support of the war against terrorism. Perhaps anxious to
appear what he is not, Mr. Chretien had inflated the figure by more than 1,000.
Canadian ground troops number about 850 in Afghanistan, and we have 2,000 sailors in this
fight.
Compared to his other gaffes on the issue, Mr. Chretien‘s brush-off of a memorial and his lack of accurate knowledge of our real involvement are
small potatoes. Nevertheless, he is proving that Mr. Bush was wrong when he said there were only those with him and those against him. There‘s a third category, one in which Mr. Chretien fits perfectly, even though most Canadians do not.
This category includes those who offer vocal support for the war, who even take steps toward physical support for the fight against terrorism, but who hold tightly to the ground of moral superiority which allows them to disregard the fact that the war is one being fought between good and evil
and who try to allocate, equally, the blame for causing it.
In dealing with this war Mr. Chretien appears to be following another prime minister, Mackenzie King. Mr. King, attempting to deal with a divided Canada,
preached: "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."
This at a time when Canadians were dying by the hundreds in Italy, in desperate need of reinforcements, while there were 100,000 fully trained troops walking around the country who could not be sent overseas to fight this just war because of Mr. King‘s underlying objection to the political consequences of wholeheartedly supporting it.
That Mr. Chretien apparently feels the same way about today‘s war was evident when he passed up an opportunity to visit New York‘s ground zero to
attend a Liberal fund-raiser and when he decided to deliver the war news not to Parliament but to other Liberal gatherings.
His government‘s trouble over the prisoners taken by Canada‘s JTF-2 commandos is another pitiful example of why we seem to be neither in the war
or out of it. Instead of finding ways to describe their success or to celebrate their victories, we immediately got into a scrap over the
impossible proposition that we made a mistake by turning the captured terrorists over to our allies, who have the only prison there to look after
them.
Our troops, who are more fully committed to the war than our government appears to be, are probably thankful that the decisions being taken for
their safety are being made by people like U.S. General Tommy Franks and U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, rather than by Canada‘s defence
minister, Art Eggleton, who either has to be told something three times before he understands it, or is terribly afraid of telling Mr. Chretien anything he does not want to hear.
Mr. Chretien‘s next decision will be whether to support George Bush when the U.S. expands the war to other terrorist supporters such as Iraq‘s Saddam Hussein. Will he agree with Great Britain‘s Tony Blair that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is real and must be contained? Or will he join the wobbly-kneed Arab and European partners of the present coalition?
Mr. Chretien will waffle, he will delay, he will sabotage our relations with our neighbour until he is convinced that expansion of the war is without
political liability.
Most Canadians, who do not want to see any repetition of the events of Sept. 11, know what should be done and are willing to do it. Mr. Chretien‘s hesitation does not serve Canada‘s majority. It only panders to the political classes of this country.
[email protected]
DATE : MON MAR.18,2002
Chretien dithers while troops fight
Fred Cleverley
When President George Bush divided the world
between "those who are with us and those who are with the terrorists," most Canadians knew
where they stood and where they thought their government stood. During the six months that have passed since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, most Canadians still
stand with their friends and neighbours to the south. Where the Canadian government stands is anyone‘s guess.
Last Monday, on the six-month anniversary of the attacks, Prime Minister Jean Chretien equated those attacks with "other tragedies that occur from
time to time." He said the government had no plans to erect a memorial to the two dozen Canadians who died, but would "look into" such a memorial if others suggested it. "But I don‘t feel that it‘s absolutely needed."
He expanded his remarks by pointing out that Canada had 4,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. This, obviously in the prime minister‘s mind, gives ample proof of Canada‘s whole-hearted support of the war against terrorism. Perhaps anxious to
appear what he is not, Mr. Chretien had inflated the figure by more than 1,000.
Canadian ground troops number about 850 in Afghanistan, and we have 2,000 sailors in this
fight.
Compared to his other gaffes on the issue, Mr. Chretien‘s brush-off of a memorial and his lack of accurate knowledge of our real involvement are
small potatoes. Nevertheless, he is proving that Mr. Bush was wrong when he said there were only those with him and those against him. There‘s a third category, one in which Mr. Chretien fits perfectly, even though most Canadians do not.
This category includes those who offer vocal support for the war, who even take steps toward physical support for the fight against terrorism, but who hold tightly to the ground of moral superiority which allows them to disregard the fact that the war is one being fought between good and evil
and who try to allocate, equally, the blame for causing it.
In dealing with this war Mr. Chretien appears to be following another prime minister, Mackenzie King. Mr. King, attempting to deal with a divided Canada,
preached: "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription."
