Assorted Merged Stored Topics

Yes Navrat your right,

It would only make the government look good if they were to stop this nonsense of cost cutting on the backs of Veterans.

Our men and women will answer the call, but the decent thing for the government to do is to improve the benefits so as Veterans don't have to fight anymore for their own benefits,
and any service members going forward that are medically released are looked after, and if called upon, can rest in knowing that they will be looked after.

This tactic they are using may indeed be saving them some bucks, what I don't get, is why they continue to do it, there is enough media attention out there that points this out, it only makes them look bad.

Further, if Canada states publicly that they will defend the Country no matter the cost, why are they cutting defence ?
One does not cut in defence just because were not in combat.
Proper training of our men and women require proper funding.
This way, when called upon, they are properly equipped, properly trained, and  ready to go.

My only concern is for the Troops, and these guys are very dangerous, no pow , so our guys and girls should know if they are sent over there and are taken most likly they will be beheaded ! This is why I want Harper to stop playing games with the veterans benefits, improve them, inform the troops that they will be taken care of, really, this time, then I would support a combat deployment

Navrat,

True that Washington is the lead player, and they are reaching out abroad for support.

However, in this particular case, ISIS has posed a direct threat to Canada, this I think is a game changer, with respect to how Canada will respond.

I believe no matter who's in power, the real decisions , are coming from Washington, just like the school principal telling the student , does the allies really need us at this point

Canada's role in Iraq does not have to be a combat mission: Trudeau

OTTAWA -- Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau agrees that Canada must play a role in the struggle against militants in Iraq, but says that doesn't necessarily mean combat.

Trudeau says Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems intent on sending Canadians to war, but has yet to explain why.

He's telling the Canada2020 conference that ISIL does pose a threat to regional and global security.

The question, he says, is what Canada should do about it.

Trudeau suggests there are options other than sending in CF-18 fighter-bombers to conduct airstrikes alongside allies.

He says Canada should be looking at offering strategic airlift, training, medical support or humanitarian efforts.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-s-role-in-iraq-does-not-have-to-be-a-combat-mission-trudeau-1.2035408#ixzz3F0S9NxJz



Try in figure this one out.

Good call Justin, let the others do all the dirty work.
That right there is what is running for PM.
No vote for you !
From the soup nazi !

And this is the response from the PMO on what Justin said;

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a terse statement of criticism shortly after the comment made the rounds on social media.

“Mr. Trudeau’s comments are disrespectful of the Canadian Armed Forces and make light of a serious issue,” PMO spokesperson Jason MacDonald said in a statement to CTV News.

“Our involvement in the fight against ISIL is, and has been, motivated by a desire to do our part in fighting a group that has made direct terrorist threats against Canada and Canadians, in addition to carrying out atrocities against children, women, and men in the region. As the Prime Minister has said: ‘we take that seriously and will do our part.’”

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pmo-decries-trudeau-joke-that-canada-should-not-whip-out-our-cf-18s-1.2035759#ixzz3F0m4UdyH

DND ordered less ammo in 2014, raising questions about possible new mission

OTTAWA -- National Defence slashed its annual order of ammunition this year to save money -- a revelation that raised fresh questions Wednesday about just how prepared Canada is to do battle with militants in the Middle East.

The 38 per cent cut was large enough to cause other government departments, Public Works and Industry Canada in particular, to sit up and take stock of the impact, internal documents obtained by The Canadian Press show.

One such document, a memo to Public Works Minister Diane Finley dated Feb. 5, 2014, indicates her department tried to convince defence officials to either abandon the cut or at least spread it out over a couple of years.

Defence officials said that would be impossible, because "they would not allow the department to meet its financial targets."

As a result, the 2014 ammunition budget was reduced to $94 million from $153 million.

During the early phases of the Afghan war, National Defence was caught similarly flat-footed and had to rush an order through General Dynamic Ordnance, particularly for artillery shells.

The memo surfaced on the same day Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the House of Commons that the cost of deploying special forces to northern Iraq is being taken out of the department's current budget.

Harper did not not say where the money would come from in any potential combat deployment, which was still being discussed behind closed doors on Wednesday. Nor would he speculate on how much a combat mission would cost.

"Our No. 1 priority is the safety and security of Canadians and the government will spend whatever is necessary to ensure that," Harper said during question period.

Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair accused the prime minister of dodging the question: "Is the prime minister really telling Canadians he has no idea -- at all -- how much it's going to cost? Ballpark? Nothing?"

During the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives promised to fund overseas deployments separately from the hard-pressed defence budget.

The war in Afghanistan was given a special appropriation, but the Libya bombing campaign and the recently concluded Afghan training mission were not, according to briefing documents prepared for Defence Minister Rob Nicholson last year.

Both the NDP and Liberals clawed for details on Wednesday about the scope and size of the Harper government's commitment to the U.S.-led war against the militants known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

A government motion detailing Canada's plans in Iraq, expected to include sending CF-18s on bombing runs, is expected in the coming days, likely on Friday.

The opposition parties won't say whether they'll support the motion until they see the details.

Conservative backbenchers were careful to stow any potential doubts following Wednesday's weekly caucus meeting.

"I think it's pretty safe to say we're united on this issue," said Alberta MP Laurie Hawn.

One bit of information that raised eyebrows was the revelation that the number of Canadian special forces soldiers advising Kurdish and Iraqi forces is much smaller than originally thought.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird confirmed that only 26 of the highly trained troops -- not 69 as originally believed -- are currently deployed in and around Irbil, in northern Iraq.

"The prime minister authorized up to 69 members of the Canadian Forces to provide training and assistance to stop the terrorist activities in Iraq," he told the Commons.

"We said, in fact, a few dozen, and we find that a few dozen are there."

The Conservative government, under repeated questioning in the House of Commons, revealed last month that up to 69 commandos were slated to deploy to help local forces battle ISIL.

A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said only a smaller contingent was required by allies, and noted that the 30-day deployment is under review.

The official, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said there were no problems getting the necessary diplomatic approvals, including an agreement setting out the limits of Canadian military involvement.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/dnd-ordered-less-ammo-in-2014-raising-questions-about-possible-new-mission-1.2035005#ixzz3Ez3pf2s3

Lol, I say sell the stuff and put the profits back into veterans benefits! We'd all be sitting pretty then!

Navrat,

you forgot to mention that those MaryJane rations will also have a bit of wacky tobacky in each and every pack.

Come on , Teen, at least with Trudeau we'll all get MaryJane rations , at least the poor service members being deployed now can at least relax while reading Fantino report about how and when they get hurt the government cares!

Well at least Mulcair understands mission security. Trudeau as usual is combing his hair and wants to know everything so him and all his cool pals can put the whole mission at risk.

The opposition is challenging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to "make the case" for a combat mission in Iraq, as the federal government mulls stepping up Canada's role in the fight against Islamic State militants.

Both NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau emerged from their weekly caucus meetings Wednesday to decry what they call the government’s secrecy about what it plans for Canadian Forces in Iraq.

The government is currently considering whether to renew the current 30-day non-combat advisory mission to northern Iraq, which began on Sept. 5. Harper has said that any plan to send Canadian Forces into combat will be put to the House for a debate and a vote. That decision, he said Tuesday, will come "in days."

Trudeau said Wednesday that Harper appears "intent on sending Canada into war in Iraq, and it's up to him to make the case for it."

Trudeau told reporters that he is “disappointed with the secrecy and lack of forthrightness” in the government’s answers during question period on a potential combat mission.

Mulcair said Canadians are "horrified” by the atrocities committed by ISIS, but "the question is, what is the best way for Canada to react?"

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be in need of humanitarian assistance as harsh winter weather descends on the region, he said.

"We've got to be extremely careful before we start listening to the siren song of those who would lead us into war," Mulcair said.

Both leaders declined to say whether they would whip the vote if the government made the vote on a combat mission a matter of confidence.

Meanwhile, Canada's current advisory mission appears to be smaller than the government has claimed. The Canadian Press reported Wednesday that Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird informed the NDP in an email that only 26 special operations forces had been deployed to northern Iraq.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/opposition-urges-pm-make-the-case-for-combat-mission-in-iraq-1.2033473#ixzz3Ev7JEg5p

Teen,

I have no problem with them asking questions but really, how many passports are flagged, that's easy, as many as it takes to accomplish the need to find the alleged terrorist.

Is it a combat role, another easy one, if your in a theatre of war, the answer is obviously yes.

What exactly is the air force doing, another easy one, dropping bombs on ISIS targets, and gaining reconnaissance.

