williat

All I was trying to point out is that they were a good overall purchase, and I stated that I believed they should be replaced due to age, as well as clearly there are more efficient forms (requiring less man hours) of helicopters are available. Like I said I never said they were the best machines ever built, nor were they "Flying Coffins"...

Yeah I know. I was trying to talk about the term in general, I realize Shady didn't come up with the nickname, I was just trying to give Shady a hard time is all, lol.

To reaffirm Argus's statement here, and to address those saying there are never dogs fights anymore. It might have been a UAV, but it was shot down by a Russian MIG over Georgian territory...for me that's reason enough to have a couple jets on hand to be able to scramble in case Russia ever wanted to come into our airspace for any reason.

Well I see that you have links...great. I never said THEY ARE THE BEST THINGS EVER, I made it clear in my last post as well I'm not disputing that some have crashed. But as you so clearly showed us they were built in 1963 & as you are right in saying it takes roughly 30 hours mechanical work per 1 hour of flight, so the fact that 12 have (lets assume all were mechanical failure instead of pilot error) crashed should be absolutely no surprise I mean we should have spent the money a lot sooner. What I'd also like to note here is that I believe the last Canadian Sea King crash was in 2003 (going by memory so correct me if I'm wrong), so 7 years without a crash is pretty good if you ask me, considering they are suppose to "fall out of the sky". From what I've been told from people close to the Sea Kings is that they just weren't being taken care of properly so maybe not totally Sirkorsky's faulty design. But my friend you are reading articles, not to go into too much detail but lets just say I have a very very close connection some of these helicopters (Sea Kings as well as the new Sirkorsky helicopters replacing them) so I am speaking from experience through being around these pilots & mechanics on a consistant basis. ALL these pilots say that they LIKE the Sea Kings because of their ease of use, so I'm confident in saying that my post was true in 1970 as well as 2010. I understand some may not like them, but all the pilots I know say they do the job for now (the main downside being the amount of labour required for 1 hour of flight time). But if you want to tell me I'm wrong because you read it somewhere be my guest big guy, theres just some things you can't learn from reading, first hand knowledge for me personally, means a little more. I'm not saying your wrong in any way, shape or form, I was just trying to point out that you can't call them Flying Coffins. By the way the President of the United States, his helicopter....guess what, its a SEA KING!

I see where you’re coming from, but we cannot forget we do have commitments to NATO/NORAD, whether he have to “use” the planes or not. I believe this is most of the thinking behind it; also these are versatile aircraft meaning that they don’t just get used as fighter jets. The F-18s are getting old and I see the argument of why are we spending on items that may be inadequate in 10 years, but having them around (not saying that $9 billion is a good price here people) isn’t such a bad thing, I mean look what happened with Afghanistan, we got there and went “Oh shit! We need some new gear”. One point I also wanted to add is that Canada has no need to invest in very advanced military technology, I’m talking here more along the lines of missile defense systems and so on, our neighbours to the south, whether you like them or not, HAVE to protect Canada so to speak. Remember Alaska is up top, so the US wouldn’t let Canada be attacked, their missile defense system essentially has to cover our asses because, well were in the middle of them. I’ve heard many people bring this up and I want to clear something up because this is actually an area that I have knowledge of, the new helicopters Canada is getting, I’m not 100% sure on all the details, although we purchased a set of Sikorsky helicopters and built a massive set of new hangers at Shearwater Base in Nova Scotia. Secondly Shady, before calling them flying coffins you maybe should have looked a little harder. I personally know a couple Sea King pilots and they all say that they like these helicopters. Some fell out of the sky I’m not disputing that but don’t call something shitty because it breaks every once and a while. I mean if I used your logic I could say all Toyotas are rolling coffins, since the breaks failed on a couple of occasions. Again we’ve already spent money on some new helicopters.

Wouldn't piracy imply some form of bounty for these so called pirates. I mean keeping weapons away from people who have said "I want you to cease to exist" seems like a pretty reasonable thing to me. If you're implying that solely boarding the ship is an act of piracy then I would say you are very much wrong. If you are saying that taking any weapons off said ships constitutes the "bounty" then I suppose I could understand your argument a bit more (not that I would think it is right). But really your comment is just to try and piss people off... Add something useful, don't add dumb ideas because other people do it.

