AngusThermopyle

I'm sure you're right, I really cant dispute what you say as I didn't bother to read your links. I don't need to, I live here. I live in a place where we have lots of space, we still have space to live and breath. We have wildlife and nature outside our back doors.A place where the only reason for someone to be out of work is because they don't want to work. Even Calgary which is considered a major city is still wide open, full of green areas and trees, not in parks, just areas the city grew around. I think I should mention that I don't live in Calgary, I live in a smaller town farther south, but I do spend a fair amount of time there due to my job. I really don't think population size has anything at all to do with quality of life. Perhaps you might try getting away from that huge population once in a while and just enjoy being somewhere with very few other people in your immediate vicinity. You might just enjoy it. Easychair, welcome to Canada. Don't worry about the minor gripes in this thread about which city is better. Just rest assured that you are moving to a really nice city in a beautifull part of the world.I recently moved here myself. At first it was a little strange but that soon passed. I still remember the day it struck me how lucky I was to have decided to move here. Where I'm living isn't that far from Calgary, but it's far enough. I can drive for thirty minutes westward and be in the mountains, one hour south and I'm at the border, twenty minutes east and I'm in a good sized town/smaller city. People here are very friendly, they respect hard work and a good sense of ethics. I find the attitude here is that if you are a good person who works hard and who's word is good you will get along just great. Not to say that this is some utopia, there are problems here just as there are elsewhere. However I think judging by the tone of your initial post you will be welcomed by most that you meet. Once again, welcome.

Interesting thread, provocative title. I've been very disturbed by the quantities of sewage pumped into the lakes for years now. Also keep in mind that it's not just sewage. Obviously something must be done about it and it's very easy to say so, however for something to happen money must be spent. That is the crux of the problem. In my opinion far too many of us want everything,we (as in a collective "we") can desire from a societal aspect. We want funding for special interest group parades, we want funding for religious groups, outreach and in reach and all reaching social programs. We want free medical care for all and everyone, including most of those who can get into the country illegally . so out of the pot what is left after all the so called more important issues and programs are paid for? Not much. Sewers and feces are not sexy to most voters, not much zing to the campaign platform based on crap. Coal is another big issue in North America. We always hear about airborne pollutants created by coal fired plants but we don't hear much about the methods used to extract the coal. I read a National Geographic article about the modern methods in use now. They are very refined and sophisticated, not good, but very sophisticated. They no longer tunnel for coal in some places. Now instead they are using the new method, that of leveling the mountain. They start from the top and work their way down blasting the mountain apart. The debris and slurry is dumped in the surrounding valleys and lowlands in effect leveling it. Proponents of this method state that it's actually beneficial as golf courses and exclusive vacation resorts can then be built in these areas, rather specious logic in my opinion. So, if we look at both the aspects of airborne pollutants and habitat destruction it becomes apparent that coal is actually a huge problem, on both sides of the border. It is after all the original "black gold". Since I moved from Southern Ontario to Southern Alberta I've noticed the difference that population makes. From my point of view the environment here appears to be impacted to a far lesser degree by human activity than it is in Ontario. Of course I haven't been up north to the Tar Sands yet so I haven't seen their impact on the environment. I did some research though and found that they are using a water/superheated steam based system that creates less of a damaging effect on the land also less airborne pollutants, thats good, it uses huge amounts of water, thats very bad. So far it appears that the whole issue is a double edged sword created by the system currently in place. Imperfect solutions and methods ameliorate some aspects of the problem whilst creating new or greater concerns. And all the time money is at the root of it. What do we want to do, spend more money on our every societal whim or invest it in the future of ourselves and our continent? The pot is not bottomless we have to decide what we want more. Myself, I vote for less frivolous government spending and more focus on our home (the planet). I'm a bit pragmatic and as such I firmly believe you don't shit in your own back yard. One last thing. I don't think this thread is limited to just pollutants in the Great Lakes. Look at the title of the thread, it doesn't specify the lakes or any other specific area/concern.

It's true that this isn't so much an abortion issue as it is a cultural issue.Not that I believe abortion is a good thing, admittedly under certain rare circumstances abortion can be used, not so much in a positive way as more of a "lesser of two evils" sort of way. The cultural attitudes and mores that promote selective abortion based on gender are reprehensible to say the least. It's only my opinion but such attitudes would appear to indicate a certain ignorance on the behalf of the practitioners. I most certainly can not in all good conscience find a reasonable justification for such a practice. I once heard a strategic analyst stating that in all likelihood the next major war the Chinese might engage in would probably be fought over women. this does make a certain amount of sense. They now have a huge gap between the ratio of women to men. That would be due to the barbaric practice of murdering baby girls coupled with the "one child" law. A nation of men with no women, doesn't seem to bode well for the near future does it.

Hey Now! Whats wrong with a nice cold beer or ten on a hot day!

