[Winnipegger]

I didn't say tanks are employed by themselves. Again, do I have to spell out all the details. You guys claim you know everything and no one else does. In addition to the administration company with each infantry regiment CF has combat engineers, 3 combat engineer regiments and 1 engineering support regiment. 1 Combat Engineer Regiment is assigned to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. Although battle groups in combat are ad hoc, I expect that if the Strathconas are deployed, that combat engineer regiment will continue to maintain the tanks. No giant leap to imagine the current technicians will continue to maintain the same equipment. Now that tanks are deployed in Afghanistan, who is maintaining them?

If you don't like that I have ideas about the military, perhaps I should go back to my position before June 2006? Is that what you want? That our military is fine as-is and we should just maintain what we got without any new purchases? Canada really does need to focus on promoting peace in the world, peace through peace rather than the expectation that peace will come from war. Focus on our economy and domestic infrastructure instead. There's a debate at city hall tomorrow about rapid transit. Winnipeg is the largest city in Canada that has no form of rapid transit what so ever. When I read posts from people in Toronto who complain the Spadina subway extension is a bad idea, in the wrong place, my immediate reaction was "I'll take that money." For the price of that one little subway extension I could build an entire LRT system in Winnipeg. To be effective we need a little bit of subway downtown, but the total length would be half that of the Spadina extension alone. We could build grade level (tracks on the ground) for most of the system, and utilize existing unused or low-traffic freight tracks. The city bought an unused track this summer that starts close to downtown and goes right to the north-east end of the city. I also want to pay off the debt and dramatically reduce taxes. Do you want me to focus on that? Do you want me to slash military spending to pay for all that?

At this point I am the president of the Liberal riding association in my riding, and have stated my intent to seek the nomination. In my riding I was one of only 2 delegates for Stéphane Dion during the leadership convention. I supported Stéphane Dion when very few people in Manitoba did. Of the 2 delegates, I'm the only one who expressed interest in seeking the nomination. Although a nomination meeting hasn't been held yet, if an election is called without a nominated candidate the president of the riding association is automatically the candidate. I just recently became president, which now makes it my job to call a nomination meeting, or announce when one will occur to spur a nomination race. If I just sit on my hands and do nothing then I will be it by default. Hmm; not a nice thing to do. I do have the support of all those active riding members who work during an election. And I have support of the past candidate, and the past two riding presidents. The incumbent in this riding is not Liberal, but he has stated he won't run again. The "feel" among voters in this riding is they want a change, probably why he chose to not run, retire while he is still on top. Demographics have changed radically since the incumbent was elected; it's not the same riding at all. The current voters want a good candidate, party is not as important. So it's wide open, I really do have a chance. You're talking to a potential MP here.

Sound pompous? No more so than you bragging about being regular forces and claiming anyone who isn't doesn't know what they're talking about.

So again I ask, do you really want to insult me? Rather than trying to shut me up, why don't you educate me. Obviously funding is very limited, and I've said before that I favour maintaining the equipment we got and adding to it rather than perpetually replacing everything. I also feel a prolonged mission in Afghanistan will damage our international reputation. It will damage relations with those allies we depend on, and create new enemies where we used to have friends. So start by enlightening me, why can't we deploy the forces I describe?

[ridenrain]

Wow. Stay on topic much?
How does maintaining a NATO commitment “jeopardize our international reputations" , and "damage relations with those allies we depend on”?
What allies are these? Are they more important allies than the US, the UK or most of our NATO allies? Is this those space aliens that the retired Liberal defence critic was on about?

As an almost MP, I’d expect an answer to such an important topic.

[Winnipegger]

Space aliens? Haven't heard anything about that. However I do have an interest in space exploration, I could go on about Canadian Space Agency instruments on the Mars Phoenix lander.

