Oleg Bach Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 There was really some stif competition there for awhile but it's nice to see someone break away from the pack... [/quote Beefing up the military is akin to giving lucrative miltary contracts to the guys that appointed you as Prime Minister...good work Stevie...at least you are honest when it comes to serving your masters - no offence..war and dope dealing are big bucks...Like this buisness of "We are in Afghanistan so a little girl can go to school" -spare me - if they really cared about kids they would have invaded Tai Land and stopped childhood pimping..give me a break! As far as military spending - buy a nuke or two and threaten your advesaries into submission - it's cheaper. Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 buy a nuke or two and threaten your advesaries into submission - it's cheaper. Its also ineffective, but you get what you pay for. Just how would you respond to a civil emergency if all you had was some nukes? Blow the shit out of the area and not worry about the emergency afterwards? I suppose that would have been one way to handle the Quebec ice storm. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Oleg Bach Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 Its also ineffective, but you get what you pay for. Just how would you respond to a civil emergency if all you had was some nukes? Blow the shit out of the area and not worry about the emergency afterwards? I suppose that would have been one way to handle the Quebec ice storm. No it's not! OK - I see..my daughter was deployed by the Red Cross yesterday..she likes to assist...now - does she need to take an M16..to help? You get the idea. Harper is not that kind that he is strickly thinking of using a beefed up military for civil emergencies...I surmise that he is taking his orders from some war lords south of the boarder - after all was it not Bush that said the war on terror would last for 60 years ? Talk about maintaining an economy through war fare- just shows you that some are not intelligent enough to lead...Sure - military is useful civily----but - I do see the day when they will draft our young men if this hysteria and greed (war on terror) is not controled and soon..enough is enough...still - get a nuke...by the way how come Israel gets to have a nuke and we don't? Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 ...by the way how come Israel gets to have a nuke and we don't? Not too many people are aware of it but we did have nukes in the past. They were all in West Germany when we maintained a presence there. I believe the last were removed from our arsenal in the latter part of the sixties if my memory serves me correctly. In Somalia we wouldn't have been able to help anyone if we weren't armed. It was almost a daily occurence when we had to go help NGO's who were being threatened and even captured by Aidide's men. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
M.Dancer Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 Not too many people are aware of it but we did have nukes in the past. They were all in West Germany when we maintained a presence there. I believe the last were removed from our arsenal in the latter part of the sixties if my memory serves me correctly.In Somalia we wouldn't have been able to help anyone if we weren't armed. It was almost a daily occurence when we had to go help NGO's who were being threatened and even captured by Aidide's men. Don't forget the nukes we had at BFC Bagotville and I believe CFB Cold Lake....in Bomarc anti air missiles... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 (edited) Don't forget the nukes we had at BFC Bagotville and I believe CFB Cold Lake....in Bomarc anti air missiles... Correctamundo...Nuclear weapons in Canada right up until 1984, despite lying about them (AIR-2 Genie missiles for the CF-101 Voodoos). The dodge was that they were under "US control" so they didn't count! Edited May 14, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 Don't forget the nukes we had at BFC Bagotville and I believe CFB Cold Lake....in Bomarc anti air missiles... I remember that...it was a lot like having a big gun with a trigger lock and the neighbouring Americans had the key...to have nukes...you must be able to fire them - now...can you imagine the leader of the liberal party - if he was Prime Minister..you know that Stephaine what's his name..imagine him pressing the button...he would pee his pants just considering it...it's good that we have no nukes seeing we are not capable of generating a leader with enough character to wield the weapon resonsibly...Harper would never launch untill he got word from the big boys...and seeing the big boys don't tell Harper everything.. AWH what the heck _ I am rambling...forget the nukes...how about pepper spray for every man woman and child - or maybe a tazer - where we could zap liberals that got in "my personal space". Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted May 14, 2008 Report Posted May 14, 2008 Correctamundo...Nuclear weapons in Canada right up until 1984, despite lying about them (AIR-2 Genie missiles for the CF-101 Voodoos). The dodge was that they were under "US control" so they didn't count! Yep, they also mounted them on 104's as well. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Oleg Bach Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Yep, they also mounted them on 104's as well. So we are tenants and common henchmen that hold the masters war horse while he pees? Big deal..you talk about the tech end of things - just like boys with toys..nukes are not toys fellas - and that is why YOU are not allowed to have them - point made! Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 just like boys with toys..nukes are not toys fellas - and that is why YOU are not allowed to have them - point made! I served three years with our East Coast NERT team in Halifax Oleg. I'm fully aware of what nukes are. Too much knowledge of the effects and methodolgy behind their use actually. It was fascinating though, thats why I tend to tune them out when people start to give opinions on nukes, they just don't know. