Got Chinooks?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ever hear of infinite regression?

Ever hear of dead pacifists?

[bush_cheney2004]

I meant abuse not interference. Yes, the powerful have all through history abused the weak. Are you saying that when Americans pursue their self-interest that its justifiable no matter what?

So using such logic, we can expect "justified" terrorist attacks on Canada to increase from places like Serbia, Haiti, Bosnia, East Timor, South Africa, North Korea, Cyprus, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

[kimmy]

So using such logic, we can expect "justified" terrorist attacks on Canada to increase from places like Serbia, Haiti, Bosnia, East Timor, South Africa, North Korea, Cyprus, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

Indeed. Everything is "justified" to people who have a warped sense of justice.

Most people would regard Australia's intervention to stop the slaughter in East Timor to be honorable and maybe even heroic...

...but for some reason, the Islamists saw it differently ("the infidels have committed an act of war against the Ummah" or some such...) and terrorist attacks directed at Australians were the result.

The problem with discussing whether our western democracies actions abroad are beneficial or justified or "interference" or "abuse" is that it doesn't matter what our opinion is. The knuckleheads will form their own opinion based on their own unenlightened world views.

To us, going to Sudan to stop the violence of the janjaweed militias might be a noble purpose... but to the fanatics, it will be more "western aggression against Islam" and no doubt another cause for terrorists.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....To us, going to Sudan to stop the violence of the janjaweed militias might be a noble purpose... but to the fanatics, it will be more "western aggression against Islam" and no doubt another cause for terrorists.

Right...damned if you do and damned if you don't. It is unremarkable that we have "payback" minded terrorists harboring such sentiments, but for those apologists who live and thrive in the very West they condemn is even more ludicrous.

Domestic or international "terrorism" is not a new phenom...what is new are the actions taken to battle "asymmetric warfare" by "transnational" terrorists. If one of the root causes is ideological belief systems in Afghanistan, then that is the reason Chinooks will be there.

If they want a Jihad, let's make it one to remember.

[eyeball]

So using such logic, we can expect "justified" terrorist attacks on Canada to increase from places like Serbia, Haiti, Bosnia, East Timor, South Africa, North Korea, Cyprus, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

We can expect anything if we have a Canadian government that supports US interests such as they're currently being pursued in places like Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

I guess I'll have to take it for granted you are saying when Americans pursue their self-interest that its justifiable no matter what.

[bush_cheney2004]

We can expect anything if we have a Canadian government that supports US interests such as they're currently being pursued in places like Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

Incredible...you still refuse to admit that the "Canadian government" also pursues self interests, regardless of what the Americans do.

I guess I'll have to take it for granted you are saying when Americans pursue their self-interest that its justifiable no matter what.

Hardly....as I don't live in your "peacekeeping" dream world of "justification" that blames America for your own choices.

[eyeball]

Incredible...you still refuse to admit that the "Canadian government" also pursues self interests, regardless of what the Americans do.

Of course Canada pursues its self interests. It would be absolutely silly if it didn't don't you think?

Hardly....as I don't live in your "peacekeeping" dream world of "justification" that blames America for your own choices.

Incredible...you must still believe I think the attack on 9/11 was justified. THAT is definitely only something you can blame yourself for.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course Canada pursues its self interests. It would be absolutely silly if it didn't don't you think?

Apparently, it's only silly when you disagree with the interests and methods. In this case, Afghanistan.

Incredible...you must still believe I think the attack on 9/11 was justified. THAT is definitely only something you can blame yourself for.

I don't care what you believe...the "justification" game is for apologists to play. I don't play your morality games. Chinooks don't play them either.

[jbg]

Almost destroyed? He (Jean C) completely destoryed it, and then through into a fight it was unprepaired for.

Jean C wouldn't ride the Sea Hawk; he took a ride on an American copter instead.

[Alta4ever]

Which is why this country needs to arm to the teeth and Harper is the man to do it!.........Liberals never again!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/world/am...s/02canada.html

The country doesn't need to be armed ot the teeth, it needs to be prepaired.

[Alta4ever]

You don't have to be so privileged....Hitler recorded his intentions for posterity in word and deed.

It already was an arms race...and Europe lost. The "peace" from WWI set the stage for all that followed.

