kimmy

I certainly don't want to take a good thread off-topic, but this is ridiculous. The referendum was in 1995; how can money scammed in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, etc , be justified by the need to win a referendum that had already been voted on? If you want to discuss further, let's start a different thread or dredge up one of the dozens of existing ones devoted to the sponsorship scandal; let's not sidetrack this thread with it. -kimmy

I'm reading the article and I'm scratching my head trying to figure out, if she didn't like being called "Kemosabe", why didn't she tell them to quit calling her that? As the article says, "Kemosabe" is not in itself racist. There's a racial connotation, which could (depending on the situation) be offensive. Here's what I'd compare it to: I have a friend of Chinese descent who I often play basketball with. Suppose I start referring to her as "Yao", in honor of Chinese NBA star Yao Ming. -calling her Yao is not discriminatory... it's quite a compliment in fact. -however, it's obviously a reference to race... I obviously wouldn't be calling her that if she weren't Chinese. I should probably know better than to make reference to someone's race needlessly... at the very least, it's not polite. -but, I don't believe that not being polite in itself is grounds for a lawsuit or human rights complaint. I believe there's some onus on my friend to tell me she doesn't like it, or as the article put it, "object vociferously." -if my friend objects vociferously, and I keep calling her Yao, then clearly I'm trying to harrass her. And if I was her employer instead of her basketball opponent, then I'd be on the road to some kind of complaint for creating a hostile work environment. I feel that we're not being told the whole story here. Relations between the Mullers and Moore must have been extremely poor for her to quit her job and take them to court, particularly since Moore herself testifies that she had "not vociferously objected to Kemosabe". I find the ruling reported in the article makes perfect sense: I feel that the Human Rights Commission's own lawyer makes an argument in support of it: How are people to know a word is offensive if they're not told? Perhaps the Mullers should know better than to call a native person "Kemosabe", but how are they supposed to learn that it's not appreciated if nobody tells them? -kim'o'sabe

I don't exactly get what you're saying, Fleabag. Under what kind of situation would US soldiers be at risk in Canada? If you're talking about a US invasion, I don't think they'd be detered by deaths of some soldiers or of some Canadians. If the US felt threatened enough to invade us, I think it would be because they meant business, not because they thought they could do it with few casualties. You mentioned the 80,000:1 figure before, and I believe you said it was in the context of assessing how much humanitarian benefit they would expect before risking American lives. Earlier when you mentioned this, I asked whether you had any particular figure in mind for Canadian involvement, and I don't recall getting an answer. If you were in charge, and your advisors told you an operation would likely cost 10 Canadian soldiers their lives, how many foreigners would you have to save to decide it was worth it? If you could save 10 Sudanese civilians by sacrificing 10 Canadian soldiers, would you do it? (if one of our leaders thought so, I'd be sure to kick him in the groin hard enough to remove him from the gene pool.) What about 50 Sudanese? What about 100? 1000? -kimmy

(comments removed by me. -kimmy)

paraphrased, "Opinions that I don't agree with make me uncomfortable! Please leave! " -kimmy

That's a good choice. -kimmy

I know that building a jet fighter is a little more complicated than building a Civic but I can't imagine that it takes 11 years to roll one off the assembly line. ah. This is likely to be a problem for us no matter which brand of plane we eventually buy, I guess. I picked the Saab plane mostly at random, but partly because I read yesterday that one of the junior partners in the F-35 project has backed out over concerns about timelines and capabilities, and is purchasing Grippens instead as their multi-role plane. I'm sure it will, sadly it will probably be a decade late (2020 timeframe) and this does nothing for our current needs to replace our current Hornets. yow. I guess I'm just having a hard time getting used to the idea that these orders take so long to fill. -kimmy

