Canada�s top soldier defends spending delay, says military not hurting for money

What a fucking spineless lackey. Between him and the Minister of National Defense there won't be a military by the time the Liberal Party is done with them. And, those two quislings can claim they're there for the military all they want but, the truth is that they've crossed that unspoken moral line and become Politicians rather than soldiers, and as such will toe the party line no matter what happens to those serving under them.

Given this guys actions I'm now pretty sure I know what the Vice Chief of Defense Staff got shit canned for.

Apparently this Leader of Men doesn't read the news or he'd have noticed that his masters have:



http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/dnd-curb ... -1.3331987

I guess the next step in the CDS's career progression will be a good gov't job upon retirement and a chance to move up the ladder to become a full fledged Liberal MP with a cabinet post in the future.

/

Believe whatever you want but, FFS don't believe me a veteran of 32 years military service who lived through this same scenario during the 1970's under our current leaders daddy. As for bashing the Liberals you're right and you can bet I'll continue to until they keep their promises and do the right thing which, given their heritage is highly unlikely.

Although, if you like most of your type, don't want to spend money on the Military then please do us a favour and vote for any party that'll eliminate it completely and quit complaining about the pittance they get now. But, unless you're willing do that and insist on voting for people who lie about military procurement and support then, you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Just, don't be like the current CDS and try to justify the fact that the Liberals promised new ships, new planes, reinstated Veterans pensions, more military spending and the tools to do the job when they were campaigning but, in turn gave the military less money, less training, less spending, less personnel, more UN mandated missions, and still no veterans pensions because even a layman should be able to see through that smoke screen.

And, if you honestly believe Canada's Top Soldier didn't give up being a soldier and come a defacto politician who blindly agrees with the Liberals blunting of the pointy end of the stick, then you don't know alot about NDHQ, Ottawa and the symbiotic Gov't/Military relationship.

But, just so you can see I'm not the only one who thinks this way about military spending and procurement. How about this guy but, FFS don't believe him either because he's probably just another dumb Liberal bashing Veteran and not some unbiased military leader who owes his job and likely his future employment by his being re- appointed by the current PM.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... e31297067/

Or how about this guy who made the accusation that the military was in a fragile state even before the gutting of it became the latest gov'ts policy.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... ck-hillier

All of them wrong because, the Current CDS said the military's okay despite the current cutbacks.

Decade of darkness is about right.

Military personel are not allowed to say anything that could put the current standing government in a negative light. So in this case, it means that the current CDS is obligated to say spending cuts and delays are okay, even if they aren't.

The reality is that the military doesn't have enough money to function. Many of the vehicles used are 20-30 years old. Older vehicles (and other equipment) cost more for upkeep, yet the cutbacks mean there is next-to-no money for upkeep. This often results in vehicles being cannibalised for parts when it will help keep the rest of the fleet operational. This in turn means units have less than what they need to operate, and it costs more to maintain what little they have than it would to maintain newer kit. So now you throw in the spending "delays" and exascerbate the problem for another 10 years.

Ergo, the CDS is more concerned about maintaining his own career than he is about looking after the troops. If he gave a damn about the sorry state the military is in, he'd speak the truth and face the consequences (likely resign his post, with a VERY nice pension). The results of which would be the media having a riot with his statement and thus pressuring the government to atleast partially reverse their decision.

But no, he'd rather count his beans.

As the saying goes, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, and I'm guessing that's why the CDS chose tact instead of bitching ala Rick Hillier a decade ago.

As bad as this budget is for the DND, it could be even worse, with cuts to spending, instead of just holding the line as this budget did.

As for why we need to maintain a military, I'd argue it's an essential part of being an independent nation and an invaluable part of our foreign policy, not a "make-work" project.

Liberals such as Louis St. Laurent and Lester Pearson understood this - having witnessed World War 2 - and spent appropriately on defence, while their successors like PET and Chretien did not. Canada's robust military in the 1950s and 1960s were one of the reasons Canada punched well above its weight in foreign affairs. Our relative decline in the world order in the 1970s and 1980s went along with our declining military capabilities.

As the saying goes, you don't bite the hand that feeds you, and I'm guessing that's why the CDS chose tact instead of bitching ala Rick Hillier a decade ago.

As bad as this budget is for the DND, it could be even worse, with cuts to spending, instead of just holding the line as this budget did.

As for why we need to maintain a military, I'd argue it's an essential part of being an independent nation and an invaluable part of our foreign policy, not a "make-work" project.

Liberals such as Louis St. Laurent and Lester Pearson understood this - having witnessed World War 2 - and spent appropriately on defence, while their successors like PET and Chretien did not. Canada's robust military in the 1950s and 1960s were one of the reasons Canada punched well above its weight in foreign affairs. Our relative decline in the world order in the 1970s and 1980s went along with our declining military capabilities.

And if you think that's bad how about this:



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... ghter-jets

So, where's the outrage. The left complained incessantly when Harper did this to the scientists but not a peep when their party does it to the military and DND employees.

If you're employed, your employee has the right to gag you for anything job related... military or scientist.

FOG if you're expecting outrage from the rabid lefties forget it, they're too busy Trump bashing to see past the Trudough governments stupidity. Trudough himself is too busy handing out free tickets to the rainbows and unicorns selfie extravaganza.

If there's something conservatives should be mad about when it comes to the military then it should be that for eight years a Conservative government promised the moon when it came to more military spending but reneged on most of their promises as much as any Liberal government ever has.

This issue will never be fixed because there's no long-term benefit for the political class (of all parties) in modernizing and revamping the Canadian military. DOD Procurement apparently has some kind of stranglehold on the bureaucracy if they can triple or quadruple the cost of a stock item or weapon system that works perfectly fine for the Americans or Germans but has to be brought "up to the standards of Canadian kit". And, most of all, the military plays so small of a role in the lives of most Canadians that as a result most Canadians today simply don't care about the military the way previous generations did. It's not part of our daily lives anymore, therefore the overwhelming indifference.

This will not be corrected in ours or anyone else's lifetimes. Everyone should get used to it.

Well if an American Spring occurs we better be able to defend something from the crazies coming north to liberate us from our sanity.

The Americans will be too busy shooting each other for a decade to bother with Canada and that's because there's way more armed moderates and liberals than the Bible-belt dumbfuck brigade are currently assuming. The fat guys with their Bibles and AR-15's and IQ's of 80 aren't going to have the cakewalk that they think they will. I've talked to some of the other side on other sites and they hate the rednecks just as much as the rednecks hate them.

Yep, this issue is a solidly non-partisan one - all politicians have treated the CF pretty much the same.

Until Canadians as a whole care about the military, politiciabs won't either.

Yep, this issue is a solidly non-partisan one - all politicians have treated the CF pretty much the same.

Until Canadians as a whole care about the military, politiciabs won't either.
But this being said, how can we as citizens get the message to those that we elect to change their position on the CF if all 3 major parties treat it the same way?

Join the party you affiliate with, get yourself onto the board of directors for your local riding association, and talk about it. Your voice carries a lot more weight when you are a party member, and even moreso when you are attending monthly board meetings with your local MP/riding candidate. I have done this, it was surprisingly easy.



So my intent, now that I am a member on the local board, is to present military-related policy changes, including a statute that commits the party to the NATO minimum 2% spending limit. If I can get it through the local riding association and then the provincial level, I will be able to present it as a policy change at the national party convention. If others are able to do the same in the Liberal and NDP parties, it becomes a wholly bi-partisan issue and budget increases are assured.