You can't be a toady to just one partner. The other nations won't trust you, will treat you as an unimportant lap dog. Using military force to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation causes mistrust in anyone with a smaller military than yours. Smaller. One prime example is Pakistan, just the slightest hint about dealing with the Taliban within Pakistan lead to the accusation that Canada is planning to invade. My understanding is that Stéphane never intended to invade, but it illustrates the point. Allies are already getting skittish. We could get the entire Arab world after all of NATO, including attacks like 9/11 happening in Canada. Do we want to jeopardize relations with Syria or Saudi Arabia next? Is the Kurd issue going to piss off Turkey? That's a NATO country, if NATO starts to break up where will it lead? If we don't have any allies in the Middle East, how will we deal with threats?

As for the US, look at the arctic. How reliable are they? Hopefully the next president will be more reliable, but the current one raises a lot of questions.

[ridenrain]

You’re politics are showing because you didn‘t answer the question.

You said:

$1:

I also feel a prolonged mission in Afghanistan will damage our international reputation. It will damage relations with those allies we depend on, and create new enemies where we used to have friends.

I’m asking which allies that we depend upon will be damaged by sticking with our NATO commitment. Are these allies currently NATO members or are they not? If they are not NATO/NORAD/SEATO or whatever other military pacts we belong to, then how exactly are they allies that we depend upon?

You also say that :

$1:

You can't be a toady to just one partner.

Are you suggesting that Canada is a toady to the United States? Please do elaborate on that one also for I am quite confused.

My comments reguarding space aliens was about Paul Hellyer, Canada's Defence Minister from 1963-67, who has been calling for Canada to get ready for space aliens to attack.

[Scape]

[ridenrain]

2x.
I came for the tanks but stayed for the politics.

[SprCForr]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I didn't say tanks are employed by themselves. Again, do I have to spell out all the details. You guys claim you know everything and no one else does. In addition to the administration company with each infantry regiment CF has combat engineers, 3 combat engineer regiments and 1 engineering support regiment. 1 Combat Engineer Regiment is assigned to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. Although battle groups in combat are ad hoc, I expect that if the Strathconas are deployed, that combat engineer regiment will continue to maintain the tanks. No giant leap to imagine the current technicians will continue to maintain the same equipment. Now that tanks are deployed in Afghanistan, who is maintaining them?

You plainly don't know much about the CF. That's my point. You've completely missed my point about Regt vs Bn, your garbled post about CER's illustrates my point perfectly. What does the Admin Coy of an Infantry BATTALION have to do with Combat Engineers? They aren't grouped together operationally or administratively nor are the functions complimentary, yet you've managed to somehow associate them. Why you think regurgitating the organization of the Army CER's is somehow on topic or a response to one of my points is beyond me. Is it an attempt to indicate you have some kind of specific knowledge about higher level Army groupings? Read my profile?

Battle Groups may be ad hoc but what position do they take in our current doctrine? In other words, why and why do we use them? Indicate your source on the claim "I expect that if the Strathconas are deployed, that combat engineer regiment will continue to maintain the tanks." So answer the following: Why can't the Strats maintain their own? Why for the first time in CF history would a unit not be able to maintain their own vehicles? What happens to a unit when they deploy operationally? How do they get reorged? Again, superficial (and incorrect) knowledge was what your comment was based on. A reasonable level of practical knowledge of CF units would answer every one of my questions with ease. You aren't aware of who is manning the tanks and what that unit size and org is. You indicate zero awareness of the solution currently being implemented in the CF. You're correct when you said you made no leap. You tripped.

$1:

If you don't like that I have ideas about the military, perhaps I should go back to my position before June 2006? Is that what you want? That our military is fine as-is and we should just maintain what we got without any new purchases? Canada really does need to focus on promoting peace in the world, peace through peace rather than the expectation that peace will come from war. Focus on our economy and domestic infrastructure instead. There's a debate at city hall tomorrow about rapid transit. Winnipeg is the largest city in Canada that has no form of rapid transit what so ever. When I read posts from people in Toronto who complain the Spadina subway extension is a bad idea, in the wrong place, my immediate reaction was "I'll take that money." For the price of that one little subway extension I could build an entire LRT system in Winnipeg. To be effective we need a little bit of subway downtown, but the total length would be half that of the Spadina extension alone. We could build grade level (tracks on the ground) for most of the system, and utilize existing unused or low-traffic freight tracks. The city bought an unused track this summer that starts close to downtown and goes right to the north-east end of the city. I also want to pay off the debt and dramatically reduce taxes. Do you want me to focus on that? Do you want me to slash military spending to pay for all that?

