• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election

Nice ad. 

Good to see that all we are to the Liberal Party of Canada is either:

a) a bunch of barely-under-control psychopaths who should be kept as far away from "real Canadians" (ie city dwellers) as possible;
b) a bludgeon to be used in partisan politics.

I'm actually offended.  Deeply offended.
 
I am beyond POed at this.  Between this, the handgun ban, and their proposal to take away the Notwithstanding Clause (thus removing any democratic oversight over politically appointed judges) the Libranos are now a far more dangerous party than the NDP, IMHO...
 
WTFO?  All hell broke loose on Mike Duffy, CTV, after the french debate.  The Liberals launched, then pulled an ad which makes the military look rather strange - let's just say that we do not appear to be trusted.  I got the text of the ad off the CTV site, it is as follows:

"Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada."

 
Rescue Randy said:
WTFO?   All hell broke loose on Mike Duffy, CTV, after the french debate.  The Liberals launched, then pulled an ad which makes the military look rather strange - let's just say that we do not appear to be trusted.  I got the text of the ad off the CTV site, it is as follows:

"Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada."

As seen in the CTV news earlier:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_CTV_Liberal_ad_Cancelled.wmv

And from another thread:

Kirkhill said:
Liberal mouthpiece John Duffy on Mike Duffy's show just stated that that ad was not a Liberal party ad and he has no idea how it got included with the rest.  Despite the fact that it was released with the rest, has the Liberal logo, was on the Liberal website and makes up an even dozen.  Tory gremlins I guess or Chretien moles.
  and:
Scott57 said:
That's not what I heard. I had watched that earlier. It's ongoing. In fact, I just watched (CTV - 2020hrs).  Mike Duffy exploded on John Duffy on his intimidation tactics. Apparently, during a break, he had asked Mike Duffy not to bring the subject up again. After the debate, Mike Duffy asked the question again ( who came up with this idea). When John Duffy answered with his own question (words to the effect - Why do people wish to continue with this issue when we just finished this debate ...), .Mike Duffy exploded, went at him ref to Party integrity etc etc. Nice !!
 
As I said on another thread, apparently Ujhall Dosanjh (sp?) was on TV saying that the ads, including this disgusting POS, were approved by the PM himself.  This was BEFORE it was announced that this one was pulled.

:threat: :skull:

Edit: Here's another link to Mike Duffy ripping Librano hack John Duffy a new one

http://www.conservativelife.com/videos/duffy.wmv
 
Thanks Ranger.  :salute:

Notice this is not even mentioned on the CBC website as a head line: http://www.cbc.ca/news/ .

 
No worries...check this out:

Ridings...with soldiers...with Liberal MPs...

http://www.catprint.ca/blog/blog/politics
 
So besides telling eachother their disaproval of the Liberal add, has anyone bothered to tell the people responsible for the ad?!!!

I just got off the phone with the liberal candidate in my riding. Citicized them about the add and told them that they just alienated every soldier in the CF and any veteran who served in the past.

Now I'm going to call the conservative candidate and tell him to bring up the issue at tonight's local debate.

 
Rescue Randy said:
The Liberals launched, then pulled an ad which makes the military look rather strange - let's just say that we do not appear to be trusted. 
I suspect it was intended to suggest that the Conservatives would bring all of Canada back to a state like Quebec & Ottawa in the October Crissis (so more a matter of "don't trust the Conservatives), but it seems foolish regardless of the perspective they were trying to take.

Bill Graham is also taking shots at the Conservative defence platform.  A little more thought into his argument than what went into that advertisment:
Harper accused of lowballing costs
Price tag for military proposals would be three times higher, federal defence minister charges

Gordon Kent, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Tuesday, January 10, 2006

EDMONTON - Defence Minister Bill Graham criticized Conservative Leader Stephen Harper Monday for "playing politics" by repeatedly releasing promises of increased military spending during the election campaign.

Harper's plans include three armed heavy icebreakers to protect the Arctic, new ships for Canada's Pacific fleet and stationing 100 regular troops for emergency response in each of four Western cities.

But Graham insisted during an Edmonton campaign stop that Liberals have worked out what's needed by the Canadian Armed Forces with military leaders. The Liberal government vowed in its 2005 budget to boost defence spending by nearly $13 billion over five years, he told reporters at the office of Edmonton-St. Albert Liberal candidate Stanley Haroun.

Among other items, this will cover 8,000 extra personnel and new helicopters, ships and vehicles, he said.

The government is also spending $80 million on armour and other equipment for the 2,000 troops due in Kandahar, Afghanistan, by February.

"We're transforming our forces to enable them to be the most effective they have been in generations," Graham said. "I believe the Liberal plan is backed by the military themselves, who chose this plan. We don't want to make it a political football."