After being bombed/occupied...damn those Palestinians and their rocket attacks, give me a break they hardly ever hit anything...I get the idea that they are firing rockets at you and I've had this argument with a couple of people on here about the use of force so I'll try to avoid that topic as best I can but honestly you treat people like shit (the Palestinians) what the hell do you expect them to do. I'm pretty sure Jordan and Israel are both carved out of previous Palestinan land. You are technically right to some degree I suppose with completely pulling out of Gaza. I've been to the middle east...you really should never make comments when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This should read: "Some Palestinians have electrity, running water, many have TV and internet, cell phones, etc. If you want to see inhuman conditions look at Africa.". Although I wasn't in Gaza (so I have no clue what its like there) but judging by what I saw I'm willing to bet it can't be any better. I'll give you that some Palestinians have these luxuries, plus someone has already mentioned the refugees...I'm willing to bet that the refugee camps don't have TV or internet. I'll give you that Africa is far worse off then Palestine in the grand scheme of things, but just because someone is worse off doesn't make it right I think you'll agree. I'm not saying some form of blockade isn't necessary so I agree with you here, stopping weapons from entering Palestine is in Israel's best interest and I understand and accept this. I mean I think its nuts that in most of these countries they get 1 AK47 per household (I doubt its like that in Palestine), I mean call it culture or tradition or a means of living but an AK47...really? I mean we're always discussing safety/security in the area but its hard to do any form of good when weapons are so easy to come by. When I was in the middle east area (did a bit of travelling around) you can usually just hit a local market and buy weapons most of the time (or at least find out where to buy them). I honestly have no problem with the blockade, Israel has their right to safety just as anyone does, therefore why not just let these ships (the Turkish ones and the Irish one) stop in an Israeli port, let them check it out if its all good and no weapons let them through. I mean people can argue all day that this shouldn't be the case but honestly in the grand scheme of things who cares, Israel can go to sleep knowing that weapons aren't being brought in on these ships and Gaza will receive its aid, christ its really not that difficult.

Yeah I would believe it was a mine if thats what they came out and said. Like its been said considering that the Cheonan wasn't able to pick up the sub or torpedo it seems a bit fishy to me, although they haven't come out and said "We didn't know it was there" so I suppose its how you want to interpret the whole thing. Personally I just feel like now adays they keep so much information from us its nuts, I mean are we ever going to know if it was NK? Probably not, my guess would be China will come back and say something like "It's unclear if a torpedo is what sank the ship/who fired", which will bring things right back to where they were. In relation however to some suggesting that a mine or the Cheonan's own ammunition sank it, I'm not sure if I'm totally willing to accept this story either, I mean they obviously found remnants of a torpedo so doesn't this sort of rule out this theory. Unless of course you're suggesting that it was planted or something along those lines. The one thing that I thought was good about this entire event (if you can call it a good thing) is that SK handled the situation very well, bringing NK in front of the UN security council is the most grown-up move I've seen a state make in a while.

I totally believe that some of these terrorist jobs (car bombings, suicide bombings) are no doubt the work of intelligence forces much like you said, keeps everyone in a state of terror (hence the term terrorist). I've heard a couple stories such as these over the years, I also saw a documentary once (can't remember the name but I think it was by Frontline) that was interviewing a US commando and at one point the US knew exactly where Osama was hiding but did not/were not allowed to act on intelligence. Far too many powerful people are making money off the war. What? I thought we were talking about North Korea?

I probably shouldn't have put that out there without explanation. I don't think I should have to fund any political party nor do I think campaign money should come from corporate sponsors. I know this seems sort of contradictory because one might say well where would the money come from? But as you stated I don't think money really needs to be an issue at all, I can't speak for anyone else but those campaign commercials usually get me laughing more then wanting to vote for the party. I mean they just feed Rick Mercer stuff to make fun of them. I would whole heartedly support the system of "a single well written essay from each candidate followed up by maybe a couple of speeches and townhall style meetings", the fact is most people probably wouldn't read it or attend/listen to the speeches and most people would still just vote by party/leader without knowing much about either. This is why I don't support any "party" per se, every election I do exactly the same thing, take a sunday morning sit down and read what these guys are saying they "will do" for Canada, if I could just pick parts from each party that I liked and vote that way I would because I really don't agree with voting for a party that only represents 1/2 of what I want and the other 1/2 is totally against what I want. Maybe I'll just start my own party and call it something really obvious so people vote for me like "The Rational Party of Canada". To paraphrase Chris Rock on political parties "if you know how you would deal with a situation before hearing the issue, then you're a fucking moron". Sorry for the language folks.