This at a time when Canadians were dying by the hundreds in Italy, in desperate need of reinforcements, while there were 100,000 fully trained troops walking around the country who could not be sent overseas to fight this just war because of Mr. King‘s underlying objection to the political consequences of wholeheartedly supporting it.
That Mr. Chretien apparently feels the same way about today‘s war was evident when he passed up an opportunity to visit New York‘s ground zero to
attend a Liberal fund-raiser and when he decided to deliver the war news not to Parliament but to other Liberal gatherings.
His government‘s trouble over the prisoners taken by Canada‘s JTF-2 commandos is another pitiful example of why we seem to be neither in the war
or out of it. Instead of finding ways to describe their success or to celebrate their victories, we immediately got into a scrap over the
impossible proposition that we made a mistake by turning the captured terrorists over to our allies, who have the only prison there to look after
them.
Our troops, who are more fully committed to the war than our government appears to be, are probably thankful that the decisions being taken for
their safety are being made by people like U.S. General Tommy Franks and U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, rather than by Canada‘s defence
minister, Art Eggleton, who either has to be told something three times before he understands it, or is terribly afraid of telling Mr. Chretien anything he does not want to hear.
Mr. Chretien‘s next decision will be whether to support George Bush when the U.S. expands the war to other terrorist supporters such as Iraq‘s Saddam Hussein. Will he agree with Great Britain‘s Tony Blair that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is real and must be contained? Or will he join the wobbly-kneed Arab and European partners of the present coalition?
Mr. Chretien will waffle, he will delay, he will sabotage our relations with our neighbour until he is convinced that expansion of the war is without
political liability.
Most Canadians, who do not want to see any repetition of the events of Sept. 11, know what should be done and are willing to do it. Mr. Chretien‘s hesitation does not serve Canada‘s majority. It only panders to the political classes of this country.
[email protected]
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
PUBLICATION: The Edmonton Sun
DATE: 2002.03.18
BYLINE: Neil Waugh
THE FORGOTTEN 24
It‘s as obvious as the nose on your face: Jean Chretien didn‘t get it, still doesn‘t get it and we suspect never will get it when it comes to Sept. 11.
And from the ongoing antics of the prime minister, the Liberal response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington will continue to be a source of embarrassment and anger for Canadians.
There‘s one Ottawa Liberal who is in tune with the situation. Deputy Prime Minister John Manley almost single-handedly kept the North American economic and trade union together despite the indifference and complacency displayed by Chretien.
On the eve of the six-month anniversary of the murderous bombings last week, Manley was assuring Canadians that the relationship with our American cousins is "as warm and positive as you can hope it to be."
Manley‘s comforting words had a shelf life of less than 24 hours, when Chretien rejected the notion of erecting a monument to the innocent victims
of the attacks. "There are other tragedies that occur from time to time," Chretien sniffed.
Let‘s get this straight: Canadian soldiers, the bulk of them drawn from the Edmonton Garrison, are risking their lives in Afghanistan hunting down those responsible for the attacks and their backers, while a good portion of Canada‘s naval strength is on patrol in the Indian Ocean playing its part in the war against terrorism.
Why are they there? Presumably much of it is to avenge the deaths of Sept. 11‘s victims and hunt down those who would perpetrate and support this kind of extreme evil.
Foremost in the mind of the government surely must be the 24 Canadian citizens who perished in the attacks - either in the buildings or in the hijacked aircraft.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair clearly understood why his country became involved. The death of British citizens reportedly played a major part in Blair‘s unequivocal backing of the United States. And the memory of those Americans who perished in the attacks or on the heroic rescue missions has been a key impetus for the military actions.
Yet in Canada the Chretien government has shown such scant interest in our citizens who died we suspect that many Canadians aren‘t even aware of it.
Meanwhile the unrelenting hunt continues for a fitting memorial for Pierre Trudeau - a Liberal politician who was despised in a large part of the country over the economic and social damage he caused.
Our hearts go out to the forgotten 24 and their families.
They deserve better from our callous and indifferent federal government.
DATE: 2002.03.18
BYLINE: Neil Waugh
THE FORGOTTEN 24
It‘s as obvious as the nose on your face: Jean Chretien didn‘t get it, still doesn‘t get it and we suspect never will get it when it comes to Sept. 11.
And from the ongoing antics of the prime minister, the Liberal response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington will continue to be a source of embarrassment and anger for Canadians.
There‘s one Ottawa Liberal who is in tune with the situation. Deputy Prime Minister John Manley almost single-handedly kept the North American economic and trade union together despite the indifference and complacency displayed by Chretien.
On the eve of the six-month anniversary of the murderous bombings last week, Manley was assuring Canadians that the relationship with our American cousins is "as warm and positive as you can hope it to be."