I don't care what your position was or is, or will be. I care that the deductions you've made are based on incorrect information. Ignoring the issues I raised won't make your simplistic and erroneous solution any better. You lack the depth of knowledge to comment appropriately on that which you did. When you got called on it you blustered even more and managed to further illustrate my point. What the voters want in Winnipeg or wherever isn't my point nor my concern.

$1:

At this point I am the president of the Liberal riding association in my riding, and have stated my intent to seek the nomination. In my riding I was one of only 2 delegates for Stéphane Dion during the leadership convention. I supported Stéphane Dion when very few people in Manitoba did. Of the 2 delegates, I'm the only one who expressed interest in seeking the nomination. Although a nomination meeting hasn't been held yet, if an election is called without a nominated candidate the president of the riding association is automatically the candidate. I just recently became president, which now makes it my job to call a nomination meeting, or announce when one will occur to spur a nomination race. If I just sit on my hands and do nothing then I will be it by default. Hmm; not a nice thing to do. I do have the support of all those active riding members who work during an election. And I have support of the past candidate, and the past two riding presidents. The incumbent in this riding is not Liberal, but he has stated he won't run again. The "feel" among voters in this riding is they want a change, probably why he chose to not run, retire while he is still on top. Demographics have changed radically since the incumbent was elected; it's not the same riding at all. The current voters want a good candidate, party is not as important. So it's wide open, I really do have a chance. You're talking to a potential MP here.

I don't care about your dreams and desires. Potential MP are you? So what? You're still wrong on so many things about the CF.

$1:

Sound pompous? No more so than you bragging about being regular forces and claiming anyone who isn't doesn't know what they're talking about.

Who's bragging? Pointing out errors of fact makes it bragging? CF members don't have an exclusive knowledge of this stuff. Just because you don't (or won't) doesn't mean it isn't out there. Besides, if you're going to be some kind of politician, doing a little meaningful research (like I suggested) as opposed to going with what you prattled on about, will keep you from looking like a tool.

$1:

So again I ask, do you really want to insult me? Rather than trying to shut me up, why don't you educate me. Obviously funding is very limited, and I've said before that I favour maintaining the equipment we got and adding to it rather than perpetually replacing everything. I also feel a prolonged mission in Afghanistan will damage our international reputation. It will damage relations with those allies we depend on, and create new enemies where we used to have friends.

Shut you up? Me? Nope. I said you need to crack the books. I said you need to correct some fundamental errors WRT to the CF. I said you need to consider the real issues and how they impact the CF. You're concerned about our relations with our Allies we depend on, are you? Would that be those Allies that we landed in Normandy with? Or occupied defensive positions along the Imjin with, or liberated at some point? Or those we aligned with on the NATO Central Front? That reputation is in danger? There are allies more important than them that will become our enemy if we stay the course and adhere to our freely made agreements?

$1:

So start by enlightening me, why can't we deploy the forces I describe?

Reread what I posted. You've managed to completely miss one of the key reasons why. It's unsustainable. Better yet, at a personal level invite an Arms CF Officer or Sr NCO and take him out for a long coffee and listen to what he's got to say. It doesn't take attendance at Staff College to know this stuff. But if you're going to stand up and offer solutions to CF problems you had better be aware of the real issues and not the "issue de jour" as blabbed by some talking head on TV. Otherwise, you'll come off looking like the rest of the pack.

[ShepherdsDog]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I didn't say tanks are employed by themselves. Again, do I have to spell out all the details. You guys claim you know everything and no one else does. In addition to the administration company with each infantry regiment CF has combat engineers, 3 combat engineer regiments and 1 engineering support regiment. 1 Combat Engineer Regiment is assigned to 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. Although battle groups in combat are ad hoc, I expect that if the Strathconas are deployed, that combat engineer regiment will continue to maintain the tanks. No giant leap to imagine the current technicians will continue to maintain the same equipment. Now that tanks are deployed in Afghanistan, who is maintaining them?

