- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 1,210
Please post all replies to the JTF2 Violates Spirit of Landmine Treaty Editorial here.
Responses to JTF2 Violates Spirit of Landmine Treaty Editorial
- Thread starter Mike Bobbitt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 1,210
Truth be known I didn't write a word of it... It's the labour of several of our esteemed colleagues here so I can't take any credit.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
How do we forward to our different MP's?
- Reaction score
- 4,336
- Points
- 1,160
Old Ranger said:
Go here: http://www.conservative.ca/EN/our_mps/ - the Conservative Party web site - The Team - Our MPs (the editorial is aimed, squarely at them so there's not much point in telling Liberals, BQ'ers etc) you will find the Conservative who represents your riding or, perhaps, one near you.
You can go direct to Stephen Harper at: calgary@stephenharpermp.com or Harper.S@parl.gc.ca or to Mr. O'Connor at: OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca
You might just tell them, politely, that you agree with the army.ca editorial and hope he/they will take note of it, too.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Ranger: you can e-mail your MP at his/her work address. Here's the link:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/SenatorsMembers_house.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&Sect=hoccur
It struck me, after doing some thinking, that the defining moment for my "relationship" with Conservative defence policy came when O'Connor launched on the idea that the CF might procure a number of much needed equipment items without engaging in the long, drawn-out competative bidding process. Of course, this was based entirely on media reporting, rather than on any hard facts, but the critic took it upon himself to launch anyway. He then went on to question the leadership's ability to determine what was actually required on operations. He seems to think that the CF can't determine what it wants without years of study and pontificating, despite the fact that our General Officers possess much more operational experience than they did in his time.
An effective opposition would praise when praise is due and offer constructive, valid criticism when warranted. The Conservatives aren't doing either at the moment.
My 2 cents.
Teddy
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/SenatorsMembers_house.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&Sect=hoccur
It struck me, after doing some thinking, that the defining moment for my "relationship" with Conservative defence policy came when O'Connor launched on the idea that the CF might procure a number of much needed equipment items without engaging in the long, drawn-out competative bidding process. Of course, this was based entirely on media reporting, rather than on any hard facts, but the critic took it upon himself to launch anyway. He then went on to question the leadership's ability to determine what was actually required on operations. He seems to think that the CF can't determine what it wants without years of study and pontificating, despite the fact that our General Officers possess much more operational experience than they did in his time.
An effective opposition would praise when praise is due and offer constructive, valid criticism when warranted. The Conservatives aren't doing either at the moment.
My 2 cents.
Teddy
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,016
- Points
- 1,140
Lately, Mr. O'Connor has been making some very poorly thought out comments about the military. With all the brain-dead defence policies of the Liberals, I think Mr. O'Connor can find other things to criticise the Liberals for.
Although I think Mr. O'Connor is out to lunch, I will continue to support the Conservative Party.
Although I think Mr. O'Connor is out to lunch, I will continue to support the Conservative Party.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
You realize he would become the Minister of National defence if they were elected....
This guy is WAY out to lunch. The worst thing about that is he thinks he is an expert. Sheeet even Svend robnson would do a better job as MND because he would rely on outside expert opinion not his own... well you would think anyway.
This guy is WAY out to lunch. The worst thing about that is he thinks he is an expert. Sheeet even Svend robnson would do a better job as MND because he would rely on outside expert opinion not his own... well you would think anyway.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
UberCree said:
Actually if the Cons would have got in I think there would be a different head defense person for them. Laurie Hawn, who was Lieutenant-Colonel at Cold Lake before retiring in the mid 90's narrowly lost in Edmonton, and there were whispers that he would have the defense role if the Cons. got in.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I sent a note about this to my MP as well. And, I will definitely be voting conservative... even though they seem to have a dud for a defence critic right now.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
How do you argue against what was said. It was well said (or written in this case). I say get elected and become MND we could use someone who is willing to speak up and say what needs to be said to critics of the Forces. When we deserve sheet, give us sheet but when we deserve an adaboy, give us one.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Excellent editorial. Love it... Just remember that the MPs and not bonded to their word when they are in chamber. They can say whatever they want and get away with it.