The arms race started with the British and one ship the Dreanought. From there it snow balled and set the stage for the for the Great War. Then Wilson fumbled the "league of nations" and the terms of peace with Germany,but the world took note of his legacy Wartime socialism. The next incarnation of this was facism in Italy and it spread. These two events paved the way for the Rise of Hitler and the the Second World War. Although the lead up was not an arms race as it had been with the Dreadnought, while Western powers were limiting miltary sizes, creating navy quotes and sizes. Germany built a military in secret. We fought and won, through a policy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the weight of mass production. At the end of the Second World war we again started another arms race in chemical, biological (german legacy), and the one that most knew of the atomic race. Not wanting to face another blood war where these weapons were used, the west started the containment policies, and continued the enemy of my enemy philosophy. Which led to the the interventionism and the lead up to what we are seeing for terrorism today.

Now I know a hunder years of war policies summed up in paragraph is very vague but I'd rather not write a book in a thread about chinook helecopters. Now while these decisions that where made that brought us to this point were not perfect but these decisions where much better then some of the alternatives proposed through the cold war. If you don't beleive me look up Curtis Lemay and Baiting the Bear.

All we can do is look to history to show us the way, and in the last 100 years we have payed for those lessons. Appeasment doesn't work economic sanctions don't work.

[Argus]

I meant abuse not interference. Yes, the powerful have all through history abused the weak. Are you saying that when Americans pursue their self-interest that its justifiable no matter what?

No, if I was going to say that I would have said "Americans can pursue their self-interest and it's justifiable no matter what".

But uhm, I never said that, nor suggested it.

Let me ask you this. Canada befriended Indonesia despite its vicious dictator, Canadian corporations had a lot of financial interest there, and both they, and the Canadian government helped prop up Suharto and defend him at the UN. Would Indonesian citizens have been justified in blowing up the CN Tower because they didn't approve?

I suppose they must have felt justified after the ruthless dictators of certain given nations in the region became too powerful due to American interference to attack conventionally.

Really? You're saying that it would be impossible to attack a Saudi bank or insurance company?

]I guess attacking the source of their dictators power made more sense. It suggests a high level of desperation born out of utter hopelessness and helplessness.

Except those who were involved in 911 were completely uninterested in freedom, and were not at all helpless, being largely well-off individuals. What they wanted, and there's no secret here, is a much more severe dictatorship, with less freedoms and harsher punishments.

At what point did it become justifiable for a freedom loving democracy to prop up a dictatorship?

Dunno. Ask Jean Chretien. He certainly had no difficulties along those lines.

You don't seem to be disagreeing with the general premise that 9/11 was brought on by American interference

Brought on by American interference? Let's suggest that I wear a red shirt into a bar, and some drunken dumbasses don't like it, and punch me out. My beating was "brought on" by my wearing a red shirt. Did that make the beating in the least bit reasonable or justifiable? Nope.

A guy brushes against another guy in a nightclub and is shot to death. His death was "brought on" by brushing against another guy. Was that in the least bit justifiable or reasonable? Nope.

Russia's attack on Georgia was "brought on" by Georgia wanting to join Nato and be a part of the successful West rather than the dictatorial East. Was that attack justifiable or reasonable? Nope.

but your attempt to justify American interference in these regions seems just as desperate as flying passenger planes into buildings does.

The only interest, for the most part, that the US has in these regions is that they continue to produce and sell oil, and that they not fund terrorist groups. I don't consider that American "interference" in an effort to bring about these sorts of outcomes is altogether unreasonable. Apparently you disagree.

As for the "hopelessness and helplessness" of the poor, downtrodden masses yearning to be free. I remind you again that in every single case of terrorism and violence perpetrated against the US the terrorists involved were OPPOSED to any form of democracy. Throughout the Muslim world, the organized, violent opposition groups are ALL supportive of a religious theocracy along the lines of Iran and Sudan. So knock off the bullshit about the poor huddled masses disparate for freedom.

[Kitch]

There is nothing to Justify..the Terrorist declared war on Sept 11th/2001 now we are going to Slaughter them..... no justification warranted!

Save your chest banging for the not so bright broads at the bar, bud.

But If you want to discuss, then discuss.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Kitch

[Kitch]

You're privileged enough to converse with someone who reads history. And the histories are replete with knowledgeable individuals of that era who are unanimous in their oft-repeated statements that there were numerous opportunities to have stood up to Hitler and faced him off before things got to the point they did. Body building competitions are better than war, as we learned in the fifties and sixties. Hitler invaded other countries because they were weaker. He never would have invaded Russia had his generals not told him how weak and disorganized and poorly led and equipped the Red Army was at that time.

