paul martin?

[Michael OLeary]

I have to allow that it would be better left up to the generals to come up with a complete defence plan for this nation.  But I hope you are not trying to insinuate that 80 fighter aircraft and an army smaller than the New York City Police Department can actually defend this great nation to the degree that it deserves . . .

Against what threat? Based on what intelligence?

 

[Michael OLeary]

I find it rather odd that you want the Prime Minister of our country arrested for treason, when as a soldier your comments look alot like they could be interpreted as treason, im pretty sure i saw somewhere in either the QR&O's, or the CFAO's or similar documents stating the fact that your not publicly allowed to state your opinion about the government...correct me if im wrong.

See reply #16

 

[mo-litia]

Interesting, the survey conducted by the Canada West Foundation, dated May 2004, which surveyed the opinions of 3200 WESTERN Canadians, had a different result for their major concerns. In fact, page 3 of the report doesn't list Defence in the top thirteen high priority topics at all.

http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/...87256ea2004c2276/$file/Western Directions.pdf

The wonderful thing about surveys is that you can usually find one so support any viewpoint.  Come out to rural Alberta and ask a sample group of people what they think of the state of Canada's military is and see what type of responses you get.

As to the 3200 Western Canadians who did not rate defense high on their list of priorities, that is a shame.  But are you trying to assert that just because people don't place national security at the top of their priority list in a survey, we should forfit all interests in actually defending this bation and just sit back and be happy with the current situation?

 

[leopard11]

See reply #16

seen, must have missed that post, thanks for the re-direct

 

[aesop081]

Mo-litia....are you gonna answer my question this century......i'm not the only  one waiting you know !!!

 

[mo-litia]

trea ·son  (trzn) n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.

I find it rather odd that you want the Prime Minister of our country arrested for treason, when as a soldier your comments look alot like they could be interpreted as treason, im pretty sure i saw somewhere in either the QR&O's, or the CFAO's or similar documents stating the fact that your not publicly allowed to state your opinion about the government...correct me if im wrong.

Take a long hard look at everything I have written. I have brought forth questions, but never proposed any treasonable activities. Read from the top of the post.

 

[aesop081]

Take a long hard look at everything I have written. I have brought forth questions, but never proposed any treasonable activities. Read from the top of the post.

You have brought up some points to which you have no solution...........either answer our questions or be on your way (IMHO)

 

[Scott]

Having travelled the Northwestern parts of rural Alberta quite extensively I must say that I haven't heard an overwhelming amount of concern for our CF. Sure they all wish we could have more money for the forces but also agree that there are many other programs/organizations that need funding as well.

$0.02

 

[mo-litia]

Against what threat? Based on what intelligence?

I wish I could share your optimism, but history tells me that I can't.

Aseop - I have already stated that a complete military plan is beyond my area of expertise, as well as the topic of the thread.  I was merely trying to stimulate some debate about the accountability of our elected officials to maintain our military in an adequate manner - which they have not done for a long time - not to get bogged down in the technicalities of what constitutes an adequate military.

I can however, tell you what an inadequate military is composed of: dedicated and motivated troops frustrated with poor funding, aging equipment and government neglect.  

 

[leopard11]

trying our "honourable" PM for treason are?

those in Ottawa for this gross negligence of their duties?   They were elected to look out for the interests of Canadians and they have failed on their most basic duty

Mr Martin, you and your government are a farce, and are not worthy to occupy Canada's highest offices.   I am ashamed..

by the time you bastards are though another four years of giving the army another beasting.

Up yours, Paul Martin.

treasonous activities, no?
treasonous thaughts, in  my opinion yes?
these comments dont exactly paint a pretty picture for the government, and once again in my opinion, doesent show much loyalty to the government.

theres a difference between trying to institute a change in the military, and bashing the government and the members of the government who make the decisions.

 

[Scott]

.  I was merely trying to stimulate some debate about the accountability of our elected officials to maintain our military in an adequate manner.

You wanted debate so don't be so surprised when people disagree with you as well as demand you back up your claims. Foolishness.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The wonderful thing about surveys is that you can usually find one so support any viewpoint.  Come out to rural Alberta and ask a sample group of people what they think of the state of Canada's military is and see what type of responses you get.

As to the 3200 Western Canadians who did not rate defense high on their list of priorities, that is a shame.  But are you trying to assert that just because people don't place national security at the top of their priority list in a survey, we should forfit all interests in actually defending this bation and just sit back and be happy with the current situation?

So we will simply discount opinions and polls that don't agree with your opinions? That doesn't lead to much of a reasoned debate, which is what I thought you were seeking.

 

[aesop081]

And i beleived that an aswer to my question would further the debate........i think i understand what your idea of an inadequte military is but i'm sure that i have no idea what would be adequte for you because you have not answered that yet.  I understand your level of expertise but even i could give you an educated force composition as to what would IMHO be adequate for Canada......

 

[mo-litia]

treasonous activities, no?
treasonous thaughts, in  my opinion yes?
these comments dont exactly paint a pretty picture for the government, and once again in my opinion, doesent show much loyalty to the government.

Treasonous activities - NO.

Treasonous thoughts - If demanding that our gov't be held accountable for our national defence is something that you wish to call treason, so be it. I prefer to call it patriotism. As to loyalty to the government, they have mine - they have to - but they do not have my respect, and nor will they until they rectify the CF's many serious problems.

 

[aesop081]

I give up...getting an answer from you is like getting an answer from my 9 year old kid.....

 

[mo-litia]

You wanted debate so don't be so surprised when people disagree with you as well as demand you back up your claims. Foolishness.

I have made no claim as to what the technical state of readiness for the military should be. Again, I am merely stating that I feel that our elected officials should be held accountable for the condition of the CF.

Do you disagree?

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Loyalty or respect for the serving government is not mandated. However in public we haven't the right as members of the military to discuss policy. I do not respect or like the serving government, nor do I consider myself loyal to it. As a voter, I am entitled to that private opinion, but as a soldier I am bound to serve at the pleasure and policies of the legally elected government of Canada, regardless of my own political leanings.

TM

 

[leopard11]

i edited my above post before while you responded,
i added that  "theres a difference between trying to institute a change in the military, and bashing the government and the members of the government who make the decisions."

if you want a change so be it, im sure youre not the only one that wants a change. However i believe there is a better manner to go about professing your thaught then the comments i quoted from your original post

 

[Scott]

 I was merely trying to stimulate some debate about the accountability of our elected officials to maintain our military in an adequate manner

Here's your quote to read through again. As I said, you stated you wanted debate, debate means that people are going to disagree with you. They want substantiation for your arguments and are calling on you to qualify your remarks, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Anyone else think this has run it's useful course?