He accused Harper of lowballing the cost of his proposals, saying his announced price tag of $5.3 billion over five years is one-third the actual expense.

"Let's be reasonable. Let's do what the Forces need to make them effective for Canada and not play politics."

The North needs money for environmental and social programs, and it isn't necessary to pump billions of dollars into Arctic defence when the region doesn't face a military threat, Graham said.

While there are concerns about Canada's sovereignty over the North, these can be handled in other ways, such as increased surveillance, he said.

Graham is only the second cabinet minister from outside Alberta to visit Edmonton during the campaign, following Environment Minister Stephane Dion. Prime Minister Paul Martin has not made an Edmonton appearance so far.

Although recent polls have put the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals, Graham argued his party went through a similar sag in 2004.

"My recollection ... was we had a substantial challenge in the middle of the last election, not unlike this, and we came back under the leadership of Mr. Martin."
. . . but, as it seems more & more every day that the Conservative defece policy will be the one to guide us through the next few years, I wonder if they will tell us about thier plans to reinforce the Arty Regts, Engr Regts, Field Ambs, Svc Bns, and all those other elements which are essential in order to augment/support infantry battalions on operations.
 
So why are weapons in space such a bad thing? Are people worried about us hurting the enviroment up there or something? Honest question.


(moved)
 
I do have to wonder from where did the concept of having military bases in major urban areas?  Did the defence review come up with this one, some think tank or is this merely politicizing the military issue?

We know we need more money in the military.  But, considering the limited funds we constantly run up against, I would like to think we form defence policy on well-thought out strategies.  While the Liberal ad upset me, I don't think it was meant to diss the armed forces, rather to make citizens consider what it might look like - a throw back to the October crisis' state of martial law.  It was designed to create a level of fear of a police state. 

However, if the sole purpose of positioning armed forces in urban areas is for potential disaster work, and not for its strategic benefit overall, I find that equally insulting. 

I'm interested in a well-funded, strategically positioned military capable of defending our nation at home and out values abroad.  Whether we can actually afford it is a key question.  I would love to hear from a politician on any side of the spectrum, first a realistic accounting of how much it would cost to give us what we deserve and secondly how we are going to pay for it.  But that would require a consensus on what we need military-wise, and I have yet to see that.

I am at a loss on who to vote for because I don't think any party envisions an armed forces the way most on this list do.  And as I go through the history of parliamentary support for the armed forces, I see that both Liberals and Conservatives have failed to adequately fund the military.  And both parties are guilty of letting our military prowess fade.  It will be a costly endeavour to undo a couple of decade's worth of budget cuts and watering down of projects delivered by both parties.

I might be alone in this, but I am bothered by the politicization of the military as an election pawn.  I feel used, manipulated and dirty, taken from behind without even the courtesy of a reach around.

I'm going to hit the showers,

Gonzoscribe (Mike C.)
 
Any new discussion on the Liberal Attack Ad that featured soldiers in cities can be done here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38348.0/all.html
 
From the Conservative Election Platform:

Defending Canada
For decades, successive Liberal governments have undermined and under funded Canada’s
armed forces. We need to strengthen Canada’s independent capacity to defend our national
sovereignty and security. In an increasingly dangerous world this “Canada First” vision is required
to defend our vast territory and three ocean areas. Greater strength at home will also lead to
greater confidence abroad within Canada’s longstanding global role. Achieving this vision will
require large-scale investments in every region of the country to strengthen Canada’s multi-role,
combat-capable defence force.

The plan
A Conservative government will:
• Complete the transformation of military operations and defence administration.
• Recruit 13,000 additional regular forces and 10,000 additional reserve forces personnel.
• Increase spending on the Canadian Forces by $5.3 billion over the next five years, beyond the currently
projected levels of defence spending.
• Expand recruiting and training, reduce rank structure overhead, review civilian and military HQ
functions, and increase front-line personnel.
• Increase investment in base infrastructure and housing for our forces.
• Acquire equipment needed to support a multi-role, combat-capable maritime, land, and air force.
Fundamental capability requirements are national surveillance and control, counter-terrorism, air and sea
deployability, and logistics supportability.
• Increase the Canadian Forces’ capacity to protect Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and security.
• Restore the regular army presence in British Columbia.
• Treat Canada’s veterans with the respect and honour that they deserve, and ensure better responsiveness
to veterans with a Veterans’ Bill of Rights and a Veterans’ Ombudsman.
 
Cheers McG.

Next, we need to hold them to it IF they manage to make it to 24 Sussex.
 
MCG said:
From the Conservative Election Platform:
• Complete the transformation of military operations and defence administration.

