tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post3435617582708783271..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Tanks for the enemies.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-68927100126566511802007-04-18T08:10:00.000-04:002007-04-18T08:10:00.000-04:00actually strong-con, you are welcome to disagree. ...actually strong-con, you are welcome to disagree. peace keeping is not and has never been the sole purpose of the canadian military. we have armed and trained our forces for combat roles. i would argue that since korea, the primary use of our forces and the majority of force deployments have been in peace keeping roles and disaster relief. i also believe that the majority of canadians prefer our forces to be used in those roles. that in no way diminishes the concept of combat preparedness or the use of forces in combat where deemed necessary. <BR/><BR/>one of the reasons that i think canada has earned such a good reputation overseas has been the non-aggressive deployment of canadian troops in troubled regions over the last fifty years. that positive reputation has been bolstered by the honourable service of canadian troops and the diplomatic will of the canadian people. our military has, more often than not, been perceived as a force for positive change and security rather than conflict. <BR/><BR/>what we are seeing under harper is the retooling of our forces toward a tougher stance. i'd much rather see 2/3 of a billion dollars spent on the tools to enhance life and security on troubled regions rather than on great big guns and tanks. more water purification and infrastructure building tools and less weapons. <BR/><BR/>in any case, given the mounting evidence of ignorance and incompetence on the part of minister of defence, can you defend his rationale that tanks are defensive weapon systems? are there not better ways to spend such sums? things like, say, funding the navy to put gas in the boats so they don't have to stay dock side during coastal exercises. and couldn't we get a minister of defence that actually has a clue about the role of the red cross, maybe someone that isn't beholden to the lobby that employed him?Lindsay Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13461043718147845594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-66101863202988177942007-04-17T18:14:00.000-04:002007-04-17T18:14:00.000-04:00With all due respect, I would disagree that the Ca...With all due respect, I would disagree that the Canadian military was designed for peacekeeping duties. Since WWII it has been modelled and structuredd for combat, first against the Soviet threat and recently molded into "evolving" threats, whatever that is. Canada has not had many active peacekeepers in more than a decade since we pulled most of our troops out of Bosnia and all of them out of Kosovo (which started as a combat role).<BR/>Ok, I'm sure you've had enough of my knuckle-draggin-neo-con-war-mongering-Haliburton-coddling self.Strong Conservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14304851267153816945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-47887776948857747292007-04-16T15:50:00.000-04:002007-04-16T15:50:00.000-04:00First we buy used submarines, now we buy used tank...First we buy used submarines, now we buy used tanks. Don't we ever learn? Time for Canada's 'New Government' to become Canada's 'Old Government'! (They probably didn't even get the extended warranty.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-67549143103831342262007-04-16T10:35:00.000-04:002007-04-16T10:35:00.000-04:00Well said. This is expensive lunacy getting worse...Well said. This is expensive lunacy getting worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com