Camp Julien, the major Canadian Camp in Kabul
Posted on 07/24/2004 2:23:41 PM PDT by Robert Taylor
Soldiers from the military unit that was mistakenly attacked in Afghanistan by a U.S. fighter jet in 2002 are heading back to the mountainous Middle Eastern country for another tour of duty.
About 40 troops...
(Excerpt) Read more at globeandmail.com ...
"Canadians freeload on the Americans for defense"
I replied to some fine Candadian privately, but felt so strongly about this topic of the paltry contribution that Canada makes to the peace of the world, that there is a totally inadequate burden shared by Canadians, that they freeload on the US taxpayer. The Canadian takes issue with me by wondering who is the possible foe of Canada. I comment broadly on this story and its overall place in the ongoing effort to secure a better future for the peace of the world.
Who is the enemy? Who would attack Canada? Those are in basically the questions you pose to me.
Who is Canada's foe?
The answer is quite simple. It is any tyrannical regime that has the potential to cause great strife in the world because the economy of the world is so interconnected now. It is the North Koreans, testing their homegrown Intercontinental Ballistic Missle which they will arm with nuclear warheads they already have on hand. It is the Communist government of China, which has made thinly veiled threats against the United States, to nuke Los Angeles if the USA opposed a communist invasion of that great trading land of Taiwan. (do a google search on those topics, you will find out all of that happened 95-99)
On whose back rests the stability of the world? The maintainance of freedom? The expansion of liberty? Do two elected governments make war upon each other? Or is it that one party states/strong men, dictators, presidents for life, military huntas, terrorist organization leaders that make war, and elected governments make war upon them for the purposes of creating a peaceful planet where people can pursue wealth and property, peace and prosperity.
The English speaking nations in the post WWII era have been the great engine of freedom, the means of destruction of tyranny, the means by which a richer planet, where the means to not only look to the betterment of the people but the betterment of the planet can take place from free people being able to innovate, create, work, and build that better future for themselves. The rich nations are not the main polluters but the tyrannical regimes, the Chernobles, the Airal seas debacles, the chemical pollutions the burning of jungle forests for subsistence farming, the torching of oil wells, the attacks on pipelines, the draining of marshes. A wealthy people have the means to help promote a better, cleaner earth. And wealth comes from the individuals ability to persue rewards for hard innovative effort.
The British the Americans have not always stood by in this post war era, neither have the Americans always stood by the British but the English speaking nations have been responsible for the elimination of many tyrants, huntas, and one party states. Who shoulders the burden of keeping the peace? Who pays their fair share? Who contributes in equal numbers?
It was a dramatic relief for the British to evict the hunta from the Falklands 21 years ago, for the hunta fell and elected governments have ruled since in Argentina. It was a relief for British troops to overcome communist designs in SE asia over 40 years ago, a campaign undertaken with help only with Gurkas.
Who shouldered the burden to rid the world of one of its most war making tyrants, whose mass graves now total over 260?
Who stood shoulder to shoulder to win the cold war, to break the bank and one party state of the Soviet Empire in the 1980's?
Who fought communist expansion in Korea over 40 years ago?
Who keeps the lid on another world war?
Canada has already been invaded by terrorist organizations who use it for a base from which to send bombers to destroy downtown landmarks in Seattle. Luck was upon us when some alert border agent checked the trunk of his car. The communist foe on the pacific rim grows ever stronger, would a defeated United States be able to keep Canada from being bullied, and taxed by tyrannical regimes 75 years from now if our strength is gone? After the Revolutionary War, congress got rid of the navy so pirates kidnapped our ships and held them for high ransom. The price for liberating them from the Barbary pirates of Tripoli was higher than the price extracted from the great naval powers of Britain and France. Our cry was "MILLIONS FOR DEFENSE NOT A RED CENT IN TRIBUTE". Surely these predators are held at bay because of the sacrifices of the taxpayers of America and Britian, whose competent armies and navies are deployed worldwide. The foes of Canada are really no different than those of Britian, America or Australia. If the sheild of peace falls, Canada is surely harmed. The predator will come to the door and demand tribute and ransom.
WE ALL HANG TOGETHER AGAINST THE FOES OF FREEDOM OR ELSE IN THE LONG RUN WE SHALL ALL BE HUNG SEPERATELY AS THE WORLD WOULD DESCEND INTO DARKNESS AGAIN.
You insult the Australians, New Zealanders, and Fijians.
Great article.
One suggested upgrade. The mass graves line does not read good. You say that there are now 260 mass graves found. This can be easily misread as 260 individual graves - and they you get a 'yawn' response. If you can clarify the definition of 'mass' graves that would fix that problem.
Within the CF, the Navy made the biggest contribution to the campaign against terrorism with 16 major warships and 4 000 sailors deploying to the Arabian Sea over a two-year period. “The call to help in the war against terrorism came to Canada and it was answered quickly, bravely and without question,” said Chief of the Defence Staff, General Ray Henault.
Camp Julien, the major Canadian Camp in Kabul
"Within the CF, the Navy made the biggest contribution to the campaign against terrorism with 16 major warships and 4 000 sailors deploying to the Arabian Sea over a two-year period. “The call to help in the war against terrorism came to Canada and it was answered quickly, bravely and without question,” said Chief of the Defence Staff, General Ray Henault."