And history shows us that this may not have been the wisest of moves for either country. Why? The B-70 was magnificent, from a technological and aesthetic viewpoint... but it was rendered utterly pointless from a functional viewpoint by rapid advances in missile technology. It yielded some useful research in aerodynamics and manufacturing techniques, so in a sense it was worthwhile... but developing a super high performance strategic bomber once missile technology was off the ground (bad pun?) would be somewhat like developing a super high performance horse-buggy while Mr Ford was rolling his first automobiles off the assembly line. The F-108 would have been a splendid, high-performance little plane, but like the Arrow, rendered somewhat unnecessary by the advances in missile technology: those dreaded bombers never were going to come lumbering over the north pole. So would the Arrow. The reasons for the cancellation of the Arrow have become oversimplified in the popular imagination... this article, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Arrow ...discusses a lot of reasons why the Arrow program may have been cancelled, and while some of them are related to the Bomarc, a lot of them are simply related to the cost. The Arrow program was over-budget and so expensive that it was depriving other parts of our military of the money to buy equipment they needed. My personall view is that we should walk softly and carry a stick appropriate to needs and our financial ability to pay for sticks. Developing and maintaining a state of the art fleet of home-grown fighter-interceptors is a shockingly expensive exercise, especially for a country that has had little need for fighter-interceptors for many decades. Our need for that type of plane is modest; we should spend a modest portion of our defence budget on it. As Stoker pointed out, purchasing less-expensive aircraft is a more sensible approach than spending a massive sum of money developing our own. It's possible that if the Arrow had been a success and the expertise developed during the project had remained in Canada, we might have a much stronger aerospace industry today. Perhaps Saab in Sweden is an example of what Avro could have been to Canada. But, I would point out that the aviation industry as a whole is somewhat turbulent. Civilian carriers all over the world seem to be experiencing financial troubles and less able to buy aircraft. Military expenditures are also a risky bet. I think, for instance, that the US forces will generally buy American gear given the chance. That would probably leave Avro in cut-throat competition against a number of companies, both American and European, for whichever smaller contracts pop up from time to time. There are probably more sellers than buyers in the market at any given time. Well, we could also have a better airforce by simply spending money intelligently. Buy the aircraft we need, at a price we can afford, when the opportunity presents itself. I think that pumping a huge amount of money into a home-grown aviation industry might actually be an obstacle to having a capable armed forces. As Canadians, there's only a certain amount of money we're prepared to spend on a military, and rightly so. We have to get the most out of that money. To me that means buying equipment we need for all branches of the forces. If Avro was dependent on selling X number of planes per year to our forces, I think it would threaten our ability to purchase other equipment our forces need. -kimmy

So to sum up it sounds like this idea is another example of (as the Brits might say) "Penny wise, pound foolish." That might well be the unofficial slogan of our armed forces, at least since 1993. Something I don't really understand is why the replacement timetable is so long... like the F-18 article you quoted indicates that these plans are being made for 2015 and 2020... why is it that we have to plan now for planes we won't get for 10 years? Why will the Sea King replacement take so long? I'm not questioning that it is so, I'm just trying to understand why. Is it universal to big military contracts, or is it peculiar to the way Canada's military is doing business? Like, why can't we go to (say) Saab and say "Here is $1 billion. Please send us 40 of your new Grippen planes, as quickly as you can roll them off the assembly line." I assume that if the government wanted to buy 40 of just about anything else, they wouldn't be operating on an 11 year timeline. Why is it different in the case of our replacement helicopters and apparently also in keeping our fighter-plane fleet in the air? Incidently, I found this while I was reading yesterday: http://www.rcaf.com/1997_2010_present/airc...s/jsf/index.htm Perhaps Lockheed F-35s will be Canada's eventual replacement for the Hornets. -kimmy

I think you're missing out on a critical option, one that is seldom employed: what are they dying for? I would hope that the question of what they're dying for is asked and answered long before any soldiers have fallen. The invasion of Afghanistan had pretty clear objectives, approved by the UN and supported by many nations including ours. I think the question of why we should risk our soldiers there was answered before they left Canada. -kimmy

(ongoing investigation, or extended obfuscation exercise? ) I would think that when we are talking about very poor countries, many of the people able to scratch together the wherewithall to come to Canada would be not the typical guy on the street, but rather the more wealthy people. I would think that in many cases, the wealthy in these countries would be those who are if not corrupt, then at least adept at greasing wheels, greasing palms, and so on. It should not be surprising that the people who used their know-how (whether legal or slightly less so...) to get ahead in their own countries would use the same attributes to get ahead in Canada. I also think that in many poorer countries, government officials are not held to the same standards as here in Canada. I think that in many places around the world, bribes are simply the way things get done. I do not think "WASPs" are inherently less corrupt than other people around the globe... however, I do think we have more scrutiny and accountability. Our officials probably just don't have as much opportunity to be corrupt. -kimmy

The Hornets are good planes, though, aren't they? What I have read seems to indicate that they are tremendously reliable and durable, plus quite versatile. If they can fulfill the kind of missions we need, and have this reputation for reliability, and we already have the capability of maintaining these planes, then doesn't it make sense to acquire them cheaply when we have the chance? In 1992 we acquired 5 "CC-150 Polaris" transports, which are actually A310 Airbus jets bought from Canadian Airlines for our armed forces (other airforces have also converted them to multi-purpose transports and tankers; we'll soon also be using them for airborne refueling.) We're currently flying the hell out of them in keeping up with our duties in Afghanistan. This to me is the sort of purchase that makes sense: it fits with capabilities we need to maintain (getting our people and gear around the globe); it fills an upcoming need (as the Hercules transports are old); and it appears to have been done in a way that made financial sense (taking advantage of Canadian Airlines' financial situation.) I guess what I am asking is if purchasing the Hornets from Australia might also make sense in the same way. Airplanes are not submarines; there are hundreds or thousands of F-18s in use around the world, and it should be possible to form very accurate predictions about reliability and aging and service requirements based on statistical information. -kimmy

