Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Gen. Rick Hillier calls Trump adviser Peter Navarro an 'idiot' for belittling Canada's role in Afghanistan Social Sharing


Recommended Posts

Where is our PM voice in this entire issue, instead we have a small but brief explanation by the Minster DND as he should after all he did contribute to the Afghanistan mission.. i guess i was expecting a stronger response... Instead Retire Gen Hillier stepped up to defend soldiers honor... not afraid to tell it as it is.. I get the whole fact politicians have to treat each other with kid gloves and double speak... so not to offend anyone..... But one would think that our PM would atleast say something .... 

On a side issue, this news of how the American government thinks about Canada and it's Department of Defence or the lack off  is nothing new, even Obama has had talks with our governments to encourage them to atleast put some effort into DND, .... But it stings when the country hears it, we the soldiers know these remarks are not about us.... they are about our lack of federal government actions on the defence file, in everything about our entire security apparatus.  To bad the left could not give a rats ass about our entire security apparatus and would rather it burn to the ground than spend one tax dollar on fixing the problems that plague DND. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-the-military-ambitions-of-the-2020-conservative-leadership-race

 

The war in Afghanistan took the lives of 158 Canadian soldiers. They died from landmines, roadside bombs, improvised explosive devices, and friendly fire. 175 members of the armed forces, some deployed in Afghanistan, have taken their own lives since 2010. 6,700 veterans of the war are currently receiving support for PTSD. MacKay admitted in 2014 that the “ferocity of the mission” had not “dawned” on him and other leaders. The NATO mission in Afghanistan ended in 2014, with a total of 26,000 civilians dead from war-related violence.

 

As usual there's always a d-bag.  Guys like Navarro don't phase me, I've been hearing all of that talk and jokes since I was a kid.

 I do hope that if they increase our military they don't just start going all trigger happy. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

...On a side issue, this news of how the American government thinks about Canada and it's Department of Defence or the lack off  is nothing new, even Obama has had talks with our governments to encourage them to atleast put some effort into DND, ....

 

Yes, but I think Navarro's comments have an even more narrow context for Trump administration policies and rhetoric specifically directed at trade and different nation state interests.   Early on, Canada's Operation Apollo (Nov 2001) & Anaconda were pitched as the alternative and proper contribution compared to the invasion of Iraq (war of aggression).  So it was certainly politicized with domestic spin to garner support.

I am not surprised that Trudeau would not respond to Navarro's reported comments, as he has been burned several times in the past trying to play Trump's low-ball game, and Trudeau is on shaky ground right now.

Canadian Forces vets were not awarded medals for the Afghanistan mission and awards from the U.S. military were hidden from the Canadian public, including Bronze Stars for the record sniper shot with a McMillan Tac-50.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3760685/afghanistan-vets-slam-canadas-military-failure-award-service-medal/

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-did-canada-refuse-natos-afghanistan-medal-for-its-troops

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/we-were-abandoned/

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

As usual there's always a d-bag.  Guys like Navarro don't phase me, I've been hearing all of that talk and jokes since I was a kid.

 I do hope that if they increase our military they don't just start going all trigger happy. 

 

Maybe we should all be listening to the message the US has been broadcasting for 40 years now in reference to our own security measures......

Your hoping that an increase to our military does not trigger someone to go all trigger happy, are we talking about the same military.... What makes you believe that investing in our military, will result more use of it ?, do we have a history of doing that ? If Canadians found out just how bad the state of our military is in....there would be no arguments about investing , more like how did we let the government allow this to happen...or more to the point HOW did Canadian citizens allow this to happen with out taking any action ?.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Maybe we should all be listening to the message the US has been broadcasting for 40 years now in reference to our own security measures......

I think what you're hearing now from US is politically driven rhetoric intended to put some kind of pressure on Canada. Just my hunch. For Donald Trump, the underlying motive is always ... the deal. Even military threat is a path to a deal.

But it is unfortunate that this message is used at all. It is hurtful to soldiers and their families, and as a fellow Canadian my heart reaches out to you.

So then I ask, what if Mr. Trudeau wasn't such a cheerleader for chivattos himself at all, what then? Would Canadians still be treated like liberal scumbags with big mouths who do nothing then?

 

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2020 at 12:03 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canadian Forces vets were not awarded medals for the Afghanistan mission and awards from the U.S. military were hidden from the Canadian public, including Bronze Stars for the record sniper shot with a McMillan Tac-50.