Manley‘s comforting words had a shelf life of less than 24 hours, when Chretien rejected the notion of erecting a monument to the innocent victims
of the attacks. "There are other tragedies that occur from time to time," Chretien sniffed.
Let‘s get this straight: Canadian soldiers, the bulk of them drawn from the Edmonton Garrison, are risking their lives in Afghanistan hunting down those responsible for the attacks and their backers, while a good portion of Canada‘s naval strength is on patrol in the Indian Ocean playing its part in the war against terrorism.
Why are they there? Presumably much of it is to avenge the deaths of Sept. 11‘s victims and hunt down those who would perpetrate and support this kind of extreme evil.
Foremost in the mind of the government surely must be the 24 Canadian citizens who perished in the attacks - either in the buildings or in the hijacked aircraft.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair clearly understood why his country became involved. The death of British citizens reportedly played a major part in Blair‘s unequivocal backing of the United States. And the memory of those Americans who perished in the attacks or on the heroic rescue missions has been a key impetus for the military actions.
Yet in Canada the Chretien government has shown such scant interest in our citizens who died we suspect that many Canadians aren‘t even aware of it.
Meanwhile the unrelenting hunt continues for a fitting memorial for Pierre Trudeau - a Liberal politician who was despised in a large part of the country over the economic and social damage he caused.
Our hearts go out to the forgotten 24 and their families.
They deserve better from our callous and indifferent federal government.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
PM praises troops‘ work, rejects hike in spending
By SHAWN McCARTHY
From Tuesday‘s Globe and Mail
19 Mar 02
Ottawa — While praising the performance of Canadian troops, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien rejected calls for massive increases in spending on the Canadian Forces that critics say are necessary to meet its mandate.
In an interview with CBC Television Monday, the Prime Minister said his government has increased military spending substantially since balancing the budget in 1997, but suggested it won‘t meet unending demands.
Specifically, Mr. Chrétien appeared to rule out the government purchasing a heavy-duty transport plane that could ferry troops to hot spots around the world, suggesting he is content to rent planes when they are needed.
"It‘s cheaper. It‘s not my money. Having planes that are waiting in case there‘s a war, that not a good investment. We can rent a plane," he said.
He added that the increased Canadian military commitment as part of the global war on terrorism has "not fundamentally" changed his views on how much funding the Canadian Forces require.
A recent Senate committee report argued the government should increase its military budget by $4-billion a year, up to $16.5-billion, in order to provide the equipment and personnel needed to meet all the Forces‘ diverse commitments.
Auditor-General Sheila Fraser said in a report late last year that the Forces need a major infusion of cash to upgrade their equipment.
Defence Minister Art Eggleton insisted Monday that there has been no decision on the the proposed acquisition of a long-range transport aircraft, though he was not sounding optimistic.
"Whatever we do, we want to do something that is cost efficient," he said. "We don‘t want to buy planes that will be spending lots of time not being used."
Mr. Chrétien said military planners have an insatiable appetite for new and modern equipment.
"In all the armies around the world, they want new equipment, more modern, [and] there are always companies that produce something a bit better."
Canadian Alliance acting leader John Reynolds said the Liberals have overstated how much they have plowed back into the Forces after several years of cutbacks.
"They didn‘t get a lot of money. He‘s wrong. He‘s misleading Canadians," Mr. Reynolds said.
Mr. Chrétien praised the work of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, where they recently ended a mopping-up operation in the mountains.
"I think I was very impressed by the quality of the work of our troops there, and everybody is very satisfied by their performance and their ability to do the job quickly and effectively."
The Prime Minister said the battle against terrorism will last a long time. He said Canadians will remain in Afghanistan until at least July, but may stay longer if the Taliban continue to resist.
But he refused to commit Canadians troops to new war zones once the situation in Afghanistan has been stabilized.
"In terms of troops involved, if there is a need, if there were to be the situation like that developing elsewhere, we‘ll look at the situation at that time, like we did in getting involved in Afghanistan," he said. "At this moment, there is no proposition, no plans to move involving Canadians."
While the interview — like much of Mr. Chrétien‘s attention — was focused on international arena, the Prime Minister did express satisfaction with the country‘s emergence from last fall‘s economic downturn, which was less severe in Canada than in the United States.
"We used to say when the Americans had a cold, Canada had pneumonia. And this year, they had the pneumonia and we had the cold," he said.
He also deflected questions about his own retirement plans, saying he is enjoying his job but has not decided whether to run for a fourth term.
"You know, you never know. Some day, I will say that it‘s time to go, but it‘s not today and I‘m still enjoying it. But it‘s a tough job."
