Derek 2.0

I think the varying "differences" date back decades and centuries prior to the Cold War.....tribalism is hardly new. I agree largely that the failed notion of "nation building" both extended and drained much of the political capital from the venture...........The same or better result could have been achieved by installing Western puppets in the various swamps as opposed to attempting to drain them ourselves.

The political "left" has committed as many (if not more) barbaric acts during wartime as the political "right"..........If one looks at the Americans, the majority of the wars in which they fought were initiated by the political "left"......With that though, no one political ideology, religion or race holds the monopoly on violence. I have no doubt that they will, not a mater of "if", but "when"........As to further galvanization, in my opinion, that will occur once radical Islam is capable of further devastation on our own shores, so much so, dwarfing the reaction to 9/11.

I disagree, if anything our humanity has gotten to be counterproductive in fighting the GWOT.......When the Americans, British and Canadians bombed German cities, little thought was given to interruption of wedding parties or the production of baby food. Likewise, little to no German input was sought during the postwar occupation........"Hearts and minds" was a product of the 1960s and has proven itself a failed mantra....Now the fear of ones "hearts and minds" being spread across the countryside is a far more effective tool in defeating an ideology. Don't get me wrong, widespread wanton killing of ones enemy shouldn't be engaged in lightly, but the actual terror invoked by demonstrations of its potential have been proven effective in causing a populace to "rethink" its ideologies.......

And there is without a doubt an element of truth in the political reluctance of most Democratic Western Governments to bring "real war" against radical Islam, be it through direct action or proxy.

Actually, the two were quite the same, so much so, that both the IRA and radical Islamist received training by not only the same people (the Soviets and Middle Eastern despots), but in the very same camps......... The parallels between the two, including both the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been acknowledged by leadership of the British army, that of course has had direct experience with the two. Simply replace GWOT with the Troubles and the two intersect quite clearly......

The British fought various cells of the PIRA (that all shared a common goal), much like the West is fighting radical Islam.....both sides with defined overall objectives....The difference, and my disagreement with your statement, is that fighting such groups is not "stupid", but differing approaches used can be (and were) mistaken, but like the British, initial mistakes made does not define the overall objective nor the morality in combating such aggression.

Odd that, but much of that could be applied inversely to nursing.......none the less, my wife is a member of both the CDA and CAO......The CAO currently has a women President, several women regional directors (one of Asian decent) and other women in senior positions on various committees .... ---------- With the OP, I think this is the more reasonable outcome since the only "crimes committed" were very poor taste......if the female students that were offended feel satisfied and the male students are given a second chance, I fail to see the issue......

I beg to differ....to quote the stated goals of the IRA: Our strategy is that through the effective use of guerilla warfare, and through continually maintaining an effective fighting force, we will eventually sap the political will of the British government to remain in Ireland Of course the British are still in Northern Ireland and the PIRA have halted their "guerilla war" aimed at creating a United Ireland.......The British brought about a ceasefire with the PIRA/Sinn Fein by being as nasty (in some cases more so) then the "terrorists", in effect, sapping the political will of those that supported the terrorists themselves........Hearts and Minds fans need not apply. In essence, the West started fighting the GWOT with kid gloves.......and that be were many of the initial problems derived from.

If your home needs urgent repairs, do you determine your budget prior to receiving quotes from contractors? "tackling Government waste" is hardly a new party plank. In some instances, ala interim options, purchasing used makes sense.......purchasing used to fill a requirement out until the 2050s-2060s does not. Likewise, purchasing an "off-the-shelf" American (or British...or French etc) designed frigate/destroyer would require extensive modifications to be brought into Canadian service or require extensive changes to existing systems to allow us to operate said design. For example, the ships helicopter and ASW suite.......A current American design (like the DDG-51 destroyer) would require extensive mods to allow our new Cyclone Helicopters to be operated off of (including expansion of the ships hangers and haul down system). Added would be extensive changes to the ships ability to conduct ASW warfare....Or we purchase different helicopters (MH-60R) well bringing forth over 50 years of doctrinal changes to how we conduct ASW warfare.....Not easy

Why "1.5% of GDP"? An artificial percentage does nothing to redress issues encompassing waste and inefficiency found within DND and all an injection of billions of dollars will accomplish is more of the same... for more money..... I have no issue with purchasing used equipment off allies (as this current Government has done) to meet operational needs, but "off-the-shelf" (very subjective term) is not viable in most instances, and in many, would actually cost more to integrate into our current force structure.

