12-10-2004, 07:29 PM #1
Blatant Attack on Canada, by the far right (VIDEO)
What do Canadians and Americans think about these comments.
12-10-2004, 07:35 PM #2
Screw em. They are as bad as the French. Great points by Tucker and Ann! They are lucky to live on the same continent as us!
12-10-2004, 07:46 PM #3
Anti-Americanism spoonfed to Canadian grade school kids
by Judi McLeod
June 7, 2004
It’s not just overreaction or Yankee imagination. Anti-Americanism is not only alive and well, it’s spoon fed in Canada.
And it stems from a taxpayer paid source: the classroom.
The Three `Rs, Canada style, have been teaching school children as young as grade school an image of Americans as dishonourable, churlish and even bullying. This less than admirable image emerges in a study, presented this week to the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, hosted by the University of Manitoba.
Amy von Heyking is a professor of education at the University of Alberta. A specialist in the history of curricula and teaching materials, von Heyking relied on actual Canadian classroom textbooks--75 of them--used in Canadian history, geography, civics and social studies courses in elementary and secondary schools.
Ironic that the release of the study coincides with the 60th Anniversary of D-Day.
The Canadian grade school set get their anti-Americanism during the school day.
Down through the decades, in Canadian textbooks American society has been portrayed as revolutionary and lawless. America’s contribution to World War 1 is dismissed, textbook form, as coming late, when the tide had already turned.
Bad Housing as the American way is documented in a chapter of its own because of the supposed role it plays in the development of crime.
America’s children are portrayed as being brought up in "filthy tenements, driven out upon the streets to play in `gangs’," according to a 1934 textbook that was prevalent in Canadian classrooms of the day.
In contrast, Canadians are depicted as orderly, harmonious and gentlemanly.
States the study author: "After the Second World War, the United States emerged as a champion of democracy around the world. This allowed Canada to trumpet its status as middle-power broker to negotiate and compromise in a way that the United States couldn’t."
This explains where little Paulie (Martin), little Johnny (Chretien) and the plethora of anti-American Canadian journalists got their base for Yankee bashing. They, too are among the masses, which were educated in Canadian classrooms.
Chretien and Martin, the last two Liberal Canadian prime ministers have been avid boosters of the United Nations. Both men count UN Secretary General Kofi Annan special advisor, Maurice Strong as mentor and friend.
Not only did Canada refuse to join the U.S. and allies in the Iraq war; its government has been openly critical of the U.S. and its allies in Iraq.
The Liberals’ proposal for a "Peace and Nation-Building Initiative" that would not employ fighting troops, but rather "troops tasked to build institutions in fractured countries, has raised the dander of experienced Canadian peacekeepers.
Running for re-election in the Canadian June 28 federal election are Carolyn Parrish, a Liberal MP who stated publicly "I hate those American bastards" and MP Colleen Beaumier, whose visit and sympathies for Iraq earned her the nickname "Baghdad Beaumier".
Meanwhile, while anti-Americanism flourishes in America’s next door neighbour, the U.S. is Canada’s number one trading partner and because of Canada’s marginalized Armed Forces, its chief protector.
Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award
12-10-2004, 07:47 PM #4
Canadian government cements anti-Americanism
by Arthur Weinreb
April 14, 2003
The opposition Canadian Alliance had prepared a motion to table in the House of Commons, that not only affirmed Canada’s support for the coalition, but also apologized to the United States for the anti-American rhetoric that emanated from some Liberal MPs. To head off this motion, the government introduced their own on April 8, which easily passed in the Liberal majority held House.
The motion contained several affirmations, not the least of which was that the House reaffirms "the importance of self restraint on the part of all Members of the House in their comments on the war in Iraq while our American friends are in battle".
To do a quick review, the Prime Minister’s former communications director, Francois Ducros said "What a moron" in reference to President George W. Bush, at an international gathering. When Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish was overheard by a boom microphone saying "**** Americans, I hate those bastards," she later went on a comedy show, giggled like a schoolgirl, played up to the anti-Americanism in the audience, and said that she can’t guarantee that she won’t do it again. Finally, the Cabinet got into the act when Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal called George W. Bush a "failed statesman."