I take your word on your reference to recorded history. But keep in mind that history is very subjective and easily manipulated. Not that what you're talking about now isn't realistic... just making a point.

Competitions are better than war. Sure. But when one competitor is so much more powerful than others, that leads to unprovoked war... not necessarily, but, history has shown!

And it's not really fair to always refer to Hitler as the justification for perpetual preparation for war. (I'm not saying that YOU do that... maybe you do... but it seems like a common argument). You can't convict somebody of a crime before they commit it and you can't attack a country before they attack you or somebody else.

[bush_cheney2004]

...And it's not really fair to always refer to Hitler as the justification for perpetual preparation for war. (I'm not saying that YOU do that... maybe you do... but it seems like a common argument). You can't convict somebody of a crime before they commit it and you can't attack a country before they attack you or somebody else.

Indeed...one could just as easily refer to Great Britain and her commonwealth / dominions. But that wouldn't be as comfortable....now would it?

[William Ashley]

Seems like the Americans are delivering to their own forces before delivering to Canada. Which is why the date is pushed back. At least in part.

Or maybe there is just a blackout on delivery.

None the less I think Canada should be making its own equipment, not reliant on Foreign Companies that are noted for unreasonable delays in delivery of equipment, especially during an operational wartime. $1/4 Billion is a substancial sum of money for Canada.

Of course my opinion is that Canada has the talent for making its own equipment, so why purchase price inflated variants from the US?

[Kitch]

Indeed. Everything is "justified" to people who have a warped sense of justice.

Most people would regard Australia's intervention to stop the slaughter in East Timor to be honorable and maybe even heroic...

...but for some reason, the Islamists saw it differently ("the infidels have committed an act of war against the Ummah" or some such...) and terrorist attacks directed at Australians were the result.

The problem with discussing whether our western democracies actions abroad are beneficial or justified or "interference" or "abuse" is that it doesn't matter what our opinion is. The knuckleheads will form their own opinion based on their own unenlightened world views.

To us, going to Sudan to stop the violence of the janjaweed militias might be a noble purpose... but to the fanatics, it will be more "western aggression against Islam" and no doubt another cause for terrorists.

-k

The problem is that you perceive the world views of others as unenlightened. Reasonable people can and do reach different conclusions based on the same information. You can't automatically say somebody else's opinion is wrong.

And another problem is that your post assumes that the intention for these interventions is to stop violence. If that was truly the case then there would be similar interventions in all or most regions that are engaged in violent conflicts... but that is not the case. There are varying degrees of self interest involved.

[William Ashley]

Seems like the Americans are delivering to their own forces before delivering to Canada. Which is why the date is pushed back. At least in part.

Or maybe there is just a blackout on delivery.

None the less I think Canada should be making its own equipment, not reliant on Foreign Companies that are noted for unreasonable delays in delivery of equipment, especially during an operational wartime. $1/4 Billion is a substancial sum of money for Canada.

Of course my opinion is that Canada has the talent for making its own equipment, so why purchase price inflated variants from the US?

On the other end, if Canada hires more mechanics and engineers it could just buy all its equipment at US army surplus sales and save tons on aquisition costs, and still get much of the same effect. AND FASTER.

AND FOR LESS. Of course compitition with the US Militias might get tough, but even they are getting "new us equipment" since they are leaving stuff behind in Iraq..

speaking of which maybe Canada can ask the US if it can use all the stuff it is leaving in Iraq for itself? Drive it up to afghanistan and leave it in Turkey or something for the next US war.

Edited November 2, 2008 by William Ashley

[Kitch]

Indeed...one could just as easily refer to Great Britain and her commonwealth / dominions. But that wouldn't be as comfortable....now would it?

I'd be just as comfortable with that. But British/American imperialism is rarely used as justification for America's war machine. That would be a little ridiculous... wouldn't it?

You are aware that people in places around the world compare Bush to Hitler, right? Whether YOU or I think that this is ridiculous or not is irrelevant. Hitler was viewed as the leader of a developed country, was he not? He wasn't immediately seen as a dictator who needed to be removed. So from the perspective of these people around the world, how can they differentiate between Germany circa 1935 and U.S.A. circa ever since?

[bush_cheney2004]

I'd be just as comfortable with that. But British/American imperialism is rarely used as justification for America's war machine. That would be a little ridiculous... wouldn't it?

