Posted on 09/26/2001 7:31:04 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
Big, fat men in Speedos and black socks.....you know the story.
So then why do you trust us??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA JIM J. BULLOCK!!!! CENTER SQUARE FOR THE BLOCK! Oh man...it does not get more queer than Jim J. on the Hollywood Squares.Ted Knight was awesome though...R.I.P.
From Strategic Assesment, CDA 1999
Canada stands at a crossroads in its national development. One route leads to prominence as a member of the group of post-industrial nations. The other route leads to increasing marginalization in international affairs. Now it is merely standing at the intersection, lacking a vision and political leadership to implement that vision. The well-being of Canadians is tied firmly to the well-being of the United States. This follows from geographical circumstances and the fact that 80% of its foreign trade is with the US. Western Europe advancing under the euro will regain some importance, as will recovering Southeast Asian nations. But overall, Canada's security policy should be aimed at supporting US initiatives to maintain the international stability necessary for prosperity and progress.
Canada's armed forces possess a dwindling stock of military capabilities. They do not have manpower or modern technological resources to implement a national security policy commensurate with emerging threats in the new and unstable international milieu. Major shortfalls should be eliminated to provide sufficient resources for modern joint naval, land and air operations, strategic and tactical mobility, communication and control, digital battlefield weapon systems and integrated logistics. Attention must also be paid to space-based systems for missile defence and command control purposes. The armed forces also suffer from demilitarization since the special nature of military requirements often goes unrecognized.
. . .
In simple terms, defence establishments of modern developed nations should comprise forces that will be able to fight and win in a wide and complex variety of combat operations. They must also be effective in a myriad of demanding operations short of combat. In both cases they must be able to operate jointly in coalitions with armed forces of other like-minded nations. These requirements demand, in the first instance, strategic, operational and tactical mobility, and sophisticated command, control and surveillance capabilities.
Potential operations can be divided generally into three groups:
. . .
Maritime Forces. In relative terms, the navy is in the best position to undertake modern military operations. Its main shortfalls are in manpower and resources for sustained operations beyond a single task group of ships. As well, it will perform below its potential until the Upholder submarines enter operational service, and until the Sea King helicopters are replaced and the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft are modernized. The navy also requires new multi-purpose transports.
Air Forces. Serious shortfalls in maritime patrol aircraft, maritime helicopter and armed helicopter capabilities have already been noted. Other core air force combat capabilities will also diminish unless the CF-18 fighter fleet is modernized electronically and equipped with adequate stockpiles of air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground precision guided munitions. Fighter deployment to NATO European or any other overseas area requires a strategic aerial refueling capability. Both strategic and tactical airlift are essential for timely response and sustainment of any international commitment by maritime, land, or air forces, and for all operations in peace and war.
Space Support. Space looms ever larger in the global security environment such that nations now depend on space systems to achieve national security goals. Canadian maritime, land and air forces will require timely, accurate support from space in the areas of surveillance, intelligence, communications, meteorology, navigation, and warning information to be effective in information age military operations. Because of high costs of these systems, defence partnerships with allies appear to be the most sensible and affordable way to proceed. Reliance on space systems will only increase in the future.
Land Forces. Because it would play an important role in almost all Canadian contributions to security operations at home and overseas, the army needs special consideration in this assessment. Furthermore, the army has suffered the worst effects of the malaise, prompted by severely curtailed funding, which has gripped the Canadian Forces over several decades.
The imperative of meeting the continuous requirement to rotate a contingent into Bosnia every six months is reducing the army to a manpower pool. The reason why this task is so debilitating is that the three army brigade groups operate at 65% of their authorized manpower levels. Although brigades are tasked in turn for Bosnia, the whole cycle takes place over eighteen months and allows for a recovery period that is too short. As a result, very little cohesive and consistent brigade-level operational training has occurred since 1992.
The truth is the whole army is focused on producing one understrength battalion group (1250) for Bosnia, and this is eroding army professionalism. For example, the tactics and doctrine being taught at the Army Staff College focus now on the Combat Team (company group) level. This is roughly equivalent to the navy concentrating on individual frigates, but not Task Group operations.
Not only is the army losing its professional edge, current policy is to spread the "weaknesses" around throughout the whole "manpower pool." A better solution would be to tailor each existing brigade for specific operations related to the major types identified in this assessment. This would reintroduce focus and cohesion, but still cater to the need for variable capabilities demanded by the the new strategic realities. It would also allow resources to be spent where they are most needed.
. . . The equipment state of the Canadian Forces is variable. In a few cases it is state of the art. In others it is modern, but needs updating. For the remainder there are significant gaps in capabilities, or the materiel itself is obsolete. The armed forces structure proposed in this assessment would require acquisition of a number of new systems, in total not beyond the realm of possibility. These in include: several fast deployment support ships; heavy air transports and armed helicopters (perhaps leased); air launched precision guided munitions; armoured combat vehicles; artillery; unmanned airborne vehicles; and, additional and remilitarized support units and agencies.