To somehow state that all Members of the House should refrain from comments on the war is an insult to the opposition, especially the anti-war, anti-American New Democratic Party, and Bloq Quebecois. The pacifist NDP, and its predecessor parties have never found a cause that was worth fighting for. And the Bloq, much like Quebec in the previous world wars, saw nothing in what was happening in Iraq that was of any interest to them. Yet members of both of these parties have expressed their criticism of American foreign policy with propriety and dignity, and without resorting to name calling and personal insults. Former NDP leader, Alexa McDonough, consistently spoke about "Bush’s illegal war" in the House, but in all of her criticism, she never resorted to personal attacks on the U.S. president, members of his administration, or as in the case of Parrish, all citizens of the country. When the oxymoron Minister (Canada’s Minister of National Defense), John McCallum, expressed his displeasure with the blatant anti-Americanism, he couldn’t come up with a single statement of any NDP member that could be classified as anti-Americanism as opposed to a legitimate disagreement with American policy. It was typical Liberal arrogance to ask all Members of the House to refrain from speaking out against the Americans, when their members were the only ones who were making childish and hurtful comments. The Liberals have no shame.
The section of the motion that deals self-restraint limits this self-restraint to when the Americans are "in battle." At the time of this writing, U.S. troops are in beautiful downtown Baghdad, destroying statues of Saddam Hussein to the thunderous applause of the crowds. The motion clearly signals that when the fighting is over, a time that is fast approaching, it will be once again okay for members of the government to call Americans "bastards" and their president, a "moron."
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien excuses his members’ remarks on the grounds of free speech. This is the same argument made by rock stars who, after making anti-American comments to American audiences, are shocked that people are offended. This is not a free speech issue. It’s an issue of how to maturely deal with a foreign country with whom the Canadian government has a disagreement with. It will be a long time before the United States will be taking Canada seriously.
It’s obvious that Chrétien is just playing for the anti-American faction in his government. There wasn’t even an attempt to apologize for the name- calling. The government motion was just an attempt to suck up to the Americans while holding the anti-American line.
Another interesting part of the motion was where the government reaffirmed its hope that the United States "accomplishes its mission…" Part of the mission is to change the regime in Iraq--something that Jean Chrétien is still opposed to---blatant Liberal hypocrisy.
The motion itself, with its praise of "the moron" and "the bastards" insults the intelligence of the people that the government is trying to impress. Not only are Americans not bastards--they’re not stupid ones.
12-10-2004, 08:26 PM #5
As a canadian we dont need to be taught about the arrogance of some Americans, we can just watch CNN and listen to it and make up our own opinions.By the way, the people that call Americans "bastards" and their president, a "moron" more then Canadians are the Americans, you guys diss your own country and president all the time, just read the anti-bush threads here that are posted by Americans.Does eminem ring a bell <- American. Also wondering why do alot of Americans stick a canadian flag on their luggage when traveling? <- not very patriotic. The problem is Americans are taught in their schools that they are the best and everybody else is second, and that everyone should bend down and spread their ass cheeks for Americans. A prime example of American arrogance was America claiming that Michael Johnson (i dont now his name but its the guy with golden shoes) was the fastest man in the world when the 100metres at that time was won by a Canadian. But what they dont teach Americans is that Canada has placed number 1 alot of times by the UN as the best country to live, and can you guess where America placed?Trust me theres not much anti-americanism in Canada, like you would like to think, i think America has more anti-americanism then Canada does <-michael moore. And by the way its very impressive that you want to "change the regime in iraq" but you now what would be more impressive is if you would feed your poor and take care of your homeless. Also read on these boards all the anti-canadian threads post by the Americans, not very many canadians post anti-american propaganda like that.
Now before some of you Americans go blow your load about what I just said, remember i as a Canadian love America, thank god a country like America is policing the world rather then some extremist country. I even support the war in iraq, even if it was for American interest rather then iraq interest. Americans are great as are Canadians.
12-10-2004, 08:46 PM #6
You know anti-Americanism in Canada is a joke IMO. There are, in my estimation, very few Canadians who would prefer to live life with no American TV, no vacations to the USA, no American cars, no educational opportunities at American universities, no jobs with American companies, etc. The USA/Canada relationship is one of the most mutually beneficial relationships in the world, despite what a couple of politicians or news commentators might think.
12-10-2004, 09:08 PM #7
I think anyone that thinks america is number one and the rest of the world isn't important is Godless and sad.