Well it's clear that NK sank the ship according to reports, although wasn't it also reported there was WMD in Iraq? I mean I have no idea if they fired the torpedo or not, nor am I claiming to know. It could have been an accident as you suggested, but that would be a big screw up. This is how I feel on the whole subject, personally I don't think Kim Jong-Il is dumb enough to attack SK at this moment, he knows NATO/US is waiting for a reason to come oust him from power (if he doesn't know then he's in some trouble), so to me I honestly have a hard time believing that NK would just fire a torpedo at a SK ship without being provoked. Like we've both said it could have been a mistake (i.e. thought the SK ship was in NK water), but for me I'll stand by my skepticism on the entire thing. I mostly agree with what you said about China, they've said they plan to hold whomever is at fault accountable but if anything comes of it I would be surprised. As Xul stated its just another skirmish in an area that is known for this type of thing, I think I'm really only surprised and pretty much the only reason I brought it up is because the Cheonan sank.

I agree for the most part with the OP, but there are some areas that I could see being problematic in my mind; 2) I’m not sure how secure most Israeli’s would feel in this situation, one little bump in the road and shit could hit the fan (pardon my French). 3) I’m just sort of being a jerk with this one but what if Hamas was elected in both those areas (hypothetically). But the highway I agree with. 4) Even Iran? 12) I believe this involves Syria more then Palestine as someone has already pointed out. But yes it is of security importance to Israel. 13) I can’t see this working, it would give Israel too much control is what I’m guessing the argument would be. I mean eventually Palestine would be allowed to form a military I would assume, so this would sort of hamper that entire idea in my mind. I feel that there are so many issues in the area that it would be difficult to hash out a plan such as this either way. I’ve read through the posts so I don’t want to repeat what’s been said already, but for the most part water seems to be an important issue. As its been stated instead of just handing over money as aid, lets put it to use and build desalination projects, I mean we might as well stop giving money to let them fight each other and put it to something useful. I’ve also seen a couple arguments for international law, but I think we need to figure out what the hell international law means first, because from what I’ve always been taught it more a set of guidelines then “law”, sort of a vague concept because in reality we’re still developing it over time as far as I understand it (someone can correct me if I’m wrong). Personally I think the difference of opinion between Israel & Palestine is far too great to mend with an agreement, because as it’s already been addressed by a few, what would happen if the agreement is breached? Would we just return to how things are today, in my mind that’s not really solving anything just sort of a temporary patch. Argus’s idea of just dividing it between Jordan & Egypt seems to me like it could be the most realistic option, if the OP plan worked out Palestine would still be a mess for many many years afterward, at least Argus has proposed an idea that in my mind would make this entire idea a whole lot less stressful for those involved.

Intense stuff.

So by now everyone must have heard about the North Korean torpedo incident and basically from what I understand there has been a report filed by South Korea with help from other countries (US, Canada, ect) that says this was a North Korean torpedo that sank the ship and it was fired from a North Korean sub. I read China has been performing their own investigation and that they won't protect whomever is at fault. I want to hear what everyone else thinks on the subject, personally I don't know much about military technology or how they would find the remains of this so-called torpedo after it destroyed a ship. I've always had a little bit of conspiracy theorist in me, mostly because they are always pretty interesting theories. I've read in a couple places that some people are suggesting this may have been an act performed by another country to provoke another Korean war. On the other hand i've read news reports that a "group" of North Korean mini-subs (whatever that means) left a base along with an escort ship a few days before this the Cheonan sank, and returned shortly after. I mean if they had subs deployed I have to say that it doesn't look good, but I could also see how they could be easily blamed. I've also read that the torpedo has numbers that match an older model torpedo that the South Korean's have in their possession. Personally I'm not trying to dispute the fact that it's a North Korean torpedo, what's more interesting to me is if South Korea was able to get a hold of one of these, then couldn't other countries? Also if it matches an older model torpedo the South Korean's have, then couldn't it be an older torpedo that some other country fired to try to provoke a situation, knowing that the numbers would be similar enough to say it was North Korea? I could see why finding a reason to attack North Korea could be good for a lot of countries, take out another nut case running a country, not that I'm saying I would agree with provoking an incident such as this....but I can see why someone would consider it. What I do find more interesting however is how South Korea is handling it, I'm pretty impressed that they haven't started killing each other yet. I mean they are formally asking the UN to look into, pretty fair if you ask me. You can argue what you want about the UN being corrupt but I mean at least they didn't just started shooting at North Korea.

So after re-reading the original question and all the posts I have come to the conclusion that: There is large a difference of opinion, both with very valid arguments, although I have decided that I personally believe the ban is wrong and that the hunt should be able to proceed as long as other young animals are also being killed for whatever reason. I'm not saying I think it's an acceptable practice I'm just saying I'm not sure I believe I can fully explain a reason to ban it, other opinions are just as valid as mine but hey thats what I think. Peace out.