How sad is this
 

[quote:91040]The Canadian military has started planning for a possible role in a United Nations-sanctioned attack against Iraq.

It is unlikely a Canadian force would match the size of Canada's 1991 Gulf War contribution, which included 24 CF18s, a field hospital and an infantry unit.

Canadian fighters would also be unlikely to fly strike missions because the missiles fired by Canadian pilots in the 1999 Kosovo war have not yet been replaced and a needed refurbishing of the electronics package on Canadian planes to make them compatible with American aircraft has not been completed.

[/quote:91040]
http://www.canada.com/national/story.as ... 8107F2D043

WTF is this government doing?

they're keeping them uncompatible for the invasion

Heres something that corresponds with that last post.

[quote:3d210]

General pleads for budget increase
Underfunding of military puts unbearable burden 'on backs of our people'

Mike Blanchfield
The Ottawa Citizen

The government must boost defence spending because Canada has been riding "on the backs" of its overworked soldiers for long enough, says the former commander of Canada's anti-terrorism efforts.

"Of course, I'd like to see more money," Brig.-Gen. Michel Gauthier told the Citizen yesterday in an interview. "But if we aren't going to see more money, then everything else has to be in balance, so we're not doing this as a military, we're not doing this on the backs of our people. That really has to stop."

Brig.-Gen. Gauthier ended a six-month term this week as commander of Operation Apollo, the Canadian contribution to the U.S.-led anti-terror coalition headquartered at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

Brig.-Gen. Gauthier said he's proud of the continuing efforts that Canada's navy, air force and special forces, the elite JTF-2 commandos, continue to play in Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. anti-terror campaign. Though Canada is still the fourth-largest contributor to Enduring Freedom, the army pulled its overworked troops out of Afghanistan earlier this year.

For two years prior to his posting to Tampa, Brig.-Gen. Gauthier was the Canadian army commander for Ontario. As preparations were being made to send Edmonton's 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to Afghanistan late last year, Brig.-Gen. Gauthier was in Petawawa telling soldiers in the Royal Canadian Regiment they would be the next into Afghanistan once the Patricias' six-month tour of duty ended. The RCR soldiers were "all fired up to go over there and serve their nation," Brig.-Gen. Gauthier recalled.

But they never got the chance.

The government did not replace the 800-strong Patricia's because it said the Canadian Armed Forces were spread too thin and could not afford to send another battle group.

A contingent of 500 Romanians replaced the Canadians in Afghanistan.

Since then, Brig.-Gen. Gauthier said, not a week has gone by that U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of Enduring Freedom, or his deputy hasn't asked whether Canada will send more ground troops. "Every week, they would punch me in the arm and pat me on the back and say: 'Hey, Mike, when is Canada going to contribute another battle group to Afghanistan?' "

Despite the scaling back of ground troops, Brig.-Gen. Gauthier said Canada remains the fourth-largest contributor to Enduring Freedom with 1,250 troops. The navy, he said, is taking a leading role patrolling the Arabian Sea for fleeing al-Qaeda terrorists.

But Brig.-Gen. Gauthier agrees with the government's rationale for not continuing the deployment of ground troops. Though the RCR was eager last December to go to Afghanistan, they had just returned from the Balkans two months earlier. That would have meant two foreign deployments in less than a year, a pace the military views as too intense. Brig.-Gen. Gauthier said one officer is currently on his ninth foreign mission in 15 years. Many others are on their sixth, seventh and eighth.

"The people of Canada are getting clearly as much as they conceivably can out of their military ... out of the people part of the military," he said. "I don't think those individuals will want to continue to do that in the future without some indication that they have support from the people of Canada. We can't press them that hard. They're human beings. They have families."

Defence Minister John McCallum is sympathetic to the concerns, said Brig.-Gen. Gauthier.

In Toronto yesterday, the U.S. ambassador to Canada renewed his efforts to persuade the Chrétien government to boost military spending.

"We will continue to make our case that the Canadian military is very valuable, plays an important role in defending North America as well as helping maintain freedom around the world," Paul Cellucci told reporters before a meeting with Ontario Premier Ernie Eves.

