personality conflict, doc?
Exchange Harper for a passif-type pm(a horror like mustard boy dijon) then watch the REAL shit roll out on the reasons the troops are stretched and the equipment is outdated. One name, slackjaw.
Reg, while I completely disagree with the majority of the Dawg's opinion piece, I think you're wrong to equate Dion with the military budgets of the past.
Canada has increased the per-capita investment in the military to levels unseen since WWII, most of it is to get the military back up to spec. When I joined in '89 we were around 80k strong.
The force reduction strategy of the 90's has caught up to us and we've found that the price is worth the value. 62k isn't an effective force.
Dawg is arguing for increased military spending, something I agree with. It's only right, we're a part of the G7, that means our economy is one of the top 7 in the world. The means to protect that economy are what make our dollar valuable, those means are the military.
Cheers,
lance
Dawg is arguing for increased military spending, something I agree with.
Then he managed to disguise that argument amidst his smears at Harper and his assertion that the Afghan mission is simply a result of Harper's wish to "look tough." What I saw was a claim that the mission (or an extension of the mission) is misguided (see "look tough," above) and is too taxing for the country's current level of military capability - whether we should bring the two in line by cutting the mission or increasing the national capability was, at best, unclear, although after claiming that the mission itself is a projection of Harper's leadership cojones I think the former is more likely to be the appropriate resolution in Dawg's view.
Dawg - could you clarify; is it me or Lance who is misreading, since we came away with diametrically opposed impressions of your position.
The post's author is Dave from the Galloping Beaver.
I found out by reading all the way to the end.
Ti-Guy "reading"?
I know. How eccentric of me.
Hey, isn't Dave a former Royal Marine and still active in the CF? I suppose that adds a bit of credence to his analysis, eh?
sorry about the misuse of nicknames, and being unclear.
slackjaw=Chretien
And I was trying to say that If Dion was pm then we would be continuing down the same failed road as Old Uncle Jean.:P
Heh. You were our shock and awe offensive, Dave. You snuck up on 'em. *grin*
Those are some beautiful paragraphs about Harper's true commitments. He thinks about Afghanistan only because he is forced to, by his need for validation, as you say, by "the conservative movement outside this country." Bang on.
I would laugh about the penguins, a perfect metaphor, except I am now genuinely skeert.
You know me: I don't like following any general (or PM) who doesn't know where the battlefield is or who the enemy actually are. And I've heard nothing from this group that convinces me they understand the regional war that threatens. Maybe they do understand it and just assume that they don't have to tell Canadians the truth. More likely, they're happy to understand just the wee bits that Condi passes on. God forbid that any of them should ever try to live up to the highest standards of international diplomacy that Canada once was capable of, which would mean organizing the rest of the world to talk seriously to Pakistan, without the presence of the Americans.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
