Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Army looks to buy minesweepers for Afghanistan: report

MURRAY BREWSTER

Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 9:57 PM EDT 05/05/08

Department of National Defence plans to buy more roadside bomb detection vehicles, sources tell Canadian Press ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. I R from White Rock, BC, Canada writes: How much has the CF spent on Afghanistan?
  2. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: I R: Afganistan is a minor expenditure compared to letting the military rot for 40 years!
  3. Robert Lepage from Canada writes: I think it is worth it and I don't mind my tax dollars being used on it. I may be a bit naive, but I could see these things also being used in peace-time operations to help clear landmines. It also keeps our soldiers safe from the largest threat they experience in Afghanistan.
  4. Spring of Discontent from Ottawa, Canada writes: Welcome to the 21st century Canada.

    Major and middle military powers already have these types of vehicles, but Canada has avoided equipping it's armed forces for so long we have ignorant posters complaining about costs. IF Canada and Canadians want to be semi-independant of our southern neighbour then we need to actually equip our forces for not only Afghanistan but the next conflict our troops will be sent to. (Hence the need for training vehicles in Canada as well)

    The real issue of equipment and Afghanistan is this: Our troops are facing combat not in the traditional sense but rather in guerilla warfare. This means our mentality of "peacekeepers" and sending a few guys in unarmed jeeps with 5 rounds of ammo to "warn" people away doesn't work anymore.

    While we have fritted away our military during years of peace and tranquility the world has changed. The little tinpot dictator to the Taliban have sophisticated weaponry which equals or at times surpasses our equipment. Until our CF are a "contemporary" military force we will still be seen as "modern" but less than prepared to engage anyone let alone militant natives who outgun our local security forces at home.
  5. S.L. S from Small Town, Canada writes: It's about time.
  6. Khalid Rahim from Canada writes: These mines have been there since 1980s. Though attempts have been made to destroy or extract them, the process has been slow due to lack of
    proper equipment. Now that 'Minesweepers' are being sent in, one hopes it
    will be a deterrent against those who use these mines,not only to blow the
    forces they are fighting, but their own innocent country folks.
  7. The Iconoclast from Canada writes: whatever happened to the billions we spent on Leopard tanks?
  8. Mister G. from Canada writes: The Iconoclast from Canada writes: whatever happened to the billions we spent on Leopard tanks? ------------------

    ??????
    It was spent on the Leopard tanks??

    I think you win the dumb comment of the day award.
    Congratulation and get your bable together.
  9. Jim Goodwin from Canada writes: First of all, I disagree with this deployment, but we have made a commitment and need to honour it. We are there, and our soldiers are in harm's way. Everything we can do to protect them and ensure they return to their families should be done. Most of our casualities have been from IED's and if these vehicles will find them then by all means get them. The fewer mothers crying themselves to sleep at night the better. This is not about the deployment in Afghanistan, but one hundred percent about protecting our gallant soldiers and giving them the resources they need for their safety. VVV
  10. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Given that the lack of helicopters makes travel by road necessary this is the next best thing in terms of reducing the risks faced by our troops. I would prefer the money went to equipment to prevent death and injuries instead of having to spend it later on medical and rehabilitation services for troops that are injured by IEDs.
  11. dump harper he's threatening the tax free status of fraserinstitute and churches from Canada writes: Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: I R: Afganistan is a minor expenditure compared to letting the military rot for 40 years! Posted 04/05/08 at 3:57 PM EDT http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_12_28/ai_n6102271 Three things you're not being told about Canadian military spending: 1. Canada is already in the top 10 per cent of military spenders world wide: a. Measured in absolute spending, rather than as a percentage of GDP, Canada's military ranks 15th or 16th from the top of the world's 190-plus countries. d) But, even before the post-2000 increases, this country's military spending, calculated in constant 2002 dollars, remained above the overall post-war Canadian average. 3. Canadian Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending has declined much more sharply than has military spending: In a world that spends roughly $1 trillion a year on armed forces, insecurity is not due to a lack of military capacity. c. The $1.2 billion increase in military spending proposed by the Conservative Party would not change Canada's ranking within NATO. 2. Current military spending is still above the post-World War II Canadian average: Prevailing Canadian mythology portrays Canada's once proud Armed Forces as being decimated by neglect, with Canadian military capacity at an historic low. a) In fact, Canadian military spending remains above the post-World War II average.
  12. dump harper he's threatening the tax free status of fraserinstitute and churches from Canada writes: Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: I R: Afganistan is a minor expenditure compared to letting the military rot for 40 years! Posted 04/05/08 at 3:57 PM EDT http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mim0MKY/is1228/ain6102271