First off, You are refering to the BOMARC. Second, it wasn't designed to shoot down missiles, but bomber formations. Third, it did work, but it's warhead required a small nuclear device (to be triggered amongest a flight of bombers), and since we didn't acquire nukes for it, it became next to useless. Our fault, not the Americans or the missiles. Also, the President was Ike and he was not using any "Jedi mind tricks" on Diefenbaker, since the Americans also beleived missiles were the way of the future.......with the proof being, their lack of development in jet aircraft in the mid-late fiffties. Indeed. At the same time Canada cancelled the Avro Arrow, the Americans were cancelling the F-108 and the B-70. I recall reading someone comment that the Arrow's fate was sealed when on the same day it rolled out of the hangar for the first time, the Russians put Sputnik in orbit. I think it must have become clear quite quickly what the implications were. As any need to intercept Russian bombers lumbering over the North Pole would quickly disappear, the Americans cancelled their own super high performance interceptor program; they cancelled their Mach 3 bomber as they realized they would themselves soon have a much more efficient means of getting warheads to Moscow. Jet fighters are no longer needed for attacking bombers, yet they're still very important in modern armies, even 45 years after the Arrow was scrapped. Why is this? What are they used for? I believe for obtaining control of an airspace, and for attacking targets on the ground. Command the sky, and use it to drop stuff on your enemy. But this sort of objective is not something that we as Canadians put a high value on. I believe that some Canadian fighter planes actually dropped stuff on an Iraqi navy ship during Gulf War v1.0, but for the most part I do not believe that maintaining a state of the art flight of jet fighters is something that is key to Canada's well being as a nation. It is not crucial to the kind of capability we expect from our armed forces. The Arrow would have only been useful if we'd chosen a more aggressive role in world affairs-- most Canadians are happy that we didn't. -kimmy

CTV article No reason to assume anybody higher up the food-chain was involved (so far, at least. ) Obviously, though, this is another black eye that can only reinforce the corrupt image that Immigration has been developing. -kimmy

I don't think Tillman and others deserve to be considered heroes because they died while wearing uniforms. I think, however, the decision to volunteer one's life in the service of one's country deserves admiration. That can be said of everyone who signed up for altruistic reasons; Tillman is merely the most noted example. And, I think the people who serve in the armed forces *do* deserve our reverence. On this forum we talk about things... like "We should be doing peacekeeping in Sudan" or so on. In order for "us" to participate in these endeavours that we as a nation have decided are important, there has to be people who actually put on the uniform and go to these places and put their lives at risk. A military draft is one way... but in this country, thanks to the people who have volunteered, that isn't necessary. So yes, unless you'd like to see a draft or mandatory service as in many European countries, then you and I do owe gratitude to the people who have volunteered to serve in the armed forces. One might think "Well, I'm glad we're doing peacekeeping in Haiti or Cypress, but I don't really think we should be involved in..." but the people who join the armed forces do not decide which conflicts to get into. They sign up, and put their trust in the leadership to make wise decisions. This is a democracy: we decide... at least in theory. Maybe it really does work: Canadians supported going to Afghanistan, Canada went to Afghanistan. Canadians didn't support Iraq; we stayed out of Iraq. When we as a nation decide that military participation is important to us, that can only happen thanks to the people who serve. If we place a value on the peacekeeping we do, then we owe that to the people who serve. They're in a dangerous situation with little tangiable reward, for the sake of doing something that the Canadian public feels is important. In return we have to hold our politicians accountable for the choices they make. If they involve our troops in conflicts that we as a nation don't feel we should be in, then we have to hold their feet to the fire for it. That's how we can make sure that the sacrifices are troops are making are worthwhile. At least in theory. -kimmy

You make a very good point. -kimmy

The police can charge people with carrying a concealed weapon if they deem it appropriate (and I'm assuming the problem we're discussing is concealed knives, since I don't think many schools or nightclubs let people wander around with knives on display; Sikhs being one exceptions and Calgary possibly another ) -kimmy

Why is pot illegal? Because the Hell's Angels have to make a living somehow. -kimmy