12-10-2004, 09:10 PM #8LORDBLiTZ GuestOriginally Posted by chrisAdams
12-11-2004, 12:38 AM #9Anabolic Member
Originally Posted by chrisAdams
- Join Date
- Jan 2003
- under some plywood sheets
12-11-2004, 12:23 PM #10Originally Posted by chrisAdams
BTW what's wrong with thinking that the US is #1? Is that such a horrible crime you america hater? What has happend to this country that its OK to hate the best country in the world? If you dont like it MOVE!
12-11-2004, 12:58 PM #11
[QUOTE=Jdawg50]Yea, and that is the exact qoute that Ann Coulter said.. please bro, your smarter than that. What they were saying is that with all the money and the military backing we give them they should be a bit more greatful than calling us morons, and evil.
Wow you hear that everybody we should be grateful, and not call them morons (only a few canadians do). I guess we hurt their feelings. But i wonder whats worse dissing canada on national tv then just a few canadians thinking americans are morons. I never new you guys gave us money that we didn't earn through trading. I do remember that Canada took one for America when they found that mad cow disease, it was proven that the cow had aquired mad cow from America, yet they blamed it on Canada. And whats this big American backing you give us, is it out of goodwill or for American self interest - geez i wonder.
Take it from me canadians love america, but watching cnn i wish i could say that americans love canadians. whos dissing who????
12-11-2004, 12:59 PM #12LORDBLiTZ GuestOriginally Posted by Jdawg50
12-11-2004, 01:02 PM #13Retired Vet
Originally Posted by LORDBLiTZ
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
12-11-2004, 01:02 PM #14Originally Posted by LORDBLiTZ
12-11-2004, 01:05 PM #15LORDBLiTZ GuestOriginally Posted by Jdawg50
12-11-2004, 01:07 PM #16Originally Posted by LORDBLiTZ
12-11-2004, 01:08 PM #17LORDBLiTZ GuestOriginally Posted by CarvedFromStone
And you wonder why the world hates your country
12-11-2004, 01:08 PM #18
most americans that i have met love canada.
12-11-2004, 01:11 PM #19Originally Posted by LORDBLiTZ
12-11-2004, 01:11 PM #20
Your military is in complete disaray. That is why we have to defend you.
THE STATE OF CANADIAN SECURITY
AND THE CANADIAN FORCES
PRESENTED TO THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS OF MONTREAL
GOOD MORNING/EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I AM DELIGHTED TO BE HERE, AND TO ADDRESS YOU ON THE CRITICAL ISSUE OF CANADIAN SECURITY AND THE STATE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, SOMEONE SHOULD BE SPEAKING TO CANADIANS ON THIS TOPIC ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK - AT COMMUNITY EVENTS, FROM ROTARY LUNCHEONS TO CHURCH SUPPERS, NOT TO MENTION ALL OF THE LOCAL MEDIA. IN FACT, WE ARE STARTING TO SEE CONCERNED CANADIANS DOING JUST THAT.
CANADA EXISTS IN A FRAIL STATE DUE TO TWO MAJOR WEAKNESSES: THE HUGE NATIONAL DEBT - THE INTEREST ON WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR ONE-QUARTER OF EVERY TAX DOLLAR PAID BY CANADIANS; THE WEAK CANADIAN CURRENCY, WHICH STIFLES INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT; AND CONCENTRATION OF 87% OF FOREIGN TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AS YOU KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE, CANADA PROSPERS OR SUFFERS ON THE BASIS OF THE SUCCESS OF ITS TRADE RELATIONS.
OVERALL, THE TREND TOWARDS GLOBALIZATION MEANS THAT INSTABILITY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD COULD QUICKLY PRODUCE A RIPPLE EFFECT THAT WOULD ATTACK THIS INHERENT FRAILTY, THUS SERIOUSLY DEGRADING THE PROSPERITY AND WELL-BEING OF ALL CANADIANS. IN THIS SITUATION, EFFECTIVE NATIONAL SECURITY AND ARMED FORCES EITHER PREVENT OR AT LEAST MITIGATE INSTABILITY.
MANY CANADIANS MAY NOT, OR MAY CHOOSE NOT TO UNDERSTAND THE WAY IN WHICH THEIR ARMED FORCES FIT INTO THE PICTURE - AND WHY THE CONCURRENT WEAKNESS OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES INCREASES THE RISK TO OUR WELL-BEING, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NO BARBARIANS AT THE GATES.
I WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH AN OUTLINE OF THE SITUATION, AND THEN WE CAN EXPLORE IT FURTHER DURING THE DISCUSSION PERIOD. I INTEND TO PROCEED UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADINGS:
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES;
HOW DID IT HAPPEN? AND
WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES
THE CURRENT UNSATISFACTORY STATE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES IS PRESENTED IN IRON-CLAD DETAIL IN THE MOST RECENT CONFERENCE OF DEFENCE ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE STUDY, A NATION AT RISK: The decline of the Canadian Forces, RELEASED IN OCTOBER, 2002. THE STUDY IS AVAILABLE ON THE CDA/CDAI WEBSITE AT www.cda-cdai.ca.
THE DISARRAY OF CANADIAN DEFENCE POLICY AND THE ARMED FORCES IS NO SECRET. OVER THE PAST YEAR, NUMEROUS PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES, THE AUDITOR GENERAL, AND OTHER AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES HAVE CONFIRMED THAT FACT. SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS OF TWELVE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE LISTED IN ANNEX C OF THE LATEST CDAI STUDY, TO WHICH I REFERRED.
IN PARTICULAR, OUR STUDY EXAMINES HOW, AT A TIME OF GROWING WORLD INSTABILITY, THE PURSUIT OF CANADA=S NATIONAL INTERESTS OF PROSPERITY, SECURITY, AND PROMOTION OF CANADIAN VALUES ARE AT RISK AS A RESULT OF THE NATIONAL WEAKNESS IN DEFENCE. WE IDENTIFIED THREE SPECIFIC AREAS OF RISK:
CANADA=S ECONOMY - GIVEN OUR HEAVY RELIANCE ON TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES, OUR HIGH DEBT LOAD, AND OUR WEAK CURRENCY;
CANADA=S SECURITY - FROM DIVERSE THREATS AT HOME AND ABROAD, AND;
CANADA=S SOVEREIGNTY - IF WE DON=T DEFEND OURSELVES, OTHERS (MAINLY THE U.S.) WILL.
THE STUDY SHOWS THAT PROBLEMS COMMON TO ALL THREE ARMED SERVICES, THE RESERVES, AND THE LOGISTICS AND OTHER SUPPORT ELEMENTS, CONTRIBUTE TO THE CRISIS IN CANADIAN DEFENCE. THESE INCLUDE:
INADEQUATE FUNDING: THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM, AND THE OTHERS FLOW FROM IT;
DEMILITARIZATION: BETWEEN ONE-QUARTER AND ONE-THIRD OF THE BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR SPENDING ON MILITARY CAPABILITIES. THERE IS A MYRIAD OF OTHER DEBILITATING FACTORS UNDER THIS HEADING, PUSHING THE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TOWARDS A CIVIL-SERVANT-IN-UNIFORM MENTALITY;
A SERIOUS SHORTAGE OF PERSONNEL: ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE AND TECHNICAL SKILLS;
A CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF SPARE PARTS: AND OTHER SUPPLIES;
EQUIPMENT THAT IS ARUSTING OUT@: THE RESULT OF OLD AGE, INSUFFICIENT RESOURCES (BOTH PERSONNEL AND MATERIEL), AND ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY; AND
DECAYING INFRASTRUCTURE: ON MILITARY BASES.
