I’m like a lot of Canadians who liked Chretien when he first took power, partly due to the competition.
I liked him a lot less when, living in Montreal during the 51% referendum, he did nothing and almost divided the country in twain through his egomania and inaction.
APEC, refusing to release documents to his own ethics minister who answers only to him, local pork and public pettiness against worthier leaders… does anything stick to this moron?
He’s trying to conceal his lack of courage by climbing on a bus to symbolize that Canadians should go to New York. I think the Canadian military is chronically and shamefully underfunded given the role the government wants it to play. Canada has always been willing to send people to Cyprus, Kosovo and Somalia. This is fine if it paid its troops a reasonable wage and gave them decent support. Since it does not, it should reweigh its priorities befor committing troops to Afghanistan. And having done so, it should realize that Afghanistan is important enough to merit committing some troops as a symbol of solidarity.
But the little bully from Shawnigan has always talked a good game then done nothing except brag about what a good country we have. Given our bioterrorism, immigration and separation policies, we’ll be lucky to have it in 20 years. And they don’t want a sunset clause?
Did Bolivia send naval support like Canada did?
**
FYI, Washington told the PM to put the troops on hold. It’s not as if he is witholding them or anything. Defence Minister Eggleton met with VP Cheney in Washington yesterday, on this matter. It was on CBC Newsworld yesterday.
That’s exactly who he is listening to. What would you have him do? Send them even though he was told not to?
**
Maybe you should consider using a responsible news source, instead of a Stockwell Day rant.
I’m not a particulary large Chretien fan either, but I have to say that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan militarily is neither a huge thrill for me, nor a disappointment should they not go. And I tend to be a little skeptical of the scathing indictments of the National Post, a paper that imports British tabloid journalism standards into Canada, especially as regards the Liberal government.
There is nothing wrong with Canadian courage, it is alive and quite well. I and many people I know have done much to support our neighbors to the south, including monetary as well as sanguine donations. Joining the literal fight to satisfy feelings of righteous vengeance or serving the vaunted cause of anti-terrorist expurgation is not my cup of tea, nor do I feel personally embarrassed that Canada doesn’t send what would essentially be supernumerary troops.
My feelings of pride in my country are unaffected by it’s political leaders, and I don’t believe that any other country has leadership beyond reproach. Face it, Dubya was the laughing-stock of half the world before September Eleventh. Nor are my feelings for my country diminished by the opinions of others. I’m sorry if others may not think we’re doing all we could, but that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it. But it affects my outlook not a bit.
So be embarassed if you feel the need, but I’ll concentrate on help that might make a difference.
zoony, my feelings for my country and its leadership aren’t diminished by opinions of others; they’re diminished by all the unrealized potential Canada has. I seriously believe that Canada could be the greatest country in the world; our politicians seem to be doing their best to make sure we never see that day. Our military problems are part of this unrealized potential, in my opinion.
John Prescott, the British Deputy Prime Minister, earlier this year got hit in the head with an egg at close range and promptly punched the culprit with a splendidly-executed left jab. It did wonders for his public approval rating. While I can’t say that I condone our elected officials brawling in the streets, the protester in this case really deserved it. Well done, John.
Prescott’s left hook was the sweetest punch I had ever seen, except for Rahmans punch that knocked out Lewis in South Africa.
Canada’s military inefficiency? you should take a look at Ireland. A national army of 18,000, a navy with 9 ships (one with a fairly heavy armoury) an Air Force (ha!) of about 5 planes (of which 3 are trainer planes).
we suck. Except when it comes to Spanish fishing vessels, then we kick ass and take names.
Granted, for the poor state of our Military, we still offered 1,800 ground troops for Afghanistan, in addition to our forces in the Lebanon, Cyprus, East Timor and Kosovo.
We may not pack a punch, but we sure do get about.
Man. ToF. Sorry, but to compare the military capacity of a country like Ireland (or one of comparative landmass and population) to one like Canada (or one of comparative landmass and population) scares me. I’m assuming you at least have enough soldiers to defend your own country. and you all offered more troops than we did.