If you don't like that I have ideas about the military, perhaps I should go back to my position before June 2006? Is that what you want? That our military is fine as-is and we should just maintain what we got without any new purchases? Canada really does need to focus on promoting peace in the world, peace through peace rather than the expectation that peace will come from war. Focus on our economy and domestic infrastructure instead. There's a debate at city hall tomorrow about rapid transit. Winnipeg is the largest city in Canada that has no form of rapid transit what so ever. When I read posts from people in Toronto who complain the Spadina subway extension is a bad idea, in the wrong place, my immediate reaction was "I'll take that money." For the price of that one little subway extension I could build an entire LRT system in Winnipeg. To be effective we need a little bit of subway downtown, but the total length would be half that of the Spadina extension alone. We could build grade level (tracks on the ground) for most of the system, and utilize existing unused or low-traffic freight tracks. The city bought an unused track this summer that starts close to downtown and goes right to the north-east end of the city. I also want to pay off the debt and dramatically reduce taxes. Do you want me to focus on that? Do you want me to slash military spending to pay for all that?

At this point I am the president of the Liberal riding association in my riding, and have stated my intent to seek the nomination. In my riding I was one of only 2 delegates for Stéphane Dion during the leadership convention. I supported Stéphane Dion when very few people in Manitoba did. Of the 2 delegates, I'm the only one who expressed interest in seeking the nomination. Although a nomination meeting hasn't been held yet, if an election is called without a nominated candidate the president of the riding association is automatically the candidate. I just recently became president, which now makes it my job to call a nomination meeting, or announce when one will occur to spur a nomination race. If I just sit on my hands and do nothing then I will be it by default. Hmm; not a nice thing to do. I do have the support of all those active riding members who work during an election. And I have support of the past candidate, and the past two riding presidents. The incumbent in this riding is not Liberal, but he has stated he won't run again. The "feel" among voters in this riding is they want a change, probably why he chose to not run, retire while he is still on top. Demographics have changed radically since the incumbent was elected; it's not the same riding at all. The current voters want a good candidate, party is not as important. So it's wide open, I really do have a chance. You're talking to a potential MP here.

Sound pompous? No more so than you bragging about being regular forces and claiming anyone who isn't doesn't know what they're talking about.

So again I ask, do you really want to insult me? Rather than trying to shut me up, why don't you educate me. Obviously funding is very limited, and I've said before that I favour maintaining the equipment we got and adding to it rather than perpetually replacing everything. I also feel a prolonged mission in Afghanistan will damage our international reputation. It will damage relations with those allies we depend on, and create new enemies where we used to have friends. So start by enlightening me, why can't we deploy the forces I describe?

???? Excuse me, but what the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China??

$1:

Sound pompous?

uhhhhhh.....yes.

$1:

So again I ask, do you really want to insult me? Rather than trying to shut me up, why don't you educate me.

Isn't that what he did? He informed you where your assumptions were incorrect and why. He even suggested some reading that could help improve your misconceptions and misunderstandings. It looks like you have the makings of a fine MP - you become indignant when errors are exposed in your diatribes.

[Winnipegger]

You said the technicians needed to support their equipment aren't enough to deploy two infantry regiments at a time. The only separate technicians are the CERs. From what I read, they are separate regiments but currently assigned to tanks, not infantry. So I don't see how your statement makes sense, and that is what my statement means.

I don't think you realize how shocking your statement is. You are claiming we don't have 3 operational infantry regiments. The government is paying salaries for all the soldiers in 3 regiments, but if they can't be deployed then they're useless. I suggested just deploying two of them and leaving one at home for homeland defence. You're claiming we can't do even that. Such a statement is shocking and I have trouble believing it.

