Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
garsk

Decade Of Darkness

Recommended Posts

so i came accross this article on the cbc's website where Liberal MP Denis Coderre called General Rick Hillier a "prop" to the Conservative government. The reason that Gen. Hillier was called a "prop" was because he said the time that from 1994 to 2004 when the liberals were in power was a "decade of darkness" for the Canadian Military. So was he telling the truth, or was he adding the current Conservative government?

 

 

CBC article

 

 

 

Personally, i think he was telling the truth because if you did look at how the Liberal Government handled the Military. In the ten years that they were in power, we lost the Airborne Regiment, the size of the Armed Forces went from 80,000 to under 60,000 while going on more Peacekeeping Missions then ever. Also, they never resuppled the Force is proper Weapons or Vehicles. I believe Hillier was right in calling that time, a decade of darkness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever will the world do with 20,000 fewer Canadian soldiers?

 

Edit No offense. ;)

Edited by NotFromOklahoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fester and shrivel.

 

They should have traded those 20,000 for a batallion of used Abrams tanks and enough Galaxy/Starlifter cargo jets to carry them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was probably both. Hillier, when looking at other comments he's made over the year is a right-wing ass-bag, but this time he also does make a point about the absolute lack of funding. I don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just it. No matter what a person's opinion is of how the military is actually used, I doubt almost anyone but the very ignorant or very spiteful pacifist crowd would wish to see their own country's soldiers deployed and killed as a direct result of poor funding and insufficient equipment.

 

Hell, the CF got deployed to Afghanistan with woodland camouflage and no real Armoured support. Great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's a prop. I think he's telling it like it is. Our military had decayed greatly. Our old ass Sea-King helicopters bought in the 1960's malfunctioning & crashing isn't the type of thing an effectively funded military should have happen.

 

Its not about become more of a war-like country or not, its about just having the basic needs to defend the sovereignty of the country & respond, respond to any domestic emergencies, and give our troops good equipment to protect themselves & do their job effectively.

 

It was very easy for the Liberals or any gov't to cut funding to Canada's military, because with the U.S. next door we don't need much of a military, and thr gov't can take a lot of that defense money & spend it on more social programs...and we know how Canadian voters love their social programs. The decay was about politics, and what will help get more votes. Not what was in the best interests on the country, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.