Actually the Hitler reference is not for dramatic effect but is actual historic fact. I'll see if I can find the references as I've forgotten the specifics now. Hitler was allied with Muslims in WWII. I believe they managed to raise a couple of regiments for him if I remember correctly.And, yes, they did learn from him. Hence the popularity of instilling zealotry and hatred in the children, just as Hitler did with his Hitler Youth organization. They were right in lockstep with his "Final Solution" as well. Kurzad, I believe if you read what I posted you'll see that I did indeed mention the fact that other religious tomes also include a good deal of violence. I guess you must have skipped that part. Yes actually, I have read the Quran. It was some time ago now but I do believe that if you wish to discuss something you should first attempt to learn about the subject.

Normally I wouldn't involve myself in this sort of bickering, however some pretty outrageous and false statements are being made and really should be addressed. First, please dont try to revise the Islamic religion as one of peace kindness and goodness. One only has to read the Quran to see that is patently false. That is one very gory book, full of off with their heads and take over the world stuff. Thats not to say that other religions don't have their share of similar nonsense, they do as well. It's just to say that no, Islam is no more peacefull than other religions and in many cases is actually far more full of hate and violence than a lot of them. Next, demonization of Islamic people. Sorry Kuzad, far worse than what you complain about is being perpetrated by our peacefull bretheren in the middle east. Farfafell (?) killed by a Jewish settler who stole his land. Jews portrayed with horns and fangs. Propaganda circulated that states Jewish people kill Islamic and Christian children for their blood so they can make Motzahs. Hmmm...no demonization going on there. Hitler did a good job of teaching his Islamic allies the techniques that worked best for him, it would seem. Oh yes, if you wont be attacked or assaulted for criticizing Islam then I guess someone should let Salmon Rushdie know he can come out of hiding now. As I said earlier, violence seems to be a part of most religions. Demonization is practiced by many not just those in the west. Actually what is happening with respect to the Jewish people is particularly vile. This is just to add a little balance to some of the statements already made in this thread.

The Bas Dor was far more than just a fast ASW ship. That class of ship equipped with a rapid fire gun and Harpoons would have been formidable. She certainly was not obsolete. Considering that before her the technology did not exist it's pretty hard hard to claim obsolescence. Todays Hydrofoils still can not equal her capabilities, so, how would that make her obsolete?

Actually we don't need Super Carriers. As far as I know we don't have any near nor distant plans to strike major inland targets. Our continued Naval role would be buisness as usual, sovereignty patrols and NATO obligations. For these roles Pocket Carriers would be ideal. In that same way we wouldn't need a U.S. size Carrier Battle Group. A much scaled down one would be more than adequate for our needs. I don't see Naval expansion for Canada as being something we would do to assert control over the sea lanes, rather it would mearly enable us to full fill our roles and obligations in a much more efficient and effective manner. Also cost is a major factor. A scaled down battle group would be far more cost effective and thus far more acceptable to the Canadian public. I almost forgot. If we hadn't scrapped the Bras Dor project that class of ship would have been the knock out punch added to any battle group. Another travesty of government mis-management when it concerns military matters and just a huge shame that we never continued to produce this class of ship.

Actually Carriers aren't a bad idea. Something like the Brits use, a smaller "pocket" carrier would be ideal for us. Equipped with Helo's and Harriers they'd increase our capabilities dramatically. As for the rest that goes with them, well I already stated in the ice breaker thread that we should have bought the Amethyst Rubis class of smaller Nukey Boats. That way we'd have our own Carrier groups with Destroyers, Frigates, Boats and Carriers. It would be a formidable force tailored to Canada's more modest needs.

I believe this is where you were talking about a Quebec/ROC conflict. You may utilize all the semantic sophistry you wish, it is very clear that you are implying a distinct risk of conflict with Quebec. I'm still new here so I'm not really sure who everyone is yet. I have to ask though, are you one of those guys with the Tinfoil hats? frankly your whole premise, you know, disloyal Quebecers out to get Canada, well quite frankly I find it amazing you can actually believe this. Okay, so you know some people in the Forces. I'm sure second hand information, impressions and hearsay are a far more reliable vehicle for knowledge than actually spending a major portion of your life actually living the experience. I'm sorry I cant share your beliefs on this matter but I just cant. I was married to a very good Quebecois woman for a good many years. I dont think I ever met any of her friends, family or aquaintances who spoke of open conflict with the rest of Canada

Actually there was no such issue at all. You're close though. What actually happened was that some dipstick French Canadian Officers circulated letters to members of French Units suggesting that in the event of separation these members should in effect desert. This was in order for them to help form their very own Quebecois defence force. At no time was fighting the CAF ever mentioned. In my opinion they were still very much in the wrong and as such should have been charged with something like treason or intent to cause sedition. Of course this would never happen, they were from Quebec. I have however served with some very fine service members from Quebec. In fact on more than one occasion I have entrusted my life to them, and obviously, never been let down. I don't want to insult you Leafless but I have to say it is very apparent to me that you have just about zero knowledge of the Armed Forces and the people who serve in them. There is a bond amongst service members that goes beyond petty provincial bickering. Hence the reason the Dipstick Officers had no success with their seditious activities.

Sure, thats called shop talk. I.T. people do it, accountants do it, Nurses and Doctors do it, everyone does it.That does not provide some unassailable paradigm proving something beyond repute. It just shows that people like to talk about their jobs. As to the second part of the quote, "an air of real duty". What exactly are you saying? Are you implying that 20 years of continuous service and 6 tours do not constitute "real duty"? If so, I apologize, I should know better and defer to your obviously superior knowledge as regards these matters.