Actually I did ask a CF officer. I belong to a science fiction club that has a retried CF photo tech and a currently serving CF soldier. When the conservative government announced the Herculese cargo planes were old and needed replacing, I questioned that. Some Hercs are old but most aren't beyond their service life, and some are relatively new. More importantly, commercial aircraft are now so well maintained that if they're properly maintained they can continue to operate "essentially forever". That's directly from a commercial aircraft mantenance tech. So I questioned the need to replace our Hercs, rather keep them and add a ro-ro ship. But before belabouring that point I wanted to see one with my own eyes and talk to a CF maintenance tech. So I asked the serving CF officer if he could introduce me. He said he would, it turned out he works in the CF post office. The meeting never happened, this spring it'll be 2 years and I still haven't gotten to speak to a CF aircraft maintenance tech. Frustraiting.

As for allies, I did list a couple. It is rather important to maintain good relations with Arab countries for a couple reasons. (Is Turkey Arab? They have Europe on one side, Middle East on the other. They've been called "Asia Minor" but what does that mean?) For one thing those Arab countries won't want to attack us. For another our Arab allies can talk to any Arab countries that get bad ideas, talk them out of an attack. If military intervention is required, we can use their bases to base our activities. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the fact we don't take sides in the Israel/Arab conflict puts Canada in the unique position of being able to mediate. The United States tries to do that, but they're distinctly on Israel's side; Canada doesn't take sides. The issue of Israel may not be the primary reason for military conflict, but it is used as a rallying cry within their country to raise supporters. Staying out of conflicts is actually more important than having an ally with big guns.

I could go on but this is long enough and a friend wants to meet me for lunch.

[sasquatch2]

It is morally difficult to be onside with a group that targets Kassim and kayusha rockets at civilians, embeded in their own civilians......

[mapleleafsnation]

SpCFforr is right, you should listen to him... I'm pretty sure he is the person who has the most credit in this debate, he's a part of the regular forces and clearly knows what he's talking about. However I respect your seek to meet with members of the Forces to learn a bit more.

You guys all seem to be arguing about the situation over there as if the whole Middle East was planning to attack Canada and like if our presence in Afghanistan was the equivalent of the US in Iraq.

What we're doing in Afghanistan is respected by the international community.

The UN asked us NOT to send any more troops because they feel we're already doing more than our part. I don't have the sources to back it up, but if you've been following the news constantly you probably saw a few notes about this in the past few years.

I fail to see how a reputation as the workhorse in Afghanistan can make us look bad. As I said earlier, we aren't rolling around with a C-6 in each hand shooting at everything. We are building things and helping the small tribes develop, we provide the Afghanis with basic stuff like water and education. Of course we also have combat mission. However when we fight it is to protect 'peace and good order.' Which is a Canadian value written down in the constitution. I don't get how you can conclude that 'Being in Afghanistan is bad for our international relations' from the premises 'Canada is in Afghanistan' and 'about all Canadian allies are in Afghanistan'.

We do not need allies in the Middle Easts either or if we do, well I didn't know that Canada was planning an invasion anywhere around there. Afghanistan is not an invasion, because their government supports our presence there. The only reason it's not blue berret is because we are not preserving peace. We're helping a country protect its own citizens.

Winnipegger, you're saying you want to be an elected official, but you seem to lack the basic reasoning skills it requires, or perhaps you are not enlightened (from the real meaning of the word). What's your education? Did you ever study political sciences? Or any social science for that matter? I'm in my first year in political science and from what I learned, most of your comments on international relationship are either fallacies or stretches.

[EyeBrock]

Did he actually say he was in a "Science fiction club"........?

Tactical as they come eh?

[SprCForr]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

You said the technicians needed to support their equipment aren't enough to deploy two infantry regiments at a time. The only separate technicians are the CERs. From what I read, they are separate regiments but currently assigned to tanks, not infantry. So I don't see how your statement makes sense, and that is what my statement means.