Oh really? The TOTAL major warship force of Canada is 18 ships, one of which is laid up!
Are you telling me 16 of those 17 went over a two year period? Follow the link for present Canadian Forces, Naval, Major:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101sm-ship.htm
The United States Navy has 400 Major warships:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/csg.htm
With a population of roughly 10% (32 million/300 million) of the United States, Canada has about 5% of the navy.
Of all NATO countries, only Iceland and Luxembourg spend less on defense as a percentage of GDP:
(Globe and Mail story)
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:hFzffi8czEkJ:www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPPrint/LAC/20040614/EDEFENCE14/TPComment/+Canadian+military+spending+percentage+of+&hl=en
This document with 2002 data shows USA, 3%GDP defense, Canada 1.4
Anyway it is looked at, Canadian contributions to NATO, or the contributions to North American Defense, Canada is just not pulling its weight at all.
Doubling the present expenditure would rectify the matter but the socialists in power are too busy pouring money down deadended ratholes like onethousandpercent cost overrun gun registration schemes.
Oh, I have not even started to insult the New Zealanders.
This bunch of ostrich oriented knaves have sold, or are trying to sell, every last one of the fighters that they have. The official New Zealand Air Force website lists only transport aircraft in its fixed wing component.
Current story about how they have yet to sell the last remaining bits of combat ability:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2981162a11,00.html
Clearly instead of being the steadfast contributors they once were, the New Zealanders have decided to hope the US Navy's Pacific Fleet continues in its ability to hold the wolf at bay, and if that fails, heck Australia will provide. In the First World War, New Zealand bought and paid for a state of the art battleship that stood in its place in the battle line at Jutland. Its captain wore a grass skirt given by native peoples in the belief that anything that would help keep the ship safe from harm in battle and provide victory over the Kaisers High Seas Fleet was surely worth putting to use.
Now, they might as well hold up that grass skirt when the next foe comes, for it will be all that stands between them and total defeat. (there is always some foe coming in the future, mankinds history is written by wars won and lost)
ping
Canadian Forces soldiers, sailors, and airmen have accomplished and are accomplishing good things with the tools they have. Operation APOLLO, Operation ATHENA, and TASK FORCE KABUL are significant achievements. Canadians should be proud, and Americans should be appreciative.
Whatever. Our government's (and in turn Canadians in general) commitment to defence spending may be questionable. There's still no reason to crap on our military men who are out there helping to fight the war on terror, in some cases with inadequate equipment, at considerable risk to themselves. Would you rather we did nothing at all? But if it makes you feel big to insult those who are on your side, like those of us Canadians who frequent this forum, fill your boots.
Actually, I don't believe he's insulted our military specifically. His comments appear to be directed at Canada in general and, in reading between the lines, the government more specifically.
No, I did not insult those who serve WITH INADEQUATE EQUIPMENT.
I wrote that they are half the number they should be.
One report had it that some of the cold weather gear was sold, then sought from surplus stores when the post 9/11 winter campaign in central asia came. Good grief.
There are most certainly those who are willing to pay the price in monies and blood to stand on guard for Canada. But they seem to be in a shrinking minority unfortunately.
"Canadians should be proud, and Americans should be appreciative."
You had me in your corner until this. Why should Americans be appreciative of those who are fighting terrorism? Isn't terrorism a problem for everyone...not just the Americans?
I don't even want to go into the way Canadians have treated a children's hockey team and I won't forget the names that so called leaders of Canada called President Bush. If people from all countries are concerned about terrorism, then the burden should fall on everyone's shoulders.
I agree in that our military does a more than formidable job with what they have. As a Canadian, I am very proud of their efforts. I believe most Americans are appreciative as well of the soldiers' efforts, even if they don't happen to express it. However, I also believe most Americans think we should be doing more ... and I for one agree.
There should be mutual appreciation for all who are in the fray.
A follow up to the Pee-Wee hockey team you referred to:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1104288/posts
As to our leaders and their comments ... they're libs, what more would you expect. Not all Canadians support them.
If you have to ask the question, you probably wouldn't understand the answer.
October 8, 2001–February 11, 2002: HMCS Halifax
December 5, 2001–May 27, 2002: HMCS Toronto
September 4, 2001–March 4, 2002: HMCS Charlottetown
October 17, 2001–April 27, 2002: HMCS Iroquois, HMCS Preserver
November 12, 2001–May 28, 2002: HMCS Vancouver
February 17–August 17, 2002: HMCS Ottawa
March 23–October 14, 2002: HMCS Algonquin
May 1–November 14, 2002: HMCS St. John’s
May 22–October 21, 2002: HMCS Protecteur
September 9, 2002–April 2, 2003: HMCS Montreal
September 16, 2002–April 7, 2003: HMCS Winnipeg
February 2–May 19, 2003: HMCS Regina
February 24–July 5, 2003: HMCS Iroquois
March 5–Aug 4, 2003: HMCS Fredericton
August 1, 2003-present: HMCS Calgary
COL Frank Wiercinski
April, 2002
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