With a report from Daniel Leblanc
By SHAWN McCARTHY
From Tuesday‘s Globe and Mail
19 Mar 02
Ottawa — While praising the performance of Canadian troops, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien rejected calls for massive increases in spending on the Canadian Forces that critics say are necessary to meet its mandate.
In an interview with CBC Television Monday, the Prime Minister said his government has increased military spending substantially since balancing the budget in 1997, but suggested it won‘t meet unending demands.
Specifically, Mr. Chrétien appeared to rule out the government purchasing a heavy-duty transport plane that could ferry troops to hot spots around the world, suggesting he is content to rent planes when they are needed.
"It‘s cheaper. It‘s not my money. Having planes that are waiting in case there‘s a war, that not a good investment. We can rent a plane," he said.
He added that the increased Canadian military commitment as part of the global war on terrorism has "not fundamentally" changed his views on how much funding the Canadian Forces require.
A recent Senate committee report argued the government should increase its military budget by $4-billion a year, up to $16.5-billion, in order to provide the equipment and personnel needed to meet all the Forces‘ diverse commitments.
Auditor-General Sheila Fraser said in a report late last year that the Forces need a major infusion of cash to upgrade their equipment.
Defence Minister Art Eggleton insisted Monday that there has been no decision on the the proposed acquisition of a long-range transport aircraft, though he was not sounding optimistic.
"Whatever we do, we want to do something that is cost efficient," he said. "We don‘t want to buy planes that will be spending lots of time not being used."
Mr. Chrétien said military planners have an insatiable appetite for new and modern equipment.
"In all the armies around the world, they want new equipment, more modern, [and] there are always companies that produce something a bit better."
Canadian Alliance acting leader John Reynolds said the Liberals have overstated how much they have plowed back into the Forces after several years of cutbacks.
"They didn‘t get a lot of money. He‘s wrong. He‘s misleading Canadians," Mr. Reynolds said.
Mr. Chrétien praised the work of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, where they recently ended a mopping-up operation in the mountains.
"I think I was very impressed by the quality of the work of our troops there, and everybody is very satisfied by their performance and their ability to do the job quickly and effectively."
The Prime Minister said the battle against terrorism will last a long time. He said Canadians will remain in Afghanistan until at least July, but may stay longer if the Taliban continue to resist.
But he refused to commit Canadians troops to new war zones once the situation in Afghanistan has been stabilized.
"In terms of troops involved, if there is a need, if there were to be the situation like that developing elsewhere, we‘ll look at the situation at that time, like we did in getting involved in Afghanistan," he said. "At this moment, there is no proposition, no plans to move involving Canadians."
While the interview — like much of Mr. Chrétien‘s attention — was focused on international arena, the Prime Minister did express satisfaction with the country‘s emergence from last fall‘s economic downturn, which was less severe in Canada than in the United States.
"We used to say when the Americans had a cold, Canada had pneumonia. And this year, they had the pneumonia and we had the cold," he said.
He also deflected questions about his own retirement plans, saying he is enjoying his job but has not decided whether to run for a fourth term.
"You know, you never know. Some day, I will say that it‘s time to go, but it‘s not today and I‘m still enjoying it. But it‘s a tough job."
With a report from Daniel Leblanc
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
On the way to school this morning, on the radio news it was mentioned that the PM said that he would consider sending Canadian troops into Iraq with the US, if the US provided proof of terrorist in Bagdhad (sp?)...
He can‘t seriously be considering deploying more troops without increasing the DND budget, even though it wouldn‘t be right away...
Maybe it‘s just a bunch of PR.. oh well, the majority of the population will forget all of the liberal‘s blunders and re-elect ‘em in the next election..
He can‘t seriously be considering deploying more troops without increasing the DND budget, even though it wouldn‘t be right away...
Maybe it‘s just a bunch of PR.. oh well, the majority of the population will forget all of the liberal‘s blunders and re-elect ‘em in the next election..
D
Disturbance
Guest
Korus "You say you love your country, yet you are ready to desert it in a few years when the liberals get back into power? You leave because things are rough? Is that what the army is teaching these days? I sure hope not.. "
Tell that to all the X-Airborne who left because "it got rough" and I am sure they will give nice piece of foot in *** . There is no limit to how long a soldier serves his country before he is considered to have done his time. i dont think you are in a position to make a comment on why someone wishes to leave the forces. For everyone its different, but more often than not its because of lack of faith in the leadership.
I have talked to many people in our forces who have said that if they had the chance to go serve somewhere else they would. So why not serve yours and one where they will treat you a lil better than boyscouts. I am with Enfield. Its hard when your anger for your leader is almost greater than it is for your enemy.
We all joined because we love our country, thats not the issue.