Not quite true.  One of my sons-in-law was cited for "leadership and conspicuous bravery under fire" in Afganistan.   We don't give out Purple Hearts for vaccinations but we actually DO recognize significant military achievements.  Through his rather expert eyes, I can tell you there is a huge difference between the quality and flexibility of Canadian training and tactics vs. the far more rigid and out-of-date US preparation of soldiers for that conflict.   I can also say that most US veterans who had to interact with the Canadian forces there to aid and support our closest ally fully appreciate the dedication and personal sacrifice of Canadian forces deployed in that theater.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Not quite true.  One of my sons-in-law was cited for "leadership and conspicuous bravery under fire" in Afganistan.   We don't give out Purple Hearts for vaccinations but we actually DO recognize significant military achievements. 

 

Some of the Canadian press reported otherwise (e.g. NATO awards).

 

Quote

Through his rather expert eyes, I can tell you there is a huge difference between the quality and flexibility of Canadian training and tactics vs. the far more rigid and out-of-date US preparation of soldiers for that conflict.   I can also say that most US veterans who had to interact with the Canadian forces there to aid and support our closest ally fully appreciate the dedication of Canadian forces deployed in that theater.

 

OK, but the Canadian Forces needed lots of US support to be effective with all that "modern" training.   U.S. recognition of the Canadian Forces is exactly the point....far different than in Canada.

Canada also chooses to short change Canadian Forces in several ways, including veterans benefits.

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

OK, but the Canadian Forces needed lots of US support to be effective with all that "modern" training. 

I will have to ask him how much "support" was from US sources (I strongly suspect very, very little).   "Modern" is you choice of words to try to spin this, I made no such suggestion.  What seemed to be very different is how quickly Canadian workup training evolved whereas it seemed that the much larger and far more rigid US forces lagged behind in evolving effective tactics.   Equipment, though, was a very different story.  Even the so-called "Conservative" governments lagged far behind in what was required in equipment to keep our troops fully effective and safe.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cannuck said:

 

I will have to ask him how much "support" was from US sources (I strongly suspect very, very little).   "Modern" is you choice of words to try to spin this, I made so such suggestion.  What seemed to be very different is how quickly Canadian workup training evolved whereas it seemed that the much larger and far more rigid US forces lagged behind in tactical methods.   Equipment, though, was a very different story.  Even the so-called "Conservative" governments lagged far behind in what was required in equipment to keep our troops fully effective and safe.

 

Ask him whatever you want, but the reported operations made it quite clear that Canadian Forces were much more effective with U.S. support compared to other NATO partners, many of whom avoided combat engagements.   

U.S. "tactical methods" involved air power, which Canada did not even bring to the fight, because it was just too hard.

Canadian vets are still fighting for their benefits to this day.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Ask him whatever you want, but the reported operations made it quite clear that Canadian Forces were much more effective with U.S. support compared to other NATO partners, many of whom avoided combat engagements.   

U.S. "tactical methods" involved air power, which Canada did not even bring to the fight, because it was just too hard.

I was referring to "work up" training, not battlefield support.  SIL was the liason officer between Canforce and US, and I can agree that US air support was good for effectiveness when they weren't killing Canadians.

I can't print the words I have for Canadian governments regarding benefits and support for returned veterans.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, cannuck said:

I was referring to "work up" training, not battlefield support.  SIL was the liason officer between Canforce and US, and I can agree that US air support was good for effectiveness when they weren't killing Canadians.

 

Well, I have been out of the military for many years but I do know that Canadian infantry and armour deploys to American bases for "work ups", including mock cities out in the desert southwest.   U.S. air support means a lot more than just strike missions, and Canadian Forces availed itself throughout their time there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I can't print the words I have for Canadian governments regarding benefits and support for returned veterans.

 

The words have already been printed by many veterans, underscoring this and other governments' lack of support for Canadian Forces.

Nothing the Trump administration could ever say will ever come close to this level of Canadian neglect and impact.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Well, I have been out of the military for many years but I do know that Canadian infantry and armour deploys to American bases for "work ups", including mock cities out in the desert southwest.   U.S. air support means a lot more than just strike missions, and Canadian Forces availed itself throughout their time there.

During SIL's Afgan workup, no trips to US (for that reason, but others).  My Father spent probably 30-40% of his military career either in the US or training Canadians in Europe to use US weapons systems.  Our military has always been as integrated as our economies, and as it should be.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cannuck said:

During SIL's Afgan workup, no trips to US (for that reason, but others).  My Father spent probably 30-40% of his military career either in the US or training Canadians in Europe to use US weapons systems.  Our military has always been as integrated as our economies, and as it should be.