Great work Mike.
Great work Mike.
- Reaction score
- 4,336
- Points
- 1,160
Sadly, it appears that, unlike Carolyn Parrish, Mr. O'Connor and/or the Conservatives haven't the where-with-all (integrity, maybe?) to respond. I know the editorial was brought to the attention of Harper and O'Connor; I did it myself, so did others. I, with Mike's permission, offered space and time on army.ca to rebut, but ... too bad, maybe they cannot respond to the truth.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A few points ref what Mr Oconnor said - didn't said - shredded when he tried to said it. These are just me reading the tea leaves so as you know or don't my record of predicting the future - read on.
1. It goes both ways for the seemingly ill informed and the seemingly informed. Our well informed ex generals have been no more successful in getting inside the mind of the voter. What have they done for us lately should be our watchword. Trips and books? Yes. Its more likely that NATO pressure and the blindingly obvious risks of old aircraft and helos have finally persuaded the gov that infinity can almost be reached when it comes to eqpt but then aircrews start going splat near a TV camera crew. Aircrew Splat bad for government PR. So we got a shopping list thats being worked up now.
2. The big money is in still in HEALTH CARE not PUBLIC SECURITY/DND - forinstance - today's press has a story on border guards whizzing people through the checkpoints vs more detailed searching. Some union vs management involved but key is its costly so security looks good until it breaks. An example? Look at gun incidents in Toronto. Wanna gun? I bet its easy to get one and more cops don't make fewer guns hidden in shiny track suits. Track what PM Martin says when he says anything and he talks HEALTH.
3. Whatever we may think - the policy of DND will reflect government of the day - that is typically short term thinking and compromise minded (at least up to the time of Gen Hillier). To paraphrase Groucho Marx - that's my defence policy and if you don't like that one I have others.
4. Long term - the Liberals are actually executing a Conservative Policy which started with Diefenbaker backing us out of close relations with big weapons. This happened when PM Pearson came to power in the early 1960s, a few years later the big brigade and airwing gets slimmed down in Lahr - then steady state until 1989 - then slimmed down.
5. The trend is DOWN over the long term.
6. Who ever is in power is unlikely to do more but will disappoint the more conservative voter who thinks defence and security is a reasonable government investment.
1. It goes both ways for the seemingly ill informed and the seemingly informed. Our well informed ex generals have been no more successful in getting inside the mind of the voter. What have they done for us lately should be our watchword. Trips and books? Yes. Its more likely that NATO pressure and the blindingly obvious risks of old aircraft and helos have finally persuaded the gov that infinity can almost be reached when it comes to eqpt but then aircrews start going splat near a TV camera crew. Aircrew Splat bad for government PR. So we got a shopping list thats being worked up now.
2. The big money is in still in HEALTH CARE not PUBLIC SECURITY/DND - forinstance - today's press has a story on border guards whizzing people through the checkpoints vs more detailed searching. Some union vs management involved but key is its costly so security looks good until it breaks. An example? Look at gun incidents in Toronto. Wanna gun? I bet its easy to get one and more cops don't make fewer guns hidden in shiny track suits. Track what PM Martin says when he says anything and he talks HEALTH.
3. Whatever we may think - the policy of DND will reflect government of the day - that is typically short term thinking and compromise minded (at least up to the time of Gen Hillier). To paraphrase Groucho Marx - that's my defence policy and if you don't like that one I have others.
4. Long term - the Liberals are actually executing a Conservative Policy which started with Diefenbaker backing us out of close relations with big weapons. This happened when PM Pearson came to power in the early 1960s, a few years later the big brigade and airwing gets slimmed down in Lahr - then steady state until 1989 - then slimmed down.
5. The trend is DOWN over the long term.
6. Who ever is in power is unlikely to do more but will disappoint the more conservative voter who thinks defence and security is a reasonable government investment.