Tell that to all the X-Airborne who left because "it got rough" and I am sure they will give nice piece of foot in *** . There is no limit to how long a soldier serves his country before he is considered to have done his time. i dont think you are in a position to make a comment on why someone wishes to leave the forces. For everyone its different, but more often than not its because of lack of faith in the leadership.
I have talked to many people in our forces who have said that if they had the chance to go serve somewhere else they would. So why not serve yours and one where they will treat you a lil better than boyscouts. I am with Enfield. Its hard when your anger for your leader is almost greater than it is for your enemy.
We all joined because we love our country, thats not the issue.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
Wednesday, March 20, 2002
Canadian soldiers seen as poor cousins
Canadian Press
Bagram, Afghanistan Two Canadian soldiers have been recommended for bravery medals after putting themselves in danger at the back of a pitching helicopter to save a dangling young corporal from falling off.
"Their actions, taken at great hazard to their own personal safety, helped to prevent a very serious tragedy," the recommendation said.
Their bravery is made all the more poignant by a similar incident in which another U.S. helicopter was shot down and a U.S. special forces soldier died at the hands of the enemy when he was thrown out during "precisely the same manoeuvre," it said.
. . .
Despite the recent praises Canadian troops in combat in eastern Afghanistan have received they are aware they are fighting in an American-led operation.
Most of the Canadians appear genuinely glad to be there. But with limited airlift capability, no air support and little ground transportation of their own, they are considered the poor second cousins in this war-time coalition.
Moving 500 Canadian troops 450 kilometres to Bagram outside Kabul from Kandahar took three days because the American air force couldn‘t spare the planes to carry them. The last of the troops arrived late last Tuesday night, just hours before they were to be sent into combat on Terghul Ghar, or the Whale‘s Back.
Most didn‘t get any sleep. Some never left the tarmac before turning around and climbing aboard U.S. Chinook helicopters to fly another 55 minutes to the battle zone.
Canada‘s non-commissioned officers have become resourceful improvisers, rounding up vehicles, equipment, even socks to meet their needs.
"Canadian infantrymen, for as long as I can remember, have been the masters of scrounge," said Sergeant-Major Brad Gates of Edmonton. "We‘ve had to make do with so little for so long that we‘ve mastered adapting and overcoming."
"We can take a sack of **** and turn it into a machine-gun."
Last week‘s ground tactical plan was Canadian-conceived, but approvals and timings were changed almost hourly, largely by American commanders.
Resupply was late. Some units, told to bring only 24 hours‘ rations to the battle zone, were sharing food and water as they waited for fresh supplies. The evacuation of soldiers needing medical attention, guaranteed at a maximum of 90 minutes, was well over two hours. One Canadian soldier who broke his ankle on the mountain waited more than half a day before he was airlifted out.
Even so, it‘s evident that Canada‘s regular troops are among the best-trained and conditioned in the coalition. The battalion commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran said Canadians should be proud of their soldiers.
"From the perspective of the soldiers, a fight‘s a fight, and they‘d go to a fight in a wheelbarrow if the opportunity presented itself."
Canadian soldiers seen as poor cousins
Canadian Press
Bagram, Afghanistan Two Canadian soldiers have been recommended for bravery medals after putting themselves in danger at the back of a pitching helicopter to save a dangling young corporal from falling off.
"Their actions, taken at great hazard to their own personal safety, helped to prevent a very serious tragedy," the recommendation said.
Their bravery is made all the more poignant by a similar incident in which another U.S. helicopter was shot down and a U.S. special forces soldier died at the hands of the enemy when he was thrown out during "precisely the same manoeuvre," it said.
. . .
Despite the recent praises Canadian troops in combat in eastern Afghanistan have received they are aware they are fighting in an American-led operation.
Most of the Canadians appear genuinely glad to be there. But with limited airlift capability, no air support and little ground transportation of their own, they are considered the poor second cousins in this war-time coalition.
Moving 500 Canadian troops 450 kilometres to Bagram outside Kabul from Kandahar took three days because the American air force couldn‘t spare the planes to carry them. The last of the troops arrived late last Tuesday night, just hours before they were to be sent into combat on Terghul Ghar, or the Whale‘s Back.
Most didn‘t get any sleep. Some never left the tarmac before turning around and climbing aboard U.S. Chinook helicopters to fly another 55 minutes to the battle zone.
Canada‘s non-commissioned officers have become resourceful improvisers, rounding up vehicles, equipment, even socks to meet their needs.
"Canadian infantrymen, for as long as I can remember, have been the masters of scrounge," said Sergeant-Major Brad Gates of Edmonton. "We‘ve had to make do with so little for so long that we‘ve mastered adapting and overcoming."
