PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:
The Army had been neglected for a couple of decades. Unless you count the purchase of LSVW's as a good solid investment. The Navy aquired 10 CPF's in the 90's, I am sure you can google the cost of those much needed ships. I make no change to my comment, if there is only so much to go round, then obviously the guys in need the most are the ones going at it in Afghanistan. The ships painting trips can wait when kit and supplies are needed in SW Asia.
The Army was neglected, yes. Mulroney promised all sorts of things, tanks, Arctic APCs and then turned around and cancelled them after he was elected. Then he helped sell off the Chinooks and started the buy-out plan that saw so many vets retire early, further emasculating the CF. While Chretien was no picnic, he did buy all those lovely LAV IIIs we are using in Afghanistan right now (for the low, low cost of 2 billion or so), for just a little less than the cost of the Halifaxes (they actually built 12, not 10). Then after 9/11, he poured more money in to the Army and bought G-Wagens, Nyalas, M777 Howitzers, etc.
Everyone here bitches that Canada is a nobody on the international scene and that other countries don't respect us. Well, guess how we earn that respect? Things like guarding the Suez Canal during a ceasefire, walking the line in Cyprus, kicking ass in Korea, fighting the Taliban, creating fresh drinking water for Sri Lankans after a tsunami and guarding food ships are some of the ways the CF does that.
As gung ho as you are, the CF is not all about fighting. Yes, the vast majority of its mission profiles include combat. However, simply being there can deter combat in the first place. An excellent example of this was the 40+ years our troops spent in Germany. That didn't involve a lick of combat, but certainly prevented a war didn't it?
Same goes for our naval missions to Haiti, East Timor, Louisana, and other places. All of them may not involve combat but are still important, either in training our sailors for future combat situations or preventing it in the first place. That mission off Africa which you make light off is as important, if not more than Afghanistan, simply because we are helping to see that thousands of people eat today, tomorrow and the next day. Yes, the Navy has missions, which in your eyes seem questionable, but there are similar Army missions where the troops don't see a lick of action and wind up 'training' in bars. Should we cancel all those too? Of course not, because work does get done on those missions too, be it training, liasion with allies, whatever. I suppose you'd be in favour of tying our ships up in port and letting them rust, instead of properly maintaining them? Maybe that's why those trips are important...
Yes, the army needs funding for Afghanistan, but it's not the be all and end all of the CF. With Harper funding less than 29% of Afghanistan's costs, he's actually worse than Chretien, which is mind-boggling!
Are you serious?? Comparing the cold war Beer tours in LAhr and Baden to the Panjwai? I am pretty sure we would be back to square one if we all just stayed behind the wire, as I am sure the Taliban would cease operations because we were hanging out at Timmies on Kandahar Airfield. Better still, get the fleet off the Pakistani coast, that might deter things, as a matter of fact good idea, bring the troops home let the navy keep up our presence in the region (I am serious)
Please don't tell me what the navy does man, like I said you don't know anything about me.
CKA Uber 
CKA Super Elite 
