james rahn

I always knew there was something fishy about that guy...

We sent a Coast Guard Vessel as well as a navy vessel to the Gulf of Mexico after Hurricane Katrina. I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but if we can't patrol our own coastal waters our ships have no business being in the Persian Gulf. Right now we have 2500 soldiers in Afghanistan doing everything they can fighting for the interests of the free world. Some countries in Europe (other members of the free world) are spending huge amounts on their military and are doing the absolute minimum. Given that type of political climate, I wouldn't send a trawler at 12 knots -- I'd send it at 6 knots and tell them to take the long way around.

Never been to Nanticoke, but I've seen the Strathcona and the Petrocan refineries on the east side of Edmonton. They are big and manly...and really smelly! Better be careful, mister, lest you find yourself beneath the wheels of Mr. Hawkings motorized wheelchair. Uh, do you even know who Stephen Hawking is?

Why do we need a robust Coast Guard? Depends what capabilities you mean when you say robust: icebreaking in the Gulf, Navigation, environmental protection, arctic resupply. I did post that I thought the Arctic Patrol Vessels going to the Navy as opposed to the Coast Guard was a good idea, but the CG surface fleet is aging rapidly. I don't think the navy needs as many full blown frigates as it has. You don't need them for for sea rescue or fisheries support. Actually, I'd like to see the CG with some more air assets. (Former AME, worked with the shipborne 105s, I admit I'm prejudiced. Gotten into some heated debate with friends still in the CG over this!) They need at least two or three more medium lift helicopters and some of the 105s will soon need replacing. It would be nice if they had a couple of twin otters in addition to the one Dash8 I think they're flying now, that way they wouldn't have to borrow aircraft from the Canadian Ice Service. Add a couple of capable capable fixed-wing, land-based aircraft and some larger shipborne-helicopters, and you don't need a fleet of huge honkin' can-travel-all-the-way-to-the-north-pole-and-back-again-14-months-of-the-year-to-keep-Jack-Layton-happy breakers. Sure, the new breakers (which the government will need to build sooner or later) would need larger flight decks to handle the larger aircraft. But they'll already need to be larger anyway to handle increased demand for re-supply. I'm not saying new GC vessels need to be larger just for the sake of making them larger or to enforce Canadian control of the Arctic. Sovereignty is and should be the domain of the military (and the RCMP depending on the situation), and they need the assets to carry out the task, so I agree with you that it's not (or rather, shouldn't be) an either/or situation. The fact is though, that everything the federal government does and every program it runs competes for funding. The coast guard needs more than it's getting right now, while the navy cannot afford to operate some of it's vessels. If the government isn't going to increase funding to both organizations, then it becomes an either/or situation. I think what the CG does is as important as what the navy does. Since new vessels are already planned for the navy (vis the A/OPVs), the simplest solution seems to be to mothball some of the navy's frigates.

I'm not in the CF (not even in the CG anymore), so I'm not certain about this, but Canada has only about five or six buffalos based in Comox right? I thought they were using Hercs for SAR out of Winnipeg, Trenton and Greenwood, so wouldn't the CF still need to purchase a new fixed-wing SAR platform even if it retains the Buffalos? I've never worked with the DHC-5, but some of my experience is on the Twin Otter. Viking Air in Victoria purchased the type certificates for everything from the Otter right up to the Dash7, and apparently they're putting the DHC 6 back into production with a 400 hundred series (more capable engines and some avionics updates, I think). I think they have about three dozen firm orders right now. Wonder how many orders they'd need to put the Buffalo back into production. Pressurization (or lack of) is an issue with the Buffalo too, isn't it?

Sounds like a Christmas wish list... I agree with what you're saying, I just think it's kind of a pity and I hope the situation changes. When the CF replaces the Hercs and the Buffalos I hope they go with the C295 instead of the C27 though, but I'm sure here as well the commonality of parts with the Hercs will be a big factor. (Umm, I'm not too sure about this, but I thought Lockheed pulled out of the C-27 thing.) As far as fighters, I'd like to see them go with the Super Hornet, nice to have a spare engine over the arctic.

Sure, sure, you get lots of sun in Vancouver in the summer -- in ten minute segments! Actually, I didn't live in Vancouver, I lived in Burnaby. If you wanna debate Vancouver and Burnaby, you're toast! I'm glad you brought up the changing the battery in the car starter thing, I just remebered I gotta do that, so thanks. I'll head off to the mall as soon as I dig my garage out (it's snowing here --again). Wouldn't be so bad if city hall could actually get the streets cleared.