"We can take a sack of **** and turn it into a machine-gun."
Last week‘s ground tactical plan was Canadian-conceived, but approvals and timings were changed almost hourly, largely by American commanders.
Resupply was late. Some units, told to bring only 24 hours‘ rations to the battle zone, were sharing food and water as they waited for fresh supplies. The evacuation of soldiers needing medical attention, guaranteed at a maximum of 90 minutes, was well over two hours. One Canadian soldier who broke his ankle on the mountain waited more than half a day before he was airlifted out.
Even so, it‘s evident that Canada‘s regular troops are among the best-trained and conditioned in the coalition. The battalion commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran said Canadians should be proud of their soldiers.
"From the perspective of the soldiers, a fight‘s a fight, and they‘d go to a fight in a wheelbarrow if the opportunity presented itself."
- Reaction score
- 8,964
- Points
- 1,160
No problem, just tell the Yanks we need to rent more planes, helos, food water, ammo, medic, etc, etc, etc. It the approved plan of the PM. But lets try to just borrow it first.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CANFORGEN:
a) As per new rental policy, all Canadian soldiers will carry a credit card, mark 1, and a cellphone, to meet their battlefield needs if "on-site acquisition" does not meet needs.
b) Personnel are asked to contact Wal-mart or Fedex directly to streamline the supply process. NDHQ has nothing left to give, please do not bother calling us. If need is dire, refer to annex A: "Begging for American Help"
c) Personnel will be allowed to continue renting until such a time as their expenses interfere with Liberal golf trips and Shawinigan development projects.
Sincerely,
Your Civilian-Military Defense Team
a) As per new rental policy, all Canadian soldiers will carry a credit card, mark 1, and a cellphone, to meet their battlefield needs if "on-site acquisition" does not meet needs.
b) Personnel are asked to contact Wal-mart or Fedex directly to streamline the supply process. NDHQ has nothing left to give, please do not bother calling us. If need is dire, refer to annex A: "Begging for American Help"
c) Personnel will be allowed to continue renting until such a time as their expenses interfere with Liberal golf trips and Shawinigan development projects.
Sincerely,
Your Civilian-Military Defense Team
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
I would laugh. But soldiers lives are at stake, and this makes the Liberals rent-an-army idea really dangerous.
A G8 nation that cannot afford to ferry it‘s own troops to the battlefield without calling on help.
Imagine if this was the case in WWII.
I can just picture it... 1940 and Canada wants to send over troops and aircrew to the UK. But alas, they don‘t have the ships. They call up the Yanks, who are partying away without a care because it‘s before Pearl Harbour and they aren‘t involved yet, and plus, they just got over the depression 1930s so they‘ve got some serious boozing to do.
W.L.M.King: "Frank, it‘s Billy up in Canada, how goes it?"
F.D.Roosevelt: "Just fine Billy, havin‘ a party as usual, how‘s things over there in Canada?"
King: "Not too good Frank. We‘ve gotta get some of our boys over to Britain, the mother country, to fight the Jerries. Can you spare a ship or two?"
Roosevelt: "Gee, that‘s really Britain‘s problem, ain‘t it Billy? I mean, we‘re just happy as pigs in s*** here in the good ol‘ U.S. of A... Hitler doesn‘t want a piece of us..."
King: "I‘m beggin‘ ya, please, Frankie. I‘ve got Tories and monarchists and loyalists and WWI vets out of my ying-yang bucking to go over and give the Hun a dose..."
Roosevelt: "We‘ll, let‘s see, I think we got a spare ship or two out in Hawaii... fancy going the long way to Britain?"
Of course, it never would have happened, because even a devout liberal like William Lyon MacKenzie King knew the value of a good navy (even though he tried to strip it bare during the war years). We had the third largest in the world, if I recall correctly.
C‘est la vie...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yep.. something like the 4th largest airforce, we had the 3rd largest landing force on D-Day (big enough to get our own beach, But I‘m sure I‘m just repeating already well-known facts on this board), we gained the most ground on the first day of D-Day, etc, etc, etc... A proud military history.
To bad the succesive governments after the war have picked away at the military as if it where a scab...
But I‘m still damned proud to be joining...
:bullet:
:bullet:
To bad the succesive governments after the war have picked away at the military as if it where a scab...
But I‘m still damned proud to be joining...
:bullet:
:bullet:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well, it‘s official lads. Were now an American Protectorate. Our troops are US Army Auxilaries, and now our borders are guarded by US Customs. Maybe we should start a letter campaign so that we at least get statehood.
Americans buoy security at Canadian ports
Last Updated Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:11:42
HALIFAX - A small number of U.S. customs agents will be on duty at three major Canadian ports starting Monday, as part of tightened security in the fight against terrorism.