I read that the owners' offer on Tuesday would guarantee the players 54% of the league's revenue. And I have heard that the NHL's revenue is in the range of $2 billion dollars a year. 54% of that is over a billion. There are about 700 players in the NHL, so the owners' offer would give an average annual salary of over $1.4 million. I only wish that my employer would insult ME with an offer like that. People might miss hockey for the time being, but not for long. If the NHL stays out of operation for too long, then Canadian broadcasters will find other hockey to put on TV. The AHL, Canadian major junior hockey, college hockey... the World Junior Championships will start in a week. I think that people worried about the big-picture economic impact of the NHL lockout can probably relax. We hear these studies saying how NHL teams generate X millions of dollars of economic activity in their community, but I think the studies neglect to mention that people will find something else to spend their entertainment money on. Perhaps instead of taking the family to one NHL game a month they'll take the family out to dinner 4 times, or to the movies, or to amateur hockey, or some combination of things. Maybe they'll save up to buy a new snowmobile or something. If I owned a sports bar, I would be worried. There'll be losers, of course, but there'll also be winners, somewhere else in the economy. It's all a rich tapestry. -kimmy

Will I have to remove my kitchen knives from a locked cabinet when I want to make a salad? -kimmy

Certainly it's unfortunate that in the United States' all-volunteer army, a lot of the people probably only volunteered because they didn't have many alternatives. I don't think any less of them for it; it's certainly a more honorable career choice than selling drugs or home invasions. I do not feel Tillman's sacrifice was greater than anybody else who died in Afghanistan. However, his decision to make that sacrifice is pretty singular. I doubt many who joined the armed forces had more incentive to just stay at home. I am sure that many of the war's biggest supporters wouldn't join up to fight if you paid them $3.6 million, let alone pass up $3.6 million to join up to fight. -kimmy

Knife control? Which knives will be subject? Hunting knives? Kitchen knives? What about axes? Carpentry tools? Sharpened rocks? Scissors? Would there be a National Knife Registry? There are, what, 11.5 million households in Canada? Averaging, say, 15 knives each? If the National Gun Registry has cost $2 billion for registering 6 million guns, how much money would it cost to register the possibly 170 million knives in Canada? How about blunt objects? Baseball bats, etc? Rocks, concrete garden gnomes, bricks, bowling balls, and pretty much anything large and heavy could be used to commit homicide too. This is a real prize-winner of an idea you've come up with, Syrup. -kimmy

Tillman sacrificed fame, a multi-million dollar career, and ultimately his life, because he believed it was important to bring the people who perpetrated the WTC attack to justice. Whether you believe that the leadership he entrusted his life to was pursuing the same goals as Tillman does not diminish the magnitude of the sacrifice he made. Nor does the fact that he was killed by "friendly fire" (although that might be emblematic of hundreds of soldiers whose lives have been lost to questionable leadership.) He gave up a lifestyle that most people can only dream of so that he could go risk (and lose) his life for his country. I guess hero is a subjective term, but I certainly have a lot of admiration for somebody who made such a sacrifice for pure reasons. Lots of things reflect badly on the US Army in this affair... the report on his death indicates questionable leadership. The posthumous effort to hide the truth and create fictional events to create a recruiting-poster image also shows extraordinary bad taste. That's on the Army's conscience, if it has one. None of it diminishes Tillman. Let's talk more about John Walker-Lindh, who Maplebear feels compares favorably to Tillman. I suppose that in one sense they're similar-- Walker-Lindh, like Tillman, went across the world to fight for something he believed in. Unfortunately, what Walker-Lindh believed in was first the Harakat-ul-Mujahideen al-Almi terrorist group in Pakistan and then the Taliban. We've seen the political cartoon where Pat Tillman asks the Army recruiter "Will I get to kill Arabs?" As August1991 would say, "giggle giggle". If one were to draw a similar cartoon about John Walker, how would it go? How about having Johnny asking the Harakat-ul-Mujahideen al-Almi recruiter "Will I get to blow up buses full of civilians?" Or maybe draw Johnny asking the Taliban recruiter "Will I get to drive a tank over fags?" or "Will I get to dismember adultresses?" (Fair's fair, right?) Here's an article about the group Walker-Lindh was in while he was in Pakistan: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf...kistan.arrests/ Sounds like swell bunch to party with. Bottom line, Walker went across the world to hook up with that group. And when he got bored of their scene, he hooked up with the Taliban. How can somebody who would make choices like that be deserving of any respect at all? ...uh-oh... spider-sense tingling... -kimmy

I could be out to lunch, but I don't believe most military satellites would be geosynchrous. They stay in one place (ie, over the equator in parallel with a fixed spot on the ground) which is very useful for broadcasting, but not so great for spying... I think spy satellites have low, fast orbits that go over the earth at an angle to the equator. I don't think they would be nearly as easy to blow up. One would need a system capable of targetting and intercepting a fast-moving object (a system a lot like BMD? ) For communications, I think that the military would probably use a network of fast, low-orbit, satellites (technology like the deceased Iridium network) rather than geosynchrous satellites. -kimmy

The "democratic deficit", and the lack of accountability in Ottawa. -kimmy