 

Canadian Forces members have a well deserved reputation for doing more with less, but Canada continues to starve them, for over 50 years.   The very idea of investing more in defence and national recognition of the military as a resource/value is seen as "too American",  wasted spending, warmongering, yada, yada, yada.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a contest; it is a team. We just don't want to put in the effort our ally sees as neccessary.

Canadian reluctance in Defence policy grew out of the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam war. Since the only nation with any viable ability to successfully invade Canada is the US, Canadian taxpayers don't see the value of spending money on an effective military. I have advocated for re-building the Canadian Forces for fifty years. Nobody wants it. We are the neighbour who drops in just as dinner is on the table.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Canadian reluctance in Defence policy grew out of the anti-war movement during the Viet Nam war.

 

OK, but Canada was not directly involved in the Vietnam War until its conclusion.   Canadians who wanted to fight did so with other nations.

However, Canada was very interested in making billions of dollars for war materials destined for the war.

Which brings us back to Navarro's comments....the Chretien, Martin, and Harper governments did seek political and economic favour from the U.S. based on military commitments and cooperation in Afghanistan, but that was not the primary policy reason vis-a-vis the WOT. 

Example:   Canada made a big political point of not "directly" joining the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but still sought lucrative oil-services contracts post invasion based on continuing allied cooperation in Afghanistan.   Bush had banned Canada from bidding on those contracts, but ultimately relented.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

In Canada's defence, the United States is bankrupting its self trying to maintain such an enormous military machine, as Britain did, the Soviet Union did and China will. 

 

In America's defence, Canada's previous foreign minister (Chrystia Freeland) begged the U.S. to continue doing so to protect the "post WW2 order".

Any move by the Trump administration to reduce forces and foreign deployments is met with derision.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

In America's defence, Canada's previous foreign minister (Chrystia Freeland) begged the U.S. to continue doing so to protect the "post WW2 order".

Any move by the Trump administration to reduce forces and foreign deployments is met with derision.

 

 

Well sure, after they blamed Obama for reducing the military he should expect criticism.   

dod_chart.jpg

defence_chart1.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Reducing overseas deployments is not the same as reducing military spending.

Canada knows that game very well.

But has trump really done that?  

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/time.com/4075458/afghanistan-drawdown-obama-troops/%3famp=true

There are currently about 35,000 troops serving in the 20 nations in the Middle East region that make up the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, according to Commander Elissa Smith, press officer for the Middle East at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. About 3,200 of those U.S. forces are in Iraq.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-01-09/after-recent-deployments-how-many-us-troops-are-in-the-middle-east%3fcontext=amp

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeast/us-troops-deployments.amp.html

 

Is this the old "sleight of hand" trick? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

In America's defence, Canada's previous foreign minister (Chrystia Freeland) begged the U.S. to continue doing so to protect the "post WW2 order".

Any move by the Trump administration to reduce forces and foreign deployments is met with derision.

 

 

We all prefer to use American taxpayers' money for our defence. Canada, Israel. etc. Even the Red Army's defeat of Germany on the eastern front was fueled by American tax dollars. For all it's faults, of which there are many but tiny ones, the United States has been the most generous world power in history.

The US invaded Iraq with the noblest of intentions. Who would have imagined that the Iraqis would not have embraced the opportunity for freedom and democracy.

Edited by Queenmandy85
Dumb spelling mistakes
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2020 at 6:41 PM, Army Guy said:

But it stings when the country hears it, we the soldiers know these remarks are not about us.... they are about our lack of federal government actions on the defence file, in everything about our entire security apparatus.  

FWIW the US government SHOULD have a problem with Canada's baby-soft stance on terrorism, but that has nothing to do with our soldiers. No one in the US gov't faults individual Canadian soldiers, at all, and your service & sacrifice doesn't go unnoticed at all by patriotic Canadians either. Trudeau definitely doesn't give a shit about you, no doubt he prefers the people who are out ripping the heads off of statues, but that's a part of the reason why most Canadians loathe him so much.

Regarding our response to terrorism, our government pulled our military out of the fight against islamic state. Our government gave the islamic state terrorists & war criminals freedom to come back here free as a bird, heal up with free medicare, grab some free money, and use this place as a staging area for their next attacks on western democracy. Our government condemns the slightest nearly-off-colour remark against any race or culture but allows public rallies which are in support of terrorism (just against Israel, for now). Our government covers up for terrorist acts against Canadians, and puts the blame for terrorist attacks here against legal gun-owners, incels, and any other ridiculous thing that they can think of. 

I wholeheartedly approve of any condemnation from the US government against Canadian government officials for basically any reason. Our government is an absolute disgrace to democracy and to western values. 

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.

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.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...