I don't want to sound disagreeable or anything, but I really cant agree with this statement. I did 6 tours during my time in the military and didn't meet any soldiers who actually liked to fight. It's not a matter of liking to fight, it's a matter of being professional. Just talk to some vets. Any who have seen conflict will all say the same thing, it's not a sport, not entertainment, it's a job. One that must be performed with professionalism above all else. I think it's great that people are finally showing support for our guys. It's been a long time coming and it's more than welcome.

I don't believe that is any solution of any kind whatsoever. We can assert our presence in our northern waters without resorting to the "everyone looses weapon". Nukes can never defend Sovereignty, all they do is destroy and keep on destroying. When you consider the fact that if one Nuke is used most likely many more would be used it just gets worse and worst.

By the way,do the Liberals have a Defence plan? They most certainly do. They plan for everyone to stand in a big circle, pat each other on the bum and sing "We Are The World" If that doesn't work they'll follow it up with a rousing rendition of "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing".

I just heard that the thirteen year old who conspired with her 23 year old boyfriend to kill her familly has been found guilty of first degree murder. Her boyfriend still has to go to trial, he also faces three charges of first degree murder. Even though she was found guilty the maximum she be sentenced to is 10 years. The maximum she can actually serve is 6, seems a little lax if you ask me. At the time of the murders she was actually twelve years old. she conspired with Stienke to kill them because her parents objected to her being involved with him. I wonder why eh.

Nuclear subs most certainly do assert a presence. Believe me, when you're at sea on a skimmer and know they are down there somewhere you are very conscious of what their very presence means.As for the pont about rescue, who exactly are you going to rescue? It's not exactly a popular vacation spot. The problem is that the US and Russia already run boats under the ice, so we're a little late stepping up so to speak. Patrol boats sound good and I guess something is better than nothing but if it came down to Brass Tacks they'd be pretty useless. These patrol boats have some ice capability, up to a meter thick. It doesn't matter how big your Icebreaker, in the winter the passage is closed and cant be opened. The ice freezes up to 15 meters thick in spots, You'd need one hell of a big icebreaker to keep a passage open in that. I've done ice patrol before when I was still with the Navy, unless you've been there and seen it you cant imagine it. It's incredibly awesome.

The answer to Canada's Arctic sovereignty has already been mentioned. Nuclear powered submarines. We should have bought the Amethyst Rubis instead of the Trafalgars. The Ruby is a superb sub and has an extended under ice capability. Unfortunately it was passed over because of it's nuclear power plant.The Liberals figured that Canadians would never go for that so we ended up with substandard subs.

Harper has done far more to support the troops than any other PM I can think of. At least he's actually gone to see them in an actual active theater. As was stated, he's a busy man, I dont think he'd have time to attend every repatriation even if it was his firmest desire to do so. I know it would have meant a hell of a lot to us when we were deployed if our PM had come to see us. When we were in Somalia our CDS visited. We donned our best bib and tucker and formed up on parade in the heat. The parade commander then told us to salute as the contrails passed overhead at about 30,000'. Nice visit eh? At least Harper hasn't pulled that kind of cheesy shit on the boys.

Did you actually read what I posted? I do believe I talked about a major review of this institution being due didn't I? Do you really believe the better course of action in this case would be to tear down this institution rather than rebuild it?

What exactly is a "Bubba"? If you don't mind me asking.

It's just my opinion but I don't think the RCMP should be disbanded. I constantly hear that Canadians have nothing to look to for an identity. Thats not entirely true. The Mounties are known in many places around the world and as such form a very large part of Canada's visible identity. As a little kid growing up in Liverpool I didn't know where Canada was exactly, but I sure as hell knew what a Mountie was and where they came from. There should be a major overhaul done though. I'm not sure what would work. It would have to involve some form of independent oversight committee. And it wouldn't hurt to take a good hard look at the command structure. Cronyism is usually present in these kinds of institutions.

It would appear to be so. I believe a lot of it is caused by fear, people just don't want to admit that there are threats to themselves in this world. Unfortunately there are, very present ones that cant be denied. Western civilization is known for it apologetic guilty nature, it has been for quite some time now.

Now it makes sense! I thought it was some obscure nautical way of making a point! Could be because I was a Sailor at one time I guess.

We do have an arms industry as Army Guy has pointed out. It's been severely curtailed though. We missed a major opportunity with the Bras D'or though. She was beautifull and the first of her type anywhere. She still holds the record for the fastest ship of war. If we had produced the class we could have sold a bushell load of them. In fact they would be perfect for our current needs even today. If you combined a 400 class (Bras D'or) with a Frigate and Destroyer You would have an extremely potent, rapid force to rekon with. From what I hear our Coyotes are a big hit too. They are so named because they are intended to operate in packs of three. One C&C vehicle and two scouts. From what I understand they are in big demand. Canada used to have a strong aerospace industry. Successive governments have managed to strip that away though. It's a shame.