THIS LIST OF DISABILITIES CAUSES CORROSION OF KEY MILITARY CAPABILITIES, A SAMPLE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
THE NAVY: INSTEAD OF DEPLOYING A DISTINCTLY CANADIAN NAVAL PRESENCE IN INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, OUR NAVY WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO DEPLOY INDIVIDUAL CANADIAN SHIPS AND ASSIGN THEM TO TASK GROUPS OF OTHER NAVIES - USUALLY THE U.S. NAVY - WITH CONCURRENT LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY. THE REST OF THE NAVY WILL BE REDUCED TO A COASTAL PATROL FORCE;
THE ARMY: THE ARMY IS IN THE WORST CONDITION OF ALL THE SERVICES. PERSONNEL LEVELS ARE WELL BELOW THOSE REQUIRED TO EXECUTE ASSIGNED MISSIONS. CONSTANT OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS AND ROTATIONS WEAR DOWN PEOPLE AND ADD TO THE INSTABILITY AND DISARRAY. THERE IS A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF SKILLED TECHNICAL PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN NEW EQUIPMENT. THAT, PLUS A SHORTAGE OF SPARE PARTS COULD RESULT IN 40% TO 50% OF THE ARMY=S WEAPONS AND VEHICLES BEING GROUNDED IN THE NEXT 5-6 YEARS. THE ARMY, AS IT NOW STANDS, IS UNSUSTAINABLE;
THE AIR FORCE: THE MOST CRITICAL LIMITATION FACED BY THE AIR FORCE IS LACK OF TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED PERSONNEL. IN THE PAST DECADE, AIRCRAFT HOLDINGS HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM OVER 700 TO LESS THAN 300. THERE IS NO AIR-TO-AIR REFUELING CAPABILITY, AND THE AIR FORCE CANNOT MOVE CANADIAN TROOPS OVERSEAS ON ITS OWN. FLYING HOURS ARE RESTRICTED, AND ONLY ONE ARCTIC PATROL IS FLOWN OVER CANADA=S VAST NORTHERN TERRITORIES A YEAR;
THE RESERVES: THE ARMY RESERVE - OR MILITIA - COULD PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING SOME OF THE ARMY=S PERSONNEL SHORTAGE. HOWEVER, THE MILITIA ALSO SUFFERS FROM LIMITATIONS RELATED TO UNDER-FUNDING, LACK OF EQUIPMENT, AND LACK OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING;
LOGISTICS SUPPORT: LOGISTICS SUPPORT CAN DETERMINE THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS. THERE IS AN ACUTE SHORTAGE OF SKILLED TECHNICIANS, AND THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SUPPLIES TO SUSTAIN MILITARY OPERATIONS. MAKING MATTERS WORSE, THE POLICY OF REPLACING MILITARY SUPPORT PERSONNEL WITH CONTRACTED CIVILIANS COULD CAUSE OPERATIONS TO FAIL, AND PUT SERVICE PERSONNEL AT RISK.
MEDICAL SUPPORT: 35% TO 50% SHORTAGES IN DOCTORS/NURSING STAFF.
A MAJOR PORTION OF THE CDAI STUDY IS DEVOTED TO THIS TOPIC. IT IS A HOT-BUTTON ITEM SINCE IT FOCUSES ON THE VERY SENSITIVE ISSUE OF SOVEREIGNTY. IT HAS REMAINED A HOT-BUTTON ISSUE WITH COMMENTS MADE RECENTLY BY CANDIDATES IN THEIR BID TO SECURE THE LIBERAL PARTY LEADERSHIP. MANY CANADIANS WHO ARE AGAINST SPENDING MONEY ON THE ARMED FORCES DO NOT AGREE THAT IT IS THROUGH EFFECTIVE ARMED FORCES THAT ONE MAINTAINS NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
WHEN CANADA SUPPORTS THE U.S., IT IS INDIRECTLY SUPPORTING ITSELF. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT IF INSTABILITY UNDERMINES THE U.S. ECONOMY, THE FIRST TO SUFFER WILL BE CANADA - AGAIN DUE TO OUR HUGE TRADE IMBALANCE.
THE RESULTS OF A WIDE RANGING SET OF INTERVIEWS THAT WERE CONDUCTED IN WASHINGTON AT THE END OF JULY 2002, INDICATE THAT CANADA-U.S. RELATIONS ARE STRAINED. AMERICANS VOICE STRONG CONCERNS OVER THE ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED IN THIS COUNTRY; THE INSENSITIVE REMARKS OF MINISTERS AND OTHERS; AND THE PERCEPTION THAT CANADA IS FREELOADING IN MATTERS OF DEFENCE AS A NATIONAL POLICY. IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE U.S. OUTLOOK ON CANADA IS EVOLVING FROM BENIGN NEGLECT TO EMERGING HOSTILITY.
THE RUNDOWN OF THE CANADIAN FORCES OVER THE PAST THIRTY YEARS WEAKENS OUR ABILITY TO COUNTER THREATS BOTH AT HOME AND OVERSEAS. IT HAS ALSO SQUANDERED THE ENVIABLE REPUTATION CANADIANS EARNED BY THEIR SACRIFICES IN TWENTIETH CENTURY WARS, AND IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION. THIS IS WHY THE CDA IS ENCOURAGED BY COMMENTS MADE BY LIBERAL CANDIDATES CONCERNING SECURITY AND DEFENCE ISSUES RECENTLY, INCLUDING:
THE NEED FOR A MORE U.S.-FRIENDLY FOREIGN POLICY;
SUPPORT FOR CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN A MISSILE-DEFENCE PROGRAM WITH THE U.S.;
THE NEED TO ESTABLISH A PERMANENT CABINET COMMITTEE ON CANADA-U.S. RELATIONS TO MONITOR AND MANAGE ALL ASPECTS OF THIS VITALLY IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP; AND
THE NEED TO ESTABLISH A HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE ON CANADA-U.S. RELATIONS.