Washington is worried that weapons of mass destruction could be smuggled into North America on cargo ships.
The fear has also surfaced in Ottawa. Earlier this month, a Senate report recommended security be increased at all ports.
Starting Monday, two U.S. Customs agents will join their Canadian counterparts at each of three ports: Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver. The Americans are expected to share more intelligence reports, and help pinpoint which cargo to inspect.
"What they‘ll do is look at a manifest, target a vessel or target a container, and we‘ll actually do the work that‘s involved," said Jim Thompson of Canada Customs.
Every year, at least half a million containers move through Canadian ports and into the United States. Canadian authorities inspect only a fraction of them.
Both countries have pledged to tighten security without strangling trade. Some shipping companies have said they like the increased co-operation because it means that cargo has to be checked only once when it arrives in North America.
"Then it becomes one-stop shopping," said Jim Stoneman of the Shipping Association of Canada.
Critics have argued that Canada is giving up some of its sovereignty by letting U.S. agents work on this side of the border. But those who support the joint operation have said combating terrorists is more important than squabbling over turf.
If the ports project goes well, Ottawa and Washington have both said they will consider expanding the program to other points of entry.
Written by CBC News Online staff
Americans buoy security at Canadian ports
Last Updated Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:11:42
HALIFAX - A small number of U.S. customs agents will be on duty at three major Canadian ports starting Monday, as part of tightened security in the fight against terrorism.
Washington is worried that weapons of mass destruction could be smuggled into North America on cargo ships.
The fear has also surfaced in Ottawa. Earlier this month, a Senate report recommended security be increased at all ports.
Starting Monday, two U.S. Customs agents will join their Canadian counterparts at each of three ports: Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver. The Americans are expected to share more intelligence reports, and help pinpoint which cargo to inspect.
"What they‘ll do is look at a manifest, target a vessel or target a container, and we‘ll actually do the work that‘s involved," said Jim Thompson of Canada Customs.
Every year, at least half a million containers move through Canadian ports and into the United States. Canadian authorities inspect only a fraction of them.
Both countries have pledged to tighten security without strangling trade. Some shipping companies have said they like the increased co-operation because it means that cargo has to be checked only once when it arrives in North America.
"Then it becomes one-stop shopping," said Jim Stoneman of the Shipping Association of Canada.
Critics have argued that Canada is giving up some of its sovereignty by letting U.S. agents work on this side of the border. But those who support the joint operation have said combating terrorists is more important than squabbling over turf.
If the ports project goes well, Ottawa and Washington have both said they will consider expanding the program to other points of entry.
Written by CBC News Online staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
That is sad. I don‘t even know what to say to that... Not so much the act in itself, but what it‘s foreshadowing.
<sarcasm>On the bright side, at least the 51st State should get good American military funding... </sarcasm>
I‘d be interested to hear portcullisguy has to say on this, though... (with respect to customs)
:bullet: :bullet:
<sarcasm>On the bright side, at least the 51st State should get good American military funding... </sarcasm>
I‘d be interested to hear portcullisguy has to say on this, though... (with respect to customs)
:bullet:
:bullet:
N
nigeljp
Guest
They say history repeats itself...
At the start of WW2 Canada‘s Navy was pathetically small, and at one point BEFORE the U.S. joined the war they offered to take over North American coastal defence and convoy protection, since US merchant ships were at risk. This is what propelled McKenzie King to boost Naval spending during the war. He recognized that this would be an overt loss of sovereignity to our big brothers to the south. It was only at the end when everyone else had been sunk that Canada was left with the third largest, it had expanded by more than twenty times from 1939. That Canada has ever had defensive sovereignity is entirely debatable, it wasn‘t Canadians manning the DEW line in the north, and who does NORAD phone first when a bogey appears on the radar screens up north, Dubya or Jean?
At the start of WW2 Canada‘s Navy was pathetically small, and at one point BEFORE the U.S. joined the war they offered to take over North American coastal defence and convoy protection, since US merchant ships were at risk. This is what propelled McKenzie King to boost Naval spending during the war. He recognized that this would be an overt loss of sovereignity to our big brothers to the south. It was only at the end when everyone else had been sunk that Canada was left with the third largest, it had expanded by more than twenty times from 1939. That Canada has ever had defensive sovereignity is entirely debatable, it wasn‘t Canadians manning the DEW line in the north, and who does NORAD phone first when a bogey appears on the radar screens up north, Dubya or Jean?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
As a Canadian customs officer, I can say this neither surprises me, nor threatens my country‘s sovereignty, in my opinion.