I can't speak to the later, but MACV-SOG Recondo Teams like Cobra, Anaconda and Python (etc) were not so much secretive, but their missions in Vietnam were very much so modeled after earlier British SAS "exploits" in Asia, Africa and South America.......and much like operations being undertaken presently.

There are various "tiers" of groups, Delta is much smaller than the SEALs (and the idea is not to hear about their doings).....The Green Beret and Rangers (for the US Army), like Force Recon for the Marines, are in the more similar tier as the SEALs.......all groups are very much so active.

Indeed, Roman Catholic inspired violence, including hostage taking, hasn't happened for like a bazillion years.........

Ginger terrorists??? Tiocfaidh Ár Lá......Sing up the 'Ra!!!

They already are.......look no further than the Squadrons names

That is the total end fleet size the RCAF wants........the color (Yellow/Red) aides in visibility on the ground/sea/air, likewise, outfitted for SAR, the aircraft will have more (bubble) windows and IR/NVG gear for the (larger) crew...The "H" fleet is rarely used for tanking, I don't know how much they even practice anymore, and I'd expect new tankers sometime in the next decade. Not surprised their was hardly any mention of steel being bent, likewise (outside of local coverage) the debut of Hiyi Skwayel......Why would the MSM report good news for the Government????

Industry, IIRC, has about a month to finalize their proposals, then selection should be late Spring 2015.....I forget the thread I spoke to in greater depth,and my current internet connection is a snails pace (Up in the Arctic right now) so I won't do an extensive search for it, but I still feel it will be either the C-130J or the C-27...if I were to bet on which on of the two, I would go with the Herc, as Alenia has soured some with their threat to pull contractor support if we bought the new-surplus USAF fleet.

Not quite......its a realization that the Halifax class requires upgrades to address emerging threats into the 2020s until they are replaced.....also, many of said upgrades will be recycled onto their replacements, as is standard among most navies......... As to your GDP barb, as said to you in another thread, Estonia currently pays upwards of 2%, do you feel they have a more capable military? Likewise, throughout the 70s and 80s, Canadian Governments spent a far larger percentage on defense, but the vast majority of our military was obsolete, and relegated as a "reserve force" by NATO.........its almost as if what percent of GDP spent on defense doesn't translate into the levels of capability of said force......of which, the Canadian Forces as a whole, have not been as capable and experienced since the Post-Korean 1950s.....

Much of whats reported in your link has been on the Navy's radar (pun intended) since the late 90s, and published in Leadmark 2020.........Some of the initial requirements were included with FELEX program, other like "new weapons" (actually the next block of ESSM) and UAVs required technology to progress and trails conducted prior to committing to.........for instance, ESSM upgrades are continual and Boeing's Scan-Eagle has been deployed aboard the MCDVs.. All such "upgrades" are required to allow the Halifax class to operate in a medium threat environment safely.......

Again, you don't understand (or perhaps the information from the media/blogger that you pass along), the F-35 can burn "hot fuel" like any other modern fighter, but the F-35 uses its fuel as a heat sink to reduce its IR signature (part of the troika that makes it "Stealth")..........of course said "issue" was solved by at first painting the USAF's fuel bowsers with white thermal paint, followed by thermal paint in both olive drab and desert pink...........or keep the truck in the shade.. Also, you still repeat the failed suggestion that the F-35 can't operate in the cold........you understand the USAF recently announced the F-35 will be based in Northern Alaska right?

Without a doubt, I lived through it firsthand and knew one of the last Canadian aircrew to die in a Labrador.....

With the EH-101, the Liberals clearly politicked themselves into a corner.......much like they are doing with the F-35.

I largely agree with Fisher's piece, but their military was, in many areas, in much the same position as ours a decade ago. Like us, they faced bungled procurement (Sea Sprite helicopters and NH-90s), cost over runs and delays (Collins class), retirement of equipment prior to a replacements in service (Charles F Adams destroyers), buggering on with old gear (M113s and the F-111) and critical manning shortages (in the their Submarine force).....though the ADF is getting to a better place now, their travels have not been trouble free. He is bang-on with the fortress Australia meme in my opinion though......

Faux outrage then bombards the populace......who vote. I still doubt, by and large, the LPC are total morons, and do understand the actual costings involved in procurement and choose to play politics with it.......the NDP and (most of the) media, I'm not too sure...

The 1.7 billion dollar figure will include through life support and additional operating costs added to the current fleet.......really surprised you didn't pick up on that, since you alluded to full costing on this very page.........If the Government stated just the purchase price, after a ATI request, the Liberals, NDP and media would be outraged over the Tories lying about the cost........