WHY DID THIS HAPPEN/HOW DID WE GET HERE?
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS BECAUSE OF POLICY, THE SEVERE DISLOCATIONS TO THE ARMED FORCES AS A RESULT OF THEIR UNIFICATION IN THE 1960s AND 1970s, AND CIVILIZATION OF THE FORCES. ADD TO THIS A THREE-YEAR FREEZE OF DEFENCE FUNDING, STARTING IN 1970. THIS HAPPENED AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME BECAUSE MANY WEAPON SYSTEMS, VEHICLE FLEETS, AND EQUIPMENT WERE OVERDUE FOR REPLACEMENT OR UPGRADING.
THE DEFENCE FUNDING FREEZE WAS THE RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENT=S BELIEF THAT THE SOVIET UNION DID NOT POSE A THREAT TO CANADA, AND THAT MONEY WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON THE SO-CALLED PEACE DIVIDEND.
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENCE WHITE PAPER OF 1994 WAS A REASONABLE DOCUMENT, THE PROGRAMME REVIEW REDUCTIONS OF 1995-97, AIMED AT ELIMINATING THE DEFICIT, CAUSED THE WHITE PAPER COMMITMENTS TO FAIL BY DEFAULT: THE DND BUDGET WAS CUT BY 23% TO 30% IN PURCHASING POWER.
THAT IS THE SAD STORY OF WHY THE CANADIAN FORCES HAVE BEEN GOING DOWNHILL FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS, WITH THE DECLINE BEING PARTICULARLY STEEP OVER THE PAST DECADE. ONE COULD SAY THAT THE ARMED FORCES ARE LIKE A DYING PATIENT, KEPT ALIVE ONLY BY A LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEM IN THE FORM OF TOKEN ADDITIONS TO THE DND BUDGET. THE PROBLEM NOW, IS THAT THE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ITSELF IS IN JEOPARDY.
THE DEFENCE POLICY UPDATE CONDUCTED MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, CHAIRED BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE, CONFIRMED EARLY ON THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO DND WOULD BE MINIMAL. AND ALTHOUGH THE $800 MILLION ADDED TO THE DEFENCE BUDGET IN THE LAST FEDERAL BUDGET IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, WE HAVE A CONCERN THAT MANY CANADIAN FORCES MILITARY CAPABILITIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE NEEDED FOR MORE CHALLENGING OPERATIONS, WILL BE REDUCED, IF NOT ENTIRELY ELIMINATED. THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT CUTS TO THE CANADIAN FORCES WILL BE ARBITRARY, RATHER THAN AS A RESULT OF EXPERT STUDY.
THIS LEAVES CANADA WITH A CRITICAL PROBLEM, AND THAT IS: THE WEAK CANADIAN FORCES THAT RESULT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO OPERATIONS ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF CONFLICT. IN FACT, WE NOW KNOW THAT WE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM, PLUS CONTRIBUTE IN A CONVENTIONAL WAR AGAINST IRAQ.
MEANWHILE, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVING AN HODGE-PODGE OF ADVICE IN PERSON AND OVER THE INTERNET THAT URGES HIM TO CUT MILITARY CAPABILITIES, OR BECOME MORE DEPENDANT ON THE RMA AS A WAY TO REDUCE HUMAN RESOURCES.
ONCE THIS TYPE OF PROCESS GETS UNDERWAY, IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP IT - SHORT OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTERVENTION BY THE PRIME MINISTER - AND ON THE SUBJECT OF DEFENCE SPENDING THIS, SIMPLY, WILL NOT HAPPEN. SHORT OF AN UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT OUR ARMED FORCES DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES BY WHICH TO ADDRESS THE SECURITY THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY, THE BUDGET IN 2003 WILL CONTINUE TO RESTRICT MONEY ALLOCATED TO DEFENCE. INSTEAD A TRADE-OFF, PROBABLY, WILL BE ANNOUNCED THAT WOULD SEE THE ELIMINATION OF A NUMBER OF CONVENTIONAL COMBAT CAPABILITIES. THE CANADIAN FORCES COULD BE REDUCED TO NEAR-CONSTABULARY STATUS FOR HOMELAND DEFENCE AND A TOKEN FORCE FOR LOW-LEVEL PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS OVERSEAS.