These people better get it together, if they don't understand it, they should not be leading the Country.
This will be debated this Thursday, they better start asking more direct common sense questions.
They can start by asking if our Men and Women will be looked after, if medically discharged.

I am all for our government in taken on our share in the fight against ISIS.
However, in my own opinion, air strikes, and or advisers on the ground will not by itself do the job in the degrading of ISIS to the point of eliminating them where they no longer pose a threat.
I also think that the Iraqi army will not be able to hold ISIS back, and training 5000 rebels in Syria will also not work, no matter the amount of advisers allotted.
In fact, I think this tactic is a mistake, that will come back to haunt us.
Further, the arms and equipment provided to Iraq, and the rebels, will more than likely fall in the hands of ISIS.
Every war is directed by politicians, they are the ones who call the shots, the military brass gives them options, but these options are used as a guide to the politicians, the politicians make the final call, regardless if the military brass disagrees with that call.
Going on to say publicly that we will not be putting boots on the ground, it my mind, is a grave mistake, this gives the enemy more of and advantage, as they know full well that in order for them to be defeated, boots on the ground is required.
Politicians in my mind need not worry about what the public has to say, when confronted with this type of threat, their job is to protect the homeland, it is in my mind a difficult decision to make when sending men and women in harms way, but it is sometimes the only way to go, to succeed.
How long do you think it will take, before ground troops are sent ?
In my mind this will occur when they finally acknowledge it, the longer they take to acknowledge it, the stronger the enemy will get.
What about these advisers, Vietnam comes to mind, advisers were sent, more and more were sent, finally, the two letter word appeared, ( MISSION CREEP )
As long as the politicians are making these types of decisions on trying to please the general public, and not really listening to what the military brass is suggesting, these threats will only grow in time, as a matter of fact, the enemy, welcomes this.
Sometimes in life I believe one has to XXXX or get off the pot, anything less, only adds fuel to the fire.

Of course this is only the way I see it, we are all ex military, and I understand here on CSAT, our views differ from time to time, I welcome all to share what you may think, I am always willing to learn new things, and here, different points of views are always a good way to challenge the mind.

I'm pissed off with the NDP and Liberals making this a political football over how many passports are flagged, is it a combat role, what exactly is the air force doing.

It's a strategic move on a terrorist organization that even Al Queda hates for the safety of North America!!!

If there is one CF service person on the ground training or not it's a feckn' combat theatre where a soldier is constantly under the threat of attack!!!

As far as implementing for exit control goes, I think that would be a good Idea for the following reason ;
We now live in a world of changing times with respect to home security, and the threat of terrorist acts that is becoming more of reality in the world today.
So I think it is important to take every step to lesson this threat, and exit control maybe one way of doing this.
Going forward, I think you will see more Initiatives like this, as we must adapt to these changing, and growing threats.

John Baird suggests Canada could be in for lengthy mission.

OTTAWA -- As the federal cabinet considers sending fighter jets to Iraq, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird suggests Canada and other countries could be in for a long mission.

Baird predicts that battling extremists in Iraq and elsewhere will take time and says Canada is in uncharted territory when it comes to directly engaging terrorist elements.

"Terrorism, radical extremism, this is the great struggle of our generation," the minister said

Whether it's in Iraq, whether it's in Nigeria with Boko Haram, whether it's with al-Shabaab in Somalia ... there's no quick fixes."

The federal cabinet is considering the possible deployment of CF-18 jets, along with surveillance aircraft, following an American request for Canada to become more involved in the ever-expanding air war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Baird says he won't speculate on what decision he, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and their cabinet colleagues will reach.

But he told reporters in Ottawa on Tuesday that cabinet will play off recent military experiences in Libya and Afghanistan in deciding.

National Defence officials and critics question how long Canada could sustain such a combat mission, given the age of its fighter fleet and other commitments.

Canada already has four CF-18s flying air policing missions over the Baltic as part of NATO's eastern European reassurance measures on behalf of Ukraine.

Following the Libya bombing campaign of 2011, there was concern in the air force that the CF-18 fleet was already being driven too hard, even with life-extension upgrades completed under the former Liberal government.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/john-baird-suggests-canada-could-be-in-for-lengthy-mission-1.2031295#ixzz3EoQnFme0