Quote me exactly where I said there weren't enough technicians to support two Infantry Regiments at a time. I think your wires are getting crossed some where. If you're refering to mechanics able to work on tanks then you're mistaken. You also need to learn about a unit in the CF called a Service Battalion and what exactly their role is. Again, that superficial knowledge is doing you a major disservice.

Read some of your source material on the composition of an Engineer Regiment (vehicle quantities and types) and an Armoured Regiment. From that, based on the numbers and types of vehicles involved, guess at the numbers of people with the necessary qualifications. It's pretty obvious if you were to look at those numbers side by side. Simply put, an Engineer regiment doesn't have (on established strength) the numbers and types of people qualified to maintain Armoured Corps gun tanks.

$1:

I don't think you realize how shocking your statement is. You are claiming we don't have 3 operational infantry regiments. The government is paying salaries for all the soldiers in 3 regiments, but if they can't be deployed then they're useless. I suggested just deploying two of them and leaving one at home for homeland defence. You're claiming we can't do even that. Such a statement is shocking and I have trouble believing it.

It's not shocking at all. I said this repeatedly and you haven't hoisted it aboard. It's common knowledge that the three Infantry Regiments are administrative groupings only. Again, lack of depth in your knowledge of the CF is causing you problems. You haven't yet realized that it's the three Battalions (individually) within each those Regiments are the operational units. Those three Battalions are controlled and directed by the Brigades they're assigned to. The hole in your knowledge about the operational grouping of Army units is large enough to drive a truck through. Are you purposely disregarding what I've written previously? Explain exactly how your cunning plan to deploy six of the nine Regular Force Infantry Battalions can be replaced by the 3 Battaions that are left? That question just scratches the surface of the issue you claim to be addressing.

$1:

Actually I did ask a CF officer. I belong to a science fiction club that has a retried CF photo tech and a currently serving CF soldier. When the conservative government announced the Herculese cargo planes were old and needed replacing, I questioned that. Some Hercs are old but most aren't beyond their service life, and some are relatively new. More importantly, commercial aircraft are now so well maintained that if they're properly maintained they can continue to operate "essentially forever". That's directly from a commercial aircraft mantenance tech. So I questioned the need to replace our Hercs, rather keep them and add a ro-ro ship. But before belabouring that point I wanted to see one with my own eyes and talk to a CF maintenance tech. So I asked the serving CF officer if he could introduce me. He said he would, it turned out he works in the CF post office. The meeting never happened, this spring it'll be 2 years and I still haven't gotten to speak to a CF aircraft maintenance tech. Frustraiting.

Interesting, but irrelevant to our discussion. You couldn't have talked with him about any of this stuff in detail, because of the glaring errors in your assesment. As I said previously, find a Reg Force CF Officer from one of the Arms. If you don't know what an Arm is, ask if they belong to one. There are only four.

$1:

As for allies, I did list a couple. It is rather important to maintain good relations with Arab countries for a couple reasons. (Is Turkey Arab? They have Europe on one side, Middle East on the other. They've been called "Asia Minor" but what does that mean?) For one thing those Arab countries won't want to attack us. For another our Arab allies can talk to any Arab countries that get bad ideas, talk them out of an attack. If military intervention is required, we can use their bases to base our activities. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the fact we don't take sides in the Israel/Arab conflict puts Canada in the unique position of being able to mediate. The United States tries to do that, but they're distinctly on Israel's side; Canada doesn't take sides. The issue of Israel may not be the primary reason for military conflict, but it is used as a rallying cry within their country to raise supporters. Staying out of conflicts is actually more important than having an ally with big guns.

I could go on but this is long enough and a friend wants to meet me for lunch.

Again, not part of the discussion you were having with me. I don't agree that Canada trying to suck up to Syria is more important than our relationship with the UK or France.

[ridenrain]

Sorry Winipegger, based on the clarification you have provided and the snapshot of foreign policy you prefer, I do believe you could well be a Liberal candidate.... and lord save us all.

[mapleleafsnation]

If you guys have TV5 (a French Channel) go to it right now, it has a very interesting report on the links between Al-Quaeda, the Talibans and Pakistan.