"We think that more resources need to be allocated so that the Canadian military has the troop strength it needs."

Mr. Cellucci also said Canada should develop "a lift capability that we think a modern military should have" -- a clear reference to the fact that Canada relies primarily on the U.S. to transport its troops and heavy equipment to war zones, which was the case with the recent Afghanistan mission.

[/quote:3d210]

http://www.canada.com/national/story.as ... 2A4BCC1AC6

rofl, that sucks, damn you guys your our allies to the north upgrade damnit!!!!!!! biggrin:

Tell that to the fucking door knob whose running the country.

You can blame Ontario and Quebec for voting liberal.

lol door knob eh? down here we say tool or (if hes a huge tool) we call him a tool box.

i live by base borden, and today some low flying military craft were flying over. but i dont see what this has to do with irag and the govenrnent

i think its cuz our prime minister is french...
damn french government

i think its because hes just a wanker biggrin:

[quote="Spiderm@n":dea6c]i think its because hes just a wanker biggrin:[/quote:dea6c]

Strong political words there.


I wouldnt worry about canadian forces needing money - no doubt blair would jump at the chance to help anyone who would help america so that he can acheive his goal of having his head so far up george bush' arse that it would need to be surgecly removed. - and even that would be done privately and not on the NHS.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we need more money and resources so we can go declare war on Iraq etc. What I am saying is the CF are on the verge of collapse. In order to perform our duties at home, they need more money not to mention abroad. Its just horrible how the government ignores them.

[quote="Capt. John Miller":fe7b3]lol door knob eh? down here we say tool or (if hes a huge tool) we call him a tool box.[/quote:fe7b3]

but even a tool has some use...

blame french people...half of ontario is french...around here in torono (not around ottawa...too many frenchies therE) vote liberal...we fucking hate their shit over here.

door knobs have use to!!........ you gotta get into some places ya know biggrin:

Australia is faced with a very similar problem in terms of manpower, logistic support and burden on troops. There has been big discussions in Australia about what we COULD do if there was military action taken in Iraq. I have long been a supporter of greater Defence spending by our government, God knows our soldiers who are over worked, under funded and most definately spread thin NEED the extra funding and increase in numbers so they can work efficiently and do the job they are meant to be doing.

Australia's problem is that the past Government's, in all their infinite wisdom, have decided to base Defence spending on the defence and security of our shores, not taking into account that Australian troops would very well be needed to act in Offensive/aggressive combat roles in overseas conflicts and UN Peacekeeping/making roles.

I have questioned my own thinking when still say I want to join the Army. Yes our Defence spending has been increased, our SASR and Commando unit are being outfitted with upto-date weaponry and support gear and our Airforce has joined the US in the Joint Strike Fighter program and upgraded it's avionics and communications equipment so it is compatible with with US/UN aircraft in operations overseas. But what about the Infantry ?? What about the men that make up the backbone of Australia's defence ?? What about the men that WILL be the ones called upon to go and join the fight, if and when "the fight" occurs ?? I will be one of those, and I'll be damned if I'm going to go into a combat situation with obsolete equipment and be asked to perform actions which will very likely get me killed on a rotation schedule of roughly 6 months which would test even the most hardened veteran, with poor logistical support.

Australia was spread thin in Vietnam, we were spread thin in Cambodia, we were spread thin in Somalia, we were spread thin in East Timor, and everywhere in between, and once again we are spread thin on the steps toward conflict with Iraq. I'm not doubting the efficiency of our troops, they are some of the finest fighting men this day, and that has been proven, they have the training and the guts, but when it comes to the Government making decisions based on "expert opinion" from people who have probably never seen a day of combat in their life, who are telling our infinitely wise Government what our troops are (NOT) capable of, but (seeing they pulled it off in East Timor, they can do it again, no matter the cost to the men as far as their mental well being goes) they will make our troops do it anyway.

Defence spending is what keeps the cogs greased and the wheels spinning, without it the men who defend our countries are all but useless. Ninty9, I hear EXACTLY what you're saying.