    Dump reform alliance upper military management . Like their civilian incompetent group they have no sense / no money skills .
  13. dump harper he's threatening the tax free status of fraserinstitute and churches from Canada writes: Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: I R: Afganistan is a minor expenditure compared to letting the military rot for 40 years! Posted 04/05/08 at 3:57 PM EDT http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mim0MKY/is1228/ain6102271
    e.g.
    These vehicles were available when harper instead bought advanced bunker buster bombs 30 months ago ?
  14. dump harper he's threatening the tax free status of fraserinstitute and churches from Canada writes: Don Adams, The Conservative Centrist from Canada writes: Jim Goodwin. Hear! Hear! Excellent post! Only slime covered lefties could possibly disagree!
    Posted 04/05/08 at 5:21 PM EDT

    slimy bleeding heart liberals would have bought these vehicles and drones both available when we suffered are first ied casualties in Kandahar . harper instead bought advanced bunker buster bombs ,shipped tanks back & forth , rented tanks leased tanks and is now buying used tanks that we can buy air conditioning for them ? duh
  15. Just In from Canada writes: Can't get them soon enough. $60 million is a drop in the bucket. This is a no-brainer. Why did it take so long to make such a decision? The contract was too small and no one was interested in lobbying for it? Transport planes, ice breakers were higher priority?
  16. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Note the deafening silence of Harper and crew on the trivialk issue of corruption, graft and malfeasance throught the entire KArzai Administration. Not to mention the new opium production records being set every year. This is what we are sending our troops to die for? No matter how much fancy "mine-clearing equipmnet we buy, it will never be enough. And random, command-detonated IEDs are easy to set up - and can bew made powerful enough to be set far enough off the roads that road bound sweeps won't get them. It would be wise to remember that the Mujahadeen were able to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. What makes you think they haven't leaqrned new tricks since then. ANd then there is the little detail that the USSR had lose to 4 times the forces incountry than NATO and the US do.
  17. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Get er' done. A decent truck can do anything. And take out the trash afterward.
  18. Jim Goodwin from Canada writes: Don Adams a leftie, and also a veteran.
  19. Jim Goodwin from Canada writes: Correction: Don Adams I am a leftie, but not an idealogue. I am also a veteran. My father and grandfather were lefties, and also soldiers. This issue is not about politics, it is about fewer mothers crying themselves to sleep at night.
  20. Winston Smith from Canada writes: So much for winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans. At this stage of the game, they're still having to buy more of these machines is not a sign of progress. Time for Canadians to start asking some tough questions on what is REALLY being accomplished and what are the Army's measurement of success and when.

    If they cannot come up with a timeline to accomplish their objectives then we should pull out.
  21. Spring of Discontent from Ottawa, Canada writes: Winston Smith - I believe the CF's measurement of success and when is vastly different than the average Canadian (being ill-informed and media fed).

    There is a timeline to pull out and beyond that what is being accomplished? Let's see, rebuilding, rights for women & children, education.. the list goes on. It just happens that these stories aren't reported to due to the media (in general) only reports atrocities or slanted news.. depending on which way the wind blows.