I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH BY DISCUSSING SOME SPECIFIC INITIATIVES THAT I SEE AS NECESSARY TO STOP THE DECLINE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES, AND FORM A FOUNDATION FOR THEIR REHABILITATION:
A SOLID FRONT - POLITICAL/BUREAUCRATIC. THE PRIME MINISTER, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, THE CLERK OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, THE CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF, AND THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE MUST BE OF ONE MIND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENCE AND THE CANADIAN FORCES. THEY MUST BE STRONG-WILLED AND DETERMINED TO IMPLEMENT CHANGE.
INTEGRATED FULL DEFENCE AND FOREIGN POLICY REVIEW. IDEALLY BY A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, WITH INPUT FROM EXPERT WITNESSES AND THE PUBLIC, FOLLOWED BY THE PUBLICATION OF LINKED FOREIGN AND DEFENCE WHITE PAPERS TO DEFINE AND IMPLEMENT THE RESULTING NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.
GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO FUND THE SECURITY POLICY. A FAILURE TO DO THIS IN RELATION TO THE 1994 WHITE PAPER IS AT THE HEART OF THE CURRENT DEFENCE CRISIS. THE AUSTRALIANS HAVE RECENTLY COMMITTED FUNDING TO A NEW DEFENCE WHITE PAPER AND ARE ON THE WAY TOWARDS A RATIONAL REBUILDING OF THEIR ARMED FORCES OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
CREATE A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY AGENCY. ALSO KNOWN AS A NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, MOST WESTERN NATIONS HAVE THEM. BUT CANADA DOES NOT. THERE IS NO APPARENT DEFENCE FILE IN THE PRIME MINISTER=S OFFICE OR THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE. THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE PROVIDES BOTH FOREIGN POLICY AND DEFENCE POLICY ADVICE TO THE PRIME MINISTER. THE MILITARY OFFICER ASSIGNED TO THE P.C.O. IS NORMALLY OUT OF THE LOOP AS FAR AS ADVICE IS CONCERNED.
REVERSE THE DEMILITARIZATION OF THE CANADIAN FORCES. THIS COVERS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF FACTORS. FOR EXAMPLE, WE MUST START THE RECOVERY OF THE CANADIAN FORCES BY ENSURING MOST OF THE MONEY IN THE DND BUDGET IS AVAILABLE FOR MILITARY EXPENDITURES. THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE SHOULD THEN BE ABSOLVED FROM TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIVES THAT DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE CANADIAN FORCES ARE NOT JUST ANOTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT LIKE ALL OF THE OTHERS. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO INVOKE THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION IN SELECTED CASES. IN SOME WAYS, DEMILITARIZATION EXCEEDS UNDER-FUNDING AS A SEMINAL PROBLEM OF CANADIAN DEFENCE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISLODGE.
CANADA=S DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT AND THE CANADIAN FORCES ARE IN DIRE STRAITS, CRISIS, AND DISARRAY. IT IS BECOMING WORSE EACH DAY. THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND REFUSES TO PROPERLY FUND THE NATIONAL DEFENCE BUDGET.
THE CANADIAN FORCES CAN ONLY MARGINALLY MEET THEIR COMMITMENTS SET OUT IN THE 1994 DEFENCE WHITE PAPER. WITHDRAWALS FROM KOSOVO, ERITREA, AND ESPECIALLY AFGHANISTAN - AFTER ONLY SIX MONTHS - ATTEST TO THIS FACT. MOREOVER, THE STATE OF TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT OF THESE FORCES ARE OPEN TO QUESTION. THERE HAVE BEEN NO FORMATION LEVEL TRAINING EXERCISES SINCE 1995, AND WILL NOT BE UNTIL SOMETIME THIS SUMMER.