- Reaction score
- 4,336
- Points
- 1,160
I drew the army.ca editorial to the attention of Stephen Harper, explaining that I endorse it, despite being card carrying Conservative Party of Canada member and a fairly regular contributor, too.
This week I got a couple of pleas from the CPC for even more money â “ and, of course, it's tempting to send more because not doing so might help Paul Martin and his band of rascals to stay in power and I still have a few hundred discretionary dollars available for donations. Then I got this, by e-mail:
That's fine with me: Harper has confidence in O'Connor; I do not â “ I think either or both of O'Connor's military knowledge and/or political judgment are faulty; if Harper has confidence in O'Connor then, naturally I think, my confidence in Harper is shaken.
Oh well, it all gives me a headache so I guess The Regimental museum gets more this year, even though it provides a smaller tax break.
Edited to correct punctuation
This week I got a couple of pleas from the CPC for even more money â “ and, of course, it's tempting to send more because not doing so might help Paul Martin and his band of rascals to stay in power and I still have a few hundred discretionary dollars available for donations. Then I got this, by e-mail:
That's fine with me: Harper has confidence in O'Connor; I do not â “ I think either or both of O'Connor's military knowledge and/or political judgment are faulty; if Harper has confidence in O'Connor then, naturally I think, my confidence in Harper is shaken.
Oh well, it all gives me a headache so I guess The Regimental museum gets more this year, even though it provides a smaller tax break.
Edited to correct punctuation
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
That was nice, I figure you would receive the same response if you said in your initial letter that you were a ten year old doing a project for school instead of a grown adult with valid concerns. He may have full confidence in O'Connor, but so did the makers of the Titanic. Keep sailing this course and they may both end up at the same place in History.
I do however understand how a small paragraph written by a lacky can ease your concerns, my full confidence has been restored. I certainly see the connections between UXO and violating the landmine treaty, my heart cries for the training areas that we have been mining for all these years
I do however understand how a small paragraph written by a lacky can ease your concerns, my full confidence has been restored. I certainly see the connections between UXO and violating the landmine treaty, my heart cries for the training areas that we have been mining for all these years
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Even though Gord O`Connor is Defence critic - there is no precedent (in my narrow mind! 
)that he might become MND if they toss the current scoundrels out..
)that he might become MND if they toss the current scoundrels out..It's time for a new editorial.
How about one berating the Liberals for their blatant theft of tax dollars, and when caught, their offer to repay pennies on the dollar?
Or perhaps criticize how about during the last election, the Liberals deliberately misrepresented the Conservative defence platform by showing pictures of an aircraft carrier during a national ad campaign - all the while stating that Canada had more pressing priorities than Defense.
Or perhaps call on the Liberals to explain their commitment for a 5000 man 'peacekeeping' brigade (whatever the heck that is) which was promised and will be delivered sometime after I die from old age.
Or maybe discuss Martins embarrassing 'flip-flop' on missile defence.
Before passing sweeping generalizations what many serving and retired military personell will not - cannot - do, perhaps the editorial writers could take the time to interview the defense critic. I'm sure that getting an interview would be quite easy, and would allay most of your concerns.
How about one berating the Liberals for their blatant theft of tax dollars, and when caught, their offer to repay pennies on the dollar?
Or perhaps criticize how about during the last election, the Liberals deliberately misrepresented the Conservative defence platform by showing pictures of an aircraft carrier during a national ad campaign - all the while stating that Canada had more pressing priorities than Defense.
Or perhaps call on the Liberals to explain their commitment for a 5000 man 'peacekeeping' brigade (whatever the heck that is) which was promised and will be delivered sometime after I die from old age.
Or maybe discuss Martins embarrassing 'flip-flop' on missile defence.
Before passing sweeping generalizations what many serving and retired military personell will not - cannot - do, perhaps the editorial writers could take the time to interview the defense critic. I'm sure that getting an interview would be quite easy, and would allay most of your concerns.
Similar threads