    Perhaps, you should consider doign a little more digging than trust the G&M or CBC to provide you "indepth" reporting :)
  22. Richard Soley from writes: Actually the Canadian Forces are doing an outstanding job and to date the standing army of Afghistan is pushing something like 70,000 and is slowed in it's development by need for equipment something we discovered in Canada after the Liberals depletiated our forces inventory of equipment for decades. THe cost of the most advanced equipment is a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of not continuing with this mission. The Government of Canada needs to support this without delay and any further expenditures needed to prevent as far as possible needless loss of life, and that means loss of innocent lives that IED's also target. Support our Troops, support NATO.
  23. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Karl Rove wannabes - the bunch of you here. With a few exceptions - you know who you are. But, for the rest of you, here's a news flash: Karl has been busted.
  24. Richard Roskell from Canada writes: Richard Soley, at the start of the Russian escapade into Afghanistan, the ANA numbered 80,000 members; artillery and armoured battalions, an air wing, paratroopers. That was 30 years ago.

    The Afghan National Army has a website that lists the April 2007 membership as 46,177. Candidly, the ANA state upfront that desertions are a continuing problem.

    The primary reason why the ANA can't get enough warm bodies is simple. In general, Pashtuns (about 40-45% of the population) don't like the idea of signing up for a military that's protecting non-Pashtun politicians in Kabul. Especially when those northern Tajiks and Uzbeks are going to send the military to make war on Pashtuns in the south. Does this surprise anyone?
  25. m clement hall from Guelph, Canada writes: There are two issues:
    1. Should Canadian soldiers be in Afghanistan?
    2. Should we do all we can to protect them after we deploy them to that country?
    Question one is arguable.
    Question two is not.
    If there is any device available that will save our soldiers' lives, it should be made available as quickly as possible -- and that does not mean "as quickly as convenient to chair-bound bureaucracy."
  26. Cal Rogers from Ottawa, Canada writes: Three vehicles working in tandem, neat trick. How about three vehicles working together?
  27. The Lighthorseman from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes:

    "Karl Rove wannabes - the bunch of you here. With a few exceptions - you know who you are. But, for the rest of you, here's a news flash: Karl has been busted."

    ====================================================

    The Karl Rove wannabes who support the deployment or providing the CF with decent equipment are as entitled to their opinions as the Jane Fonda wannabes who don't.
  28. Nick B. from Oshawa, Canada writes: Catherine Medernach wrote: "Given that the lack of helicopters makes travel by road necessary this is the next best thing in terms of reducing the risks faced by our troops". This is a false statement. All the helicopters in the world would not eliminate the need for road travel. They would perhaps reduce the size and number of resupply convoys that move out to patrol bases and strong points outside of Kandahar Airfield and Camp Nathan Smith, but they won't remove the need for Canadian soldiers to be be outside of the camp, and moving around LAVs etc where needed to provide the security that it is their job to provide.
  29. Love my Country Expect More From My GOVERNMENT from TO, Canada writes: The vehicle to protect our brave troops is called a light helicopter. Give them the tools.
  30. UCant Haveitall from Canada writes: More tanks please.
  31. Jo Blo from as far from Toronto as possible, Canada writes: "Army looks to buy minesweepers for Afghanistan: report"

    Shouldn't the Navy be buying minesweepers?.... Hmmm....I thought Afghnistan was land-locked!
    ___________________________________________________

    A guy enrols in the Navy to see the world. He signs up and during his orientation, is asked if he can swim. He protests: "Hey! I thought we were going by boat!
  32. Mr X from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Note the deafening silence of Harper and crew on the trivialk issue of corruption, graft and malfeasance throught the entire KArzai Administration."

    Your right on the money. How can we accomplish this with a meager contribution of 2,500 people? We should have sent 30,000 however we don't have that many.
  33. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Lighthorseman: Karl Rove is a liar. Liars are not, in fact, entitled to anything other than a smack upside the head with a cluestick. Repeated as often and as hard as necessary until they stop lying. And Rovian wannabes deserve just the same. As for Jane Fonda, bringing her up just proves how stupid you are. Although the parallels between Viet Nam and Afghanistan are most interesting. Especially the part where the US installed and supported a corrupt and venal government. Senior members of which were heavily involved in and profited from the trafficking in, and sale of, heroin. The more things change...

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Top Stories by Section