OUR ALLIES HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN CANADA AS A RELIABLE PARTNER - ESPECIALLY OUR KEY TRADING PARTNER, THE UNITED STATES. IF WE DO NOT DO OUR PART IN NATO, OTHER COALITIONS, AND BI-LATERALLY IN NORTH AMERICAN DEFENCE, THEY WILL DO IT FOR US WITH THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY THAT IMPLIES.
THE ESSENTIALS ARE QUITE SIMPLE, AND I HOPE I HAVE LAID THEM BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING/EVENING, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE THEM AWAY WITH YOU AND PUBLICIZE THEM.
12-11-2004, 01:12 PM #21
Your definitely from the mountains... In a cave, with a beard to down to your stomach... and you didn't have sex in a longgggggg time... Right? Anyway Both Canada and American have there pro's and con's... But 99% of the people I met on this board from America are great people... So speaking from that experience I have nothing but good things to say about Americans... And I would hope that you guys feel the same about us.
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
12-11-2004, 01:15 PM #22Originally Posted by Jdawg50
who exactly is the us defending us from?
12-11-2004, 01:17 PM #23LORDBLiTZ GuestOriginally Posted by radar1234
The truth has been spoken!
12-11-2004, 01:19 PM #24Originally Posted by GeoQuadzilla
I have nothing against canadians, but I do believe that there are a lot of people up there that are going way to far with there antiamerica attitudes. Calling Bush a Nazi etc. This post is about what was said on CNN and FOX, an I agree with what they said. In case you missed it when Bush got to Canada he was greeted with nothing but disrespect.
12-11-2004, 01:20 PM #25
lordblitz and radar and all the other canadians just forget about what this guy is saying, he isn't making any sense - he defines american "arrogance", thank god he is in the minority. As far as Bush getting disrespect from canadians, maybe tell your own americans not to disrespect Bush, and maybe just maybe you should have listened to the UN about attacking Iraq before doing it by yourselves, and telling us you did it for the good of Iraq. YOu really buy all that American propaganda dont you, what was the average IQ of the Americans again that voted for Bush, where you one of them?????
Last edited by geoneo; 12-11-2004 at 01:24 PM.
12-11-2004, 01:22 PM #26Originally Posted by geoneo
12-11-2004, 01:22 PM #27
i've lived in canada for 29 years and have yet to witness a dog sled race.lol.
isn't there a big race held in alaska?
12-11-2004, 01:24 PM #28Originally Posted by chicamahomico
Glad to hear it.
As for the rest of you, put a sock in it. I'm sure we all have better things to do.......we're just on here delaying the time until we have to do them. Speaking for myself anyway......
12-11-2004, 01:25 PM #29Originally Posted by radar1234
12-11-2004, 01:25 PM #30
12-11-2004, 01:26 PM #31Originally Posted by Jdawg50
12-11-2004, 01:27 PM #32Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
12-11-2004, 01:29 PM #33
I'm sure the families of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and Daniel Pearl think Bush is a great leader too. Bush has people fighting an Unjust war where Kids... KIDS 18 and 19 are dieing everyday... and for what? Because Saddam had WMD? Oh where are they again? Oh thats right... THERE ISN'T ANY! I feel terrible for any loss of human life... I feel sorry for the soilders, soilders families... And everyone else that has to sit back and know that they or their loved one are in the middle of a war that never should have taken place! It's a shame... Plain and Simple... A D@mn shame! As far as Bush being a Nazi... Nah I don't think that... Nazi's killed people from other races... Bush Kills his own people... So he's worse then a Nazi in my opinion.
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
12-11-2004, 01:35 PM #34
if you go to the immigration website you will see the dramatic increase of americans wanting to move to canada since bush was re-elected.what does that say?
same thing happened during the vietnam war.
12-11-2004, 01:37 PM #35Originally Posted by radar1234
12-11-2004, 01:39 PM #36Originally Posted by GeoQuadzilla
So your anti-war is that what this is all about? This war is more about islamo-facism than WMD's bro, It's a much bigger picture than that. maybe you should try to read my post about WWIV. That might give you a sense of why we went to Iraq, and are fighting these people on there own land. I'd rather fight them there then in NYC.
12-11-2004, 01:40 PM #37Originally Posted by GeoQuadzilla
12-11-2004, 01:42 PM #38Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
12-11-2004, 01:45 PM #39Originally Posted by Jdawg50
12-11-2004, 01:45 PM #40
can someone rename this thread to jdawg50 vs. canada?
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)