I’m frustrated. I’m looking at the folks on this board, who have the same problems that I do with our politicians, and boggling at the fact that I have a hard time finding anyone around here (locally) who gives a damn what’s going on in Ottawa. Other than the fact that ‘the rat-bastards take our money’. :sigh: What can one 21-year old do? What -could- we ALL do?
I don’t know about you guys, but I am not particularly inclined to care about Canada’s national masculinity. I know the quote above was supposed to be a bad pun, but I think it betrays a telling sensibility. So what if we don’t have a large military? Who says we need one? I would be entirely in favour of an investment in the military so that soldiers’ lives suck a lot less–finding them decent houses to live in, paying them enough so that they don’t have to hold down second jobs or go to food banks–because I think the way they’ve been treated is shameful.
However, this is not synonymous with beefing up our military, in any sense. You show me how Canada will be a better country with a larger military. I contend that Canada would become in hoc to a bloated military-industrial complex. Realist (in the sense of realpolitik) international theory only goes so far. In Canada’s case, it makes unrealistic assumptions about our economy’s capacity to handle a top-heavy military. The reason the US can handle it is they spend a hell of a lot less on social programs. One of the two is going to have to be given the short end of the stick, I think. And after eight years of Liberal cuts to education, health care, unemployment insurance, and social programs, I know which of the two I’d pick.
Moreover, I think such expansion is indicative of a misplaced desire to take unilateral, as opposed to multilateral, action. What Canada does in a military sense, it does through the UN. I think that making UN peacekeeping forces more effective, backing them up with some political spine, and allowing for true multilateralism to exist, would be steps in the right direction. Beefing up Canada’s armed services would be counterproductive.
someone_else, I agree with you to a point. Yes, our military is underfunded. Yes, it is a shame the way we treat our men and women in uniform. However, if we want to jump on the bandwagon of helping every nation that requires peacekeepers or needs protection against agression, lets make sure that we supply them with the tools to do their jobs. The idea that we should send them into action with the military equivalent of two rubber bands, a popsicle stick, a bit of used duct tape and a bobby pin (when available) is a disgrace. The tradition of inappropriate equipment for the CAF is not new and it is a condition that should be corrected once and for all. There is no place for chauvinistic nationalism or misplaced penny pinching when comes the time to supply the people that put their life on the line for the rest of us (a good example of what not to do would be the Ross rifle story).
Nobody said that we should expand our military (I wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea myself), but if we commit ourselves to a course of action, let us follow through.
someone_else, out of curiousity, I checked the DND/CF website for stats on military personnel (which is out of date by at least 3 years). Found the following cite:
So they, of course, were also subjected to cuts. This is not necessarily a bad thing; however, as detop has said, if you’re going to do a job (peacekeeping) make sure you have the tools to do it well.
I am in agreement that our social services budget should come ahead of our military budget; seems like both of them are in pretty rough shape.
Our beloved PM is here today… not right here as he doesn’t make it a habit of visiting average Joes like myself but he will be doing a bunch of stuff.
He is expected to address the troops stationed here and awaiting orders, there have been military aircraft buzzing around everywhere as our troops have been gearing up for a little Afghani holiday.
They seem ready to go and do whatever needs to be done, they don’t seem to be suffering from a lack of courage.
Our PM on the other hand is good candidate for retroactive abortion.
I have been saying for years that retroactive abortions for politician’s mothers should be legalized. Glad to see somebody else is thinking the same way. And our Prime Sinister should lead the way !
I’ve been very mildly less ashamed of the man we call our Prime Minister these past few weeks. His response to this has been typically Canadian – measured, cautious, calm, and forward-looking. I’m pleasantly surprised.
This is Canadian courage – the courage to stand alone,and do what we know is right.
meh. An Taoiseach goes drinking in my local. regularly.
Slip, I made the comparison for two reasons, 1, we have a force of 18,000. We have a population of 4 million (approx). we would have to rely on the British to scramble an RAF fighter to patrol our skies in the event of a 9/11 style terrorist attack. We are on the same ratio of shitty millitary to population ratio
We have just stood down from 35 years service in Lebanon for the UN peace keepers.