It's not that they kept it out, what they established was that anything that happens in the Arctic (NWT/Nunavut) needs the support of the Inuit to succeed. I think historically the US has done more to develop the Canadian Arctic than Canadians have (I'm thinking of the airstrips and HAWS's established during and just after WW2), so I'm not opposed to Americans or American or International shipping using the passage or even being up there. But a little known fact about the passage of the Manhatten was that a patrol of Arctic Rangers went out onto the ice in front of the vessel and parked themselves there for two days. The Manhatten didn't resume it's transit until the patrol moved out of the way on their own initiative. When I was in Inuvik one time I spoke with one of the rangers out on that patrol (he's now in his seventies) who said they moved when they were good and ready, but I still wonder if it was under orders from DND that the patrol let the Manhatten through. There was a book written by Ivan Head who worked on foreign policy for the federal government back then (can't remember the name of the book, I'll have to look it up) who said that the passage of time works in Canada's favour when it comes to control of arctic waters. He makes a point that because the actions of the Canadian Ranger patrol have never been challenged in an international court (even by the US) -- and until they are -- the actions are considered legal under international law. When I spoke with my federal MP regarding the Northwest Passage at an open house recently (I wanted my seven year old son to meet someone who helped make Canada's laws because it tied into something they were learning at school), the line I got on the Arctic was "...basis of the Law of the Sea...Continental Shelf...doesn't matter who lives there, blah, blah, blah..." well, I think he's wrong on the last one. I really have nothing against Stephen Harper, but if the federal government is going to take an approach that will recognize the decision of an international court (located in Europe) while completely ingoring the thousands of people who live in our own arctic, I think they're going to lose Canadian control over arctic waters very quickly and very permanently.

I lived in Vancouver for 16 years. When I got the chance to move back to Alberta working for the Coast Guard at Hay River (it's a long story), I jumped at the chance. I'll take snow and sunshine over 11 months of solid rain and a suicide gray sky anyday. About the construction boom in Vancouver, too bad all of those buildings leak: not good in a rainy climate lol. I just wish Edmonton had a tower like Calgary. We have tower envy.

I have to admit, as a former AME, I like many of the aircraft produced from former Soviet Bloc nations. I think instead of the C-17 and the HercJ the miltary should've gone with some Antonov AN-70s. I know there are some ICAO certification issues with many Eastern Bloc aircraft, but they're trying to hard to get the details hammered out. Looks right now like the AN-70's gone down the flusher because Russia elected for more IL-76's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70

I think you make an excellent point here.

Don't get me wrong, I think the only reason there is a semblance of peace in the world is because of the United States Department of Defense, and not because of NATO or the UN. True the United States has stood up to tyranny, but there are still over 30,000 children in the world who starve to death everyday, there are still 40 million Americans (including children) without any health coverage; it's still the low income Americans who fight and die at a disproportionate rate when the US engages in any military conflict, regardless of its justification. I do believe most times the US is justified when it acts militarily. As the only superpower, they occupy a unique position in the world as the biggest target. I think they should have the right to act against a perceived threat whether the UN or anyone else in the free world agrees with them. But for crying out loud, we are well into the 21st century here. Somehow the USandA has got to stop starving their own children and denying them health coverage just so they can spend more on the military, and the US (along with China and India) have got to stop being the world's biggest polluters. We are running out of time. Physicist Stephen Hawking gives the world less than 500 years before it becomes completely inhabitable, things have got to start changing soon, and like it or not, the US will to have to lead the way or it's just not going to happen.

Why do secular humanists hold Christians up to a standard they often can't even live up to themselves? Isn't that why people become athiests? I mean, from some people I know, what comes across is that they know they can't live up to God's standard of perfection but don't want God harassing them about it. A Christian counter argument would be that they know they can't live up to a super-human standard, and that is the precise reason someone becomes a Christian (assuming I understand Christian doctrine correctly). Either way, just because someone claims to be a Christian (or doctor, or lawyer, or brain surgeon, or king of a foreign nation) doesn't mean he is one. I think Christ himself said when he was on earth that "wisdom is known by her children." (Sorry, don't know scripture well enough to give you an exact reference.) If someone's actions (whether in Canada or Africa) are not espoused by the Bible (or the Koran or the Torah), I would seriously question whether they are actually Christian/ Muslim/Jewish. Ultimately, I would argue that someone who is outside any one of those three faiths is not in a moral position to judge those who are followers of Allah, Jesus or the G-d of the Jews. Neither can youlump fundamentalist Christians in with fundamentalist Muslims, since they both believe different things. The only similarity is the word "fundamentalism" being used by someone outside either faith. It's like calling a frog a leaf because both are fundamentally green. It's like saying Christians, Jews, Muslims and Athiests are all the same in their beliefs because fundamentally, they all think they are right. It's philisophical/political nonsense.

I don't think eyeball was damning the US as a whole, but rather their military industrial complex. It's interesting that US defence spending (even in peacetime) roughly approximates their federal spending deficit. But hey, so what if poor people have no health insurance, right? They'll be the first to sign up and get killed whenever there is a war anyway. It's not like Canada's military procurement process isn't the exact same thing on a smaller scale.