Although some minimal positive changes along the lines recommended in this assessment could be implemented in the present circumstances of Canadian defence, nothing of significant impact would occur without rehabilitation of the Department of National Defence budget. The existing cumulative shortfall, centred mainly on operations and maintenance activities, is approaching $1 billion. Concurrently, the capital portion of the budget is falling to 15% from a desirable level of 25%. These conditions not only preclude armed forces modernisation, but lead in the opposite direction towards "rust out," as was the case in the 1970s.
To implement the provisions of this assessment would require that the present budget of some $9.3 billion be increased as a minimum to $10.5 billion for an indefinite period, which was recommended by the joint parliamentary committee on defence in 1994. In the short term, there is an urgent requirement for a large and special supplementary infusion of funds to the DND budget (the Minister of National Defence has recently requested $700 million for this purpose) to resolve quality of life shortfalls, and critical shortages of resources necessary for successful operations, training and maintenance.
From CDA statment to THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
SEPTEMBER 1999
Today, the cumulative shortfall vis-a-vis 1994 Defence White Paper policy is $1.1 billion and rising. In spite of recent good work in the Balkans, the Canadian Forces are largely a façade. Many key capabilities are missing and those that exist are paper-thin. Vital capital projects, such as new maritime helicopters, have been delayed or cancelled. There is also a compounding deficit in funds available for operations and training. Most serious of all is the turmoil caused by acute shortage of personnel versus operational commitments. This assures that quality of life problems will persist. Overall, it may be said Canada's defence situation reflects a mismatch of commitments vs resources.
Friendly women-who happen to posess vaginas, great beer, hockey, Rush. What's not to like about it?
Whether you like it or not, you guys will always be our unofficial 51st state, but we aint taking Quebec
Thanks, I feel better now.
I, like every Canadians, love my country as much as you Americans love yours. It is my home, and I am proud to be a part of it. My country has its weaknesses, and I grudgingly accept it, and while trying to do something about it. But I would NEVER consider becoming an American.
Yes, our military is a little weak, and would not likely fare well against that of the United States. But as a country of 30 million, there is likely nothing that we could do to fend off 300 million Americans. The government has certainly reduced military spending to a level below which most of us would like, but we still re elected them. Why? Because we accepted their vision for our country.
Yes, our healthcare system may seem like “Hillarycare” to you, but we would never allow a child with cancer to die simply because his father lacked the means to pay for the surgery. We have the notion that the poor might actually be deserving of quality care, even if they don’t have a job. Judging from the posts here, the typical attitude is if you can’t pay, tough s**t. Maybe you can live with that. I couldn’t.
And no, we are not armed to the teeth up here, but we also don’t have 16 year olds walking through high schools gunning down their classmates. You criticize our perceived lack of freedom, but what I see is the opposite. We think that a 20 year old deserves the right to choose if he wants a beer. You apparently don’t. Our government will let you have sex with however you want, whether or not society at large agrees. And we will not throw someone in jail for smoking a plant they grew in their backyard.
Our military is small, but as a member of it, and after having worked with many American soldiers, would say that it is composed of, as a whole, the finest soldiers in the world. We truly earn medals, as you will never see a Canadian with a “Good Conduct Medal” or “Cold War Medal”. Outstanding service is the norm, not an exception deserving of recognition. We have a proud military history, and we must not forget that Canada was fighting Hitler two years before the United States was goaded into action. Then again, we decided not to use our military to carpet bomb Vietnamese civilians or slaughter plains Indians.
We are proud of who we are, not a “bunch of vaginas”, to quote one of your more enlightened readers. We may be displeased with the government from time to time, but have never resorted to blowing up an office building with a fertilizer bomb. I feel safe on our streets at night, even though I don’t carry a concealed weapon. This is a fine place to be, so vent your steam, but try to make a bit of sense, and remember who your friends are.
Take Care eh.
I knew you could.;^)
Well, if you guys have a progressive tax system, you're screwed because you'll never make a majority. Liberals are clever little rascals. They've essentially created taxation without representation by forcing a segment of the population to pay all the taxes that will never be able to make a majority. OTOH, those that don't pay any taxes will make a majority and will always vote for the politician that promises them the most "freebies."
Only one problem with the liberal's scheme. It cannot be sustained forever. It will eventually implode upon itself as the taxpaying minority becomes demoralized, produces less, and eventually provides less tax revenues. The government response will be to increase taxes, which will further erode productivity, which will further reduce tax revenues, etc. etc.
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.