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 (edited) So we are tenants and common henchmen that hold the masters war horse while he pees? Big deal..you talk about the tech end of things - just like boys with toys..nukes are not toys fellas - and that is why YOU are not allowed to have them - point made! But I've already had them...lots of 'em....and it is you who would never get to play with them, which probably suits you just fine. Ballistic missiles have that wonderful "new car smell".....I love it! Edited May 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 I served three years with our East Coast NERT team in Halifax Oleg. I'm fully aware of what nukes are. Too much knowledge of the effects and methodolgy behind their use actually. It was fascinating though, thats why I tend to tune them out when people start to give opinions on nukes, they just don't know. You do realize I was joking. Nukes are facinating for sure..what is really facinating is that there are people who creatively rack their minds no how to actually use a nuke and make it work for conventional war fare - they are simply totally unmanageable. PLUS - there is enough goodness in mankind and the proof of that is - the fact we have had nukes in the world for quite a while and are still here. There is something fine to be said about humanity after pondering that thought. That goodness prevails. I can not imagine someone doing a premptive nuke strike - nor can I imagine some party actually thinking that these weapons are usable - they are not useable or we would have used them..Much like the cold war. It's like two men standing in a basement up to their knees in gasoline and both holding matches - challengeing each other to a duel to the death. Thanks for revealing yourself. I do feel a tad of privledge that you would trust me enough to show your cards..Angus..you're good. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 (edited) Looks like PM Harper's new investments are already paying off with new found heavy airlift... A Canadian C17 Globemaster cargo plane loaded with 2,000 emergency shelter kits is headed for the victims of cyclone-ravaged Burma. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories No more begging and hitching a ride. Edited May 15, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
the janitor Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Looks like PM Harper's new investments are already paying off with new found heavy airlift...A Canadian C17 Globemaster cargo plane loaded with 2,000 emergency shelter kits is headed for the victims of cyclone-ravaged Burma. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories No more begging and hitching a ride. No more begging? Canada spent x-billion dollars on C-17s and now we have to plead with the gov't of Myanmar to let our emergency aid even get into the country. Let's hope the victims get at least a little bit of it. Quote
the janitor Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Yay! The new winner of most stupid post of the decade! It's easy to say that it's stupid, but obviously beyond you to explain why. Canada spends billions and billions of dollars on defence so the Navy can go sail two or three frigates around in the Persian Gulf? So more soldiers can get killed because the Taliban hasn't been contained? So that on any given day the Air Force can only count on having only about three dozen outdated F-18s supposedly"protecting" Canada's entire airspace? So a big honkin Globemaster III can fly aid to Burma when we don't even know it will be delivered? So the Canadian government can have an excuse not to build more daycare spaces? Or an excuse to not spend more on foreign development and maybe give poppy farmers in Afghanistan an alternative to supplying the west with opium, or to Taliban recruiters? Take away the military and yes, Canada might be at slightly higher risk of terrorist attack. Take away the RCMP, provincial and municipal police forces, CCG, CBSA and the risk is exponetially greater. I think the men and women in Canada's armed forces do a superb job, but let's face it, the return on investment isn't there for the amount spent. I can see the United States being justified in having a large military industrial complex, but not Canada. Terrorists aren't capable of large scale military operations and no one else is going to attack us. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a small reserve military capability, but learn the lessons the war on terror is teaching: warfare has changed and large-scale linear battles are a thing of past wars. Quote
Wild Bill Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 It's easy to say that it's stupid, but obviously beyond you to explain why. Canada spends billions and billions of dollars on defence so the Navy can go sail two or three frigates around in the Persian Gulf? So more soldiers can get killed because the Taliban hasn't been contained? So that on any given day the Air Force can only count on having only about three dozen outdated F-18s supposedly"protecting" Canada's entire airspace? So a big honkin Globemaster III can fly aid to Burma when we don't even know it will be delivered? So the Canadian government can have an excuse not to build more daycare spaces? Or an excuse to not spend more on foreign development and maybe give poppy farmers in Afghanistan an alternative to supplying the west with opium, or to Taliban recruiters? Take away the military and yes, Canada might be at slightly higher risk of terrorist attack. Take away the RCMP, provincial and municipal police forces, CCG, CBSA and the risk is exponetially greater. I think the men and women in Canada's armed forces do a superb job, but let's face it, the return on investment isn't there for the amount spent. I can see the United States being justified in having a large military industrial complex, but not Canada. Terrorists aren't capable of large scale military operations and no one else is going to attack us. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a small reserve military capability, but learn the lessons the war on terror is teaching: warfare has changed and large-scale linear battles are a thing of past wars. Didn't Alfred Nobel say after he had invented dynamite that it would make war obsolete? Wasn't WWI called "the war to end all wars?" Didn't someone say that the Bomb had made wars obsolete? Didn't Diefenbaker justify canceling the Avro Arrow by claiming that Bomarc interceptors had made fighter aircraft obsolete? There were a lot of Frenchmen at the start of Hitler's invasion that were shocked to discover that the Maginot Line was NOT a perfect defense! It just seems that every time someone claims that war or some type of weapon is obsolete history soon proves them wrong. In order to be accurate with such claims one would have to be a seer capable of seeing the changes in war measures and countermeasures. The only thing we can hold true today is that the rate of change is such that we no longer have the luxury of taking a year or two to develop troops and resources if the balloon goes up. Today's wars are "come as you are" wars. In a few months, weeks or even days it's all over. Canada wouldn't have a hope in such a situation. It makes sense from a political perspective. Cut the budgets today and use the money for vote-grabbing social programs. Odds are that by the time you ever need your military you'll be long retired from office, perhaps even dead. You won't have to accept any blame. It will be someone else's problem. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
WarBicycle Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 (edited) It's easy to say that it's stupid, but obviously beyond you to explain why.Canada spends billions and billions of dollars on defence so the Navy can go sail two or three frigates around in the Persian Gulf? We also have a permanent military base in the UAE, the price one pays for being a G8 country, it's time we start pulling our weight in the world. Edited May 15, 2008 by WarBicycle Quote
AngusThermopyle Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 It's easy to say that it's stupid, but obviously beyond you to explain why. Actually its not beyond me to explain. I just can't be bothered wasting my time answering a post so obviously based on ignorance and lack of knowledge. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
M.Dancer Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 ?Didn't Diefenbaker justify canceling the Avro Arrow by claiming that Bomarc interceptors had made fighter aircraft obsolete? Umm..no. Intercontinental ballistic missiles made bomber interceptors obsolete... To the point, name one country that has bomber interceptors Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Oleg Bach Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Umm..no. Intercontinental ballistic missiles made bomber interceptors obsolete...To the point, name one country that has bomber interceptors I think the americans had a lot to do with pressuring the gov to get rid of that masterful piece of high tech and beauty - the Avro Arrow...I believe it's called envy. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 I think the americans had a lot to do with pressuring the gov to get rid of that masterful piece of high tech and beauty - the Avro Arrow...I believe it's called envy. Actually, the Americans contributed significantly to the development of the Avro Arrow.... 1) Wind tunnel testing at Langley AFB 2) B-47 Stratojet on loan from the US Air Force. 3) American engine....(domestic Iroquois wasn't ready yet) 4) Missile and fire control Truth is, the Arrow was obsolete before it would have entered service, and nobody else was going to buy them. End of story, except for the domestic political intrigue for PM 'Deif. Avro engineers found work south of the border working on interesting projects like...oh...going to the Moon. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Actually, the Americans contributed significantly to the development of the Avro Arrow....1) Wind tunnel testing at Langley AFB 2) B-47 Stratojet on loan from the US Air Force. 3) American engine....(domestic Iroquois wasn't ready yet) 4) Missile and fire control Truth is, the Arrow was obsolete before it would have entered service, and nobody else was going to buy them. End of story, except for the domestic political intrigue for PM 'Deif. Avro engineers found work south of the border working on interesting projects like...oh...going to the Moon. Thanks...you must admit that it was pretty. But I guess a weapon has to be more than a piece of art. That the sword must be sharp. So what you are saying is that we were not the sharpest tool in the shed when it came to making weapons? Quote
the janitor Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Actually its not beyond me to explain.I just can't be bothered wasting my time answering a post so obviously based on ignorance and lack of knowledge. Wow, hard to argue with logic like that! I stand corrected. Cheers Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 15, 2008 Report Posted May 15, 2008 Thanks...you must admit that it was pretty. But I guess a weapon has to be more than a piece of art. That the sword must be sharp. So what you are saying is that we were not the sharpest tool in the shed when it came to making weapons? Not sure what you mean...the Arrow was an interceptor and weapons platform, that could have been retreaded into another role....like reconnaissance. The Americans had many more "mistakes" than Canada, but also had the capacity and resources to take the losses or change the mission (see RA-5C Vigilante)...and keep on going. The Arrow (or a derivative thereof) could have been many things, but Canada gave up on the vision when reality reared its ugly head. The Arrow was an engineering success, but also a political failure that signaled Canada's identity as a lesser god. Why some Canadians still let it eat their guts out is beyond me. If it makes you feel any better, the old Discovery Channel series "Great Planes" includes the Arrow (and other Avro oddities like the AeroCar). Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.