I wonder if he means complete it as Hillier intended - or with any significant differences. I have emailed Steven Harper to ask this very question. If I receive a response I will post it here.

Maggie
 
MCG said:
Are they still planning a Goose Bay battalion?
Well, they've announced an answer to this: Yes.

Conservatives press attack over Liberal military ad gaffe
Harper promises provinces 'new style of federalism'

Allan Woods, CanWest News Service with files from The Canadina Press
Published: Monday, January 16, 2006

...

In Halifax on Sunday, senior Tories promised to increase Canadian Forces personnel and upgrade equipment, including the replacement of frigates and destroyers for the Atlantic fleet.

Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor and deputy leader Peter MacKay said a Conservative government would establish a 650-person "rapid reaction army battalion" in Goose Bay, N.L., and create three new territorial defence battalions with 100 regular forces troops and 400 reserve forces personnel in St. John's, N.L., Halifax and Saint John, N.B.

"It is these territorial defence battalions, intended to be the first line of response to any disaster, that the Liberals attacked in their recent ad," O'Connor said in a news release.

"With all of our troop commitments, we will increase the number of regular forces by 13,000, bringing the Canadian Forces to a total regular troop strength of about 75,000. We will also be increasing Canada's reserves by about 10,000."

...
 
What will urban troops do between disasters?
The Edmonton Journal
Letter Published: Monday, January 16, 2006


I'm a veteran and I'm upset about the Liberal campaign ad concerning troops in Canadian cities.

But I'm equally upset with the Conservative plan to establish what appear to be mini-garrisons in our major urban centres.

As I understand it, the idea is to have a small force of about 100 in each city. It is logical to assume these forces might be made up of 30 to 40 infantry, 20 to 30 armoured personnel, and other essential specialists such as engineers, signalers, and service support troops.

What will they do? They are not crimefighters or firefighters. They are trained to fight in operational theatres.

Individual training is only a small part of that. It is vital that they train with others at sub-unit (platoon and company), unit (battalion) and battle group levels if they are to be deployed to an operational theatre. Hopefully, such deployment will still be the primary role of our military under a Tory government.

Surely, the only reason for deploying troops in urban centres is to provide aid to civil powers in an emergency. Such aid is only provided on request from a provincial attorney general and this is not a frequent occurence.

So what will the urban garrison do between these emergencies?

They will be separated from their operational units, with whom they should be training, so they will have to spend even more time away from their families while they do this training. Separation from the family is already a large stress factor for our troops.

Two principles of war are concentration of force and economy of effort. I suggest that the Conservative proposal violates both of these principles.

I'm upset with the Conservatives for proposing what appears to be a poorly conceived, hare-brained scheme. I'm also upset with the Liberals for failing to offer constructive criticism of that scheme.

R.A. Stutchbury,
Westbank, B.C.
 
I'll take a crack at arguing this.

It is logical to assume these forces might be made up of 30 to 40 infantry, 20 to 30 armoured personnel, and other essential specialists such as engineers, signalers, and service support troops.
 

While the force might be made up as suggested, equally it might not be. It could just as easily be weighted towards the specialists and command appointments rather than combat arms.  Admittedly we don't know and that is frustrating but I don't think we have to assume that this is poorly thought out or that it is necessarily without the sanction of those currently in uniform.

So what will the urban garrison do between these emergencies?

I would suggest that 400 out of the 500 will do what they are currently doing.  Parade and Train, perhaps with an addtional focus to their training, perhaps with additional facilities, perhaps with additional support.  Again we don't know but asking what they would do between emergencies is akin to asking what the local Volunteer Fire Department does between fires.

As to the other 100 - the regular force members - and here: are they talking about 100% regs or some proportion of Class B and C callouts? - again it is not known.  What could they be usefully employed at?

How about training the other 400 as individuals and the 500 as a unit in basic soldiering skills and conducting VP defences, patrolling and other security taskings?  Skills like driving vehicles and conducting first line maintenance - higher levels if possible?  How about training to set up comms nets when the power goes down?  How about conducting CIMIC planning with local politicians and emergency services?  How about conducting familiarization recces in town - reviewing hazardous sites and critical services sites?  How about finding out what holes there are in local plans that need filling - operations more than the local authorities can handle but less than "end of the world" scenarios that require brigades of reg forces (that may be in Afghanistan in any event)?  Training to conduct assessments of needs and being able to have resources delivered?  How about being available to assist other communities either locally or as part of a larger concentrated response?

I don't think the issue is what will these people do.  I think the issue is what resources are going to be supplied to these organizations to allow them to train effectively and to conduct effectively whatever operations they might assigned.  And there I admit frustration - but as I said previously, it is an election campaign.  It isn't an O-group.

Cheers.

 
Back
Top