We have the Men and women that constitute an Army. we just dont have the equipment.
ToF, I think you meant to address that to me This is not to point a finger at you, but I -did- wonder what the military-civilian ratio was like between our two countries. I’m using the stats you gave for ireland, the ones I got for canada are a. the 1996 canadian census (data for 2001 isn’t out yet) and b. the DND/CF.
Ireland: 18,000 troops / population 4 million = about 1 soldier for every 222 people.
Canada: 60,000 troops / population 29 million (rounded up by 150k) = about 1 soldier for every 483 people.
Then… there’s the area to cover It’s a damn good thing we’re pretty neutral in the international forum.
double sigh. Did anyone else hear about the signing bonus the DND/CF is offering EEs? $20k?
Ah, that makes more sense Venoma But you have to remember, your country has fighter planes. We have a couple of 15 year old trainer crafts whithout as much as a pea shooter on board
Except we aren’t a neutral country. Canada is a member of NATO; we’re supposed to be one of the Allies, to use that term.
If we wanted to be neutral (which I think is an awful idea, but just suppose) then let’s be neutral. Leave NATO. Maybe even leave the UN - Switzerland isn’t in the UN for that very reason. And then we’ll have to stop relying on the US and NATO for national defence. Ireland, on the other hand, IS neutral. They have no obligations. If they want a small army, fine.
I’d like to add a few facts for consideration:
Canada has some of the highest paid soldiers in the world. Despite what you hear, we pay our soldiers pretty well, relatively speaking. They aren’t exceptionally well treated in other ways, but being a solder pays okay.
Canada spends a lot of money on the armed forces, relative to what we get for it.
The knee-jerk response “we need to spend more money on the army!” is not necessarily accurate. What we need to do is decide what our military capability is going to be and then deermine how that capability can best be purchased. The Canadian Forces’ budget over the last twenty years has had more politically motivated boondoggles and wastage than you could shake a stick at. The Forces is also still illogically organized on the model of an army that would gear up and fill formations for a conventional war in Europe, so we have two or three times the staff we really need, leading inevitably to incredible wastage and corruption.
60,000 soldiers isn’t exactly a SMALL organization, but how many combat-ready troops to we have to send to Afghanistan? A thousand? Two thousand? Even accounting for the manpower needed by Maritime Command and Air Command, having only a few thousand soldiers available out of 60,000 is just nuts. What limited combat troops we do have are mostly wasted on peacekeeping missions of highly dubious efficacy undertaken for the slimmest of foreign policy reasons. I’m sorry to be that harsh towards missions that our soldiers often take great pride in, but it seems kind of pathetic to me to be taking on PR missions and in so doing expending more than half our combat force.
What I would like to see is for someone to ask the following questions:
What combat capability do we want? Do we want to be able to deplay a division into battle, or two brigades, or two divisions, or a conventional brigade and three regiments of special forces? What capability do we want that force to have, in terms of specific combat abilities, reaction time, special forces profiles, or standing endurance capability?
What naval combat capability do we want, in terms of both coastal defense, power projection, and commitment to the maritime needs of NATO?
Given 1 and 2, what air capabilities do we need, in terms of transport and patrol capabilities, and what air-to-air and ground attack capabilities do we want?
Given 1, 2, and 3, what will it cost?
Everyone’s jumping to 4, but I haven’t seen anyone answer 1, 2 and 3 yet.
And frankly, this leads into the reason that Canada looks ridiculous on the world stage right now. We don’t have any sort of a cohesive plan for contributing to a military endeavour because we don’t have any sort of a cohesive defense plan at all.
RickJay, what you’re saying makes a lot of sense to me, and I’m going to stick my neck out and hazard a guess that our parliamentary/political system is to blame for the lack of continuity in military (and every other gov’t dept) planning. A system where the governing body changes every four years, and during that four years, have as their first (by far) priority getting re-elected in four years is bad for anything that requires any long-term planning. Which is just about everything involved in building and maintaining the caliber of country that Canada could be.