U.S. customs officers have been working in Canada for a number of years at major airports, including Toronto., performing "pre-screening". Although they do not carry weapons and have no legal authority, they CAN prevent unwanted persons from boarding their flight if they do not wish to comply with search or document requests. The program is and has been very successful in keeping undesireables and contraband out of the U.S. and far from removing U.S. customs from Canadian airports, we should be looking at having our own customs present in THEIR airports.
Seaports, it can be argued, are no different than airports. A certain volume of sea cargo entering Canada is ultimately destined for the United States. Performing customs clearance here in Canada can allow the goods to enter the U.S. market more rapidly. Likewise, Canada Customs preclearing cargo in U.S. ports can allow goods being transshipped to Canada to clear more quickly.
Sea shipments originating in Canada will benefit not only from export checks by us, but from import checks by them.
Provided they only check containers destined for the U.S., there is no reason why they can‘t operate here. It is misleading to think they will be checking shipments on first arrival into Canada, because the CCRA is very adamant about privacy concerns and non-interference from foreign agencies.
As a customs officer, for example, I couldn‘t even communicate the fact that a shipment had arrived to a U.S. customs officer without violating the Customs Act, section 107, prohibition on disclosure of information to a third party. This has to be done at the "intelligence and targeting" level, and then only with a proper MOU.
While I find the fact that our army must be ferried on rented conveyances to execute a war in a far off land, I can honestly find no problem with allowing foreign customs access to our ports to conduct their own checks of shipments going to their countries.
We did it for years in Germany. If the CCRA had the money to spend (and they do, they just don‘t want to admit it), we would already be doing pre-clearance in U.S. airports, and I would be writing this email from Dallas-Ft.Worth, Miami or Atlanta, three large hubs of air traffic to Canada, all of which are very nice and warm year round!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Liberals still puzzling over Sea King replacements
Times Colonist (Victoria)
Tuesday, March 26, 2002
From Ottawa comes more proof that the federal Liberals have become so rotten and complacent that Canadians will eventually have to boot them out, whether the Canadian Alliance and Tories get their act together or not.
Once again the issue is a replacement for the aging and sometimes dangerous Sea King helicopters.
One of the Liberals‘ big clubs against the Progressive Conservatives in the 1993 election was a $4-billion contract to supply EH-101 helicopters to replace the Sea Kings. The EH-101s were "Cadillacs," the Liberals charged, and a waste of taxpayers‘ money. After their victory, the Liberals then wasted an additional $400 million of taxpayers‘ money getting out of the contract.
Fast forward almost a decade, and Canada still doesn‘t have a Sea King replacement. And last week, one of the companies bidding on the helicopter contract pulled out. Eurocopter said its helicopter, the Cougar, was too small to meet Canada‘s bid specifications. It appears another, slightly larger chopper, the NH-90, also won‘t do the job.
Which would leave only two bidders meeting the specifications: the American Sikorsky S-2, and the EH-101 (albeit a slightly cheaper, but less well-equipped version than the ones the Tories bought).
But the Liberals don‘t want to buy the EH-101 because, well, that would prove the Tories had been right all along, and the Liberals wrong.
Sooner or later, Canadians will decide they‘re fed up with a government that is willing to risk lives in the Armed Forces just to avoid admitting it made a mistake.
Times Colonist (Victoria)
Tuesday, March 26, 2002
From Ottawa comes more proof that the federal Liberals have become so rotten and complacent that Canadians will eventually have to boot them out, whether the Canadian Alliance and Tories get their act together or not.
Once again the issue is a replacement for the aging and sometimes dangerous Sea King helicopters.
One of the Liberals‘ big clubs against the Progressive Conservatives in the 1993 election was a $4-billion contract to supply EH-101 helicopters to replace the Sea Kings. The EH-101s were "Cadillacs," the Liberals charged, and a waste of taxpayers‘ money. After their victory, the Liberals then wasted an additional $400 million of taxpayers‘ money getting out of the contract.
Fast forward almost a decade, and Canada still doesn‘t have a Sea King replacement. And last week, one of the companies bidding on the helicopter contract pulled out. Eurocopter said its helicopter, the Cougar, was too small to meet Canada‘s bid specifications. It appears another, slightly larger chopper, the NH-90, also won‘t do the job.
Which would leave only two bidders meeting the specifications: the American Sikorsky S-2, and the EH-101 (albeit a slightly cheaper, but less well-equipped version than the ones the Tories bought).
But the Liberals don‘t want to buy the EH-101 because, well, that would prove the Tories had been right all along, and the Liberals wrong.
Sooner or later, Canadians will decide they‘re fed up with a government that is willing to risk lives in the Armed Forces just to avoid admitting it made a mistake.