That isn't true. They are the only ones who can effectively keep anyone out. The Inuit have de-facto control of the the Arctic regardless of what any nation or court says about it. They proved it when the Manhatten first went through the passage almost 40 years ago, and their actions have never been challenged. Canada as a whole might lose sovereignty of the passage, but the Inuit won't. It's not like the American nuclear subs are going to fire torpedoes at eskimoes now, are they? All Canada really needs to do is support their own military rangers with some navy vessels (the Arctic Patrol Vessels...done!), and perhaps give the Inuit a couple more seats in the House of Commons or Senate, then everything's cool. Honestly, I wonder why our politicans haven't been able to see such a simple answer over the past 40 years!

When? Long before the Oilers! Back when CFRN had a totem pole and log cabin outside their studio on the edge of town in Jasper Place, back when we still had the rathole on 109 street; back when it was called the 'Industrial' airport and not the 'muni' or 'city centre' airport, and pilots would zone in on it by looking for the old dairy downtown witht he giant milk bottle on top of it, back when 630 CHED was still a top 40 station, when the Telus Tower was still the AGT Tower and you could go up to the top (Vista 33) and see the whole city spread out below you in every direction; back when we still had Chicken on the Way and the radio commercials with the dispatcher asking, "Where are you 44 Chicken?". Good times, good times.

To the rest of us, both cities are frozen tundra with a mediocre paycheque. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Does sound like you've put a fair deal of thought into it though. Unfortunately, thanks to our hyperactive economy, no one making 14.00 and hour can afford a house! The city of Edmonton is too busy paying for huge rapid transit to nowhere (as per my last post) to build any affordable housing. Just for the record - it's Edmonton and northern Alberta that have the oil (and the refineries). When it comes right down to it, I think Alberta from about Lacombe northward should be a separate province. That'd show Calgary -- them with their fancy tower!

I find Edmonton to be a lot more culturally diverse. I think Calgary is a nicer looking city than Edmonton, but that's about it. Right now I'm pretty sure Calgary has better municipal leadership than Edmonton does. Sure, Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel has invested money in new infrastructure (like the Light Rapid transit extension to Heritage Mall -- which no longer exists), new art gallery over budget? No problemo, here's another-couple dozen million city tax dollars. "Dear Mayor Mandel, Could city hall possibly scrape together a few more bucks to remove the 2-1/2 feet of snow from the sidewalk around my son's school? You see, every morning there are over 400 kids that need to be dropped off and then picked up later on in the afternoon. When it's twenty below outside, most parents elect to drive their kids to school and with cars, minivans and the huge honkin' 3/4 diesel pickups and SUV's that all those young, bar-hoppin' oilpatch workers drive, it creates just a bit of a hazard for the wee ones..." "...Thank you for your letter. Unfortunately, we cannot commit money to snow removal that has not been budgeted...." What a crock of BS! Edmonton...a formerly great city.

Lets face it, the United States can pretty much do whatever it wants whenever it wants. Compared to other world powers throughout history, they're actually pretty benign. Arrogant and rich and uncaring much of the time, but still pretty benign.

I'll bet the rest of the world will be more than happy to freely give it to us once that happens. Some of the Inuit might be a little ticked at the rest of us in the south though, for not standing up and effectively supporting our claim to the passage in the first place. The Inuit have done more than anyone to protect Canadian Sovereignty over the passage right from the outset.

I don't agree, especially where the arctic is concerned. Both are components of the military and naval vessels conduct joint operations with the rangers on a regular basis (as well as with the RCMP and with the Coast Guard). When I worked for the Coast Guard in Hay River it was common to have both naval personnel and rangers on the Nahidik or the Laurier.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold on a minute, I never said we should get rid of the entire navy. All I'm saying is we don't large, blue-water capable frigates to perform a rescue at sea, patrol the coastline for terrorists or to conduct fisheries patrols. The navy is a very capable organization, but we cannot underfund the coast guard just so the navy can have multi-billion dollar toys to play with. I think the arctic patrol vessels are a good idea because the Canadian Rangers in the north (of whom the majority are Inuit) are military reservists and are really the ones who patrol the far reaches. They live there, it's their home. It makes sense to have military assets up there to support them, not just (civilian) Coast Guard assets. Having said that, the Coast Guard is still grossly underfunded and capable of doing much more than it now does. If the federal government would cough up a few more bucks for the coast guard (from what they would save by pulling some frigates out of the water and not building as many new ones), that would act as a force multiplier for the navy, and Canada could actually come close effectively exercising sovereignty over its own waters. Sure, we might not be able to send ships to the Persian Gulf on a continuous basis, but what's the point of doing that anyway if we don't know what's happening in our own back yard? Or even if we do know, can't do a blasted thing about it?

I have to admit, though, whether we retain the Northwest Passage or not, the decision to build the "slushbreakers" was the right one. The Coastal Patrol Vessels could go for another 20 years and with the new Arctic Patrol Vessels, Canada could get rid of a half-dozen of its over-expensive Destroyers/Frigates

Oops! Found another thread dealing with it. Not quite sure how to navigate around yet

Anyone here think Canada will still be able to realistically claim the Northwest Passage as Canadian in 10 years? ADDENDUM: This was the Opening Post of a redundant thread entitled: Northwest Passage which is now merged.