Not at all.....America often refers to past engagements and policies when formulating new ones. We own our history instead of denying it.

You are aware that people in places around the world compare Bush to Hitler, right? Whether YOU or I think that this is ridiculous or not is irrelevant. Hitler was viewed as the leader of a developed country, was he not? He wasn't immediately seen as a dictator who needed to be removed. So from the perspective of these people around the world, how can they differentiate between Germany circa 1935 and U.S.A. circa ever since?

Pretty simple....the USA was successful...and this success has been manifested around the world in the choices they make. Driving Volkswagens, Audis, Porsches, BMWs, and Mercedes-Benz's is a small consolation prize. And you are aware that the British are not held in very high regard either, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

Seems like the Americans are delivering to their own forces before delivering to Canada. Which is why the date is pushed back. At least in part.

Or maybe there is just a blackout on delivery.

Why wouldn't they...or to customers who already ponied up with their dollars. Waiting for Canada to poop or get off the pot when it comes to such procurements is a common experience.

None the less I think Canada should be making its own equipment, not reliant on Foreign Companies that are noted for unreasonable delays in delivery of equipment, especially during an operational wartime. $1/4 Billion is a substancial sum of money for Canada.

Go for it...remember...you paid $1/2 billion not to produce helicopters!

Of course my opinion is that Canada has the talent for making its own equipment, so why purchase price inflated variants from the US?

Yes.....but much of that talent is working in the US or for US corporations in Canada.

[Smallc]

Why wouldn't they...or to customers who already ponied up with their dollars. Waiting for Canada to poop or get off the pot when it comes to such procurements is a common experience.

They ordered these straight away, there was no playing around. Because of the wars that the US is in, the soonest they could get the helicopters was 2011. A 2007 order for a 2011 delivery date. Thats just the way it is. has nothing to do with weather or not Canada was slow to order.

[eyeball]

Let me ask you this. Canada befriended Indonesia despite its vicious dictator, Canadian corporations had a lot of financial interest there, and both they, and the Canadian government helped prop up Suharto and defend him at the UN. Would Indonesian citizens have been justified in blowing up the CN Tower because they didn't approve?

If they did I would understand their motivation but since when did understanding something justify it?

Really? You're saying that it would be impossible to attack a Saudi bank or insurance company?

No and tactically it wouldn't be nearly as effective so why would they?

Except those who were involved in 911 were completely uninterested in freedom, and were not at all helpless, being largely well-off individuals. What they wanted, and there's no secret here, is a much more severe dictatorship, with less freedoms and harsher punishments.

Its no secret that the west is also uninterested in their freedom, our only interest is in controlling their oil, and our extreme methods of achieveing this has only caused more extremism. Abused people often become abusers themselves or didn't you know that?

At what point did it become justifiable for a freedom loving democracy to prop up a dictatorship?

Dunno. Ask Jean Chretien. He certainly had no difficulties along those lines.

Sure you know. It became an "acceptable" practice during the Cold-War. Remember, "they may be bastards but at least they're our bastards"? Amongst other things people did ask Jean Chretien about this. As I recall he tried to choke one poor SOB and directed Sgt Pepper to hose down a bunch of others, something you cheered about I think.

Brought on by American interference? Let's suggest that I wear a red shirt into a bar, and some drunken dumbasses don't like it, and punch me out. My beating was "brought on" by my wearing a red shirt. Did that make the beating in the least bit reasonable or justifiable? Nope.

Nope.

A guy brushes against another guy in a nightclub and is shot to death. His death was "brought on" by brushing against another guy. Was that in the least bit justifiable or reasonable? Nope.

Nope.

Russia's attack on Georgia was "brought on" by Georgia wanting to join Nato and be a part of the successful West rather than the dictatorial East. Was that attack justifiable or reasonable? Nope.

Oh so now all of a sudden you're against dictatorships. But nonetheless, nope.

The only interest, for the most part, that the US has in these regions is that they continue to produce and sell oil, and that they not fund terrorist groups. I don't consider that American "interference" in an effort to bring about these sorts of outcomes is altogether unreasonable. Apparently you disagree.

A dictator is a terrorist. Obviously you don't agree but the measure of respectability the west affords these thugs comes at too great a cost. A good part our current economic mess can also be included in this.

As for the "hopelessness and helplessness" of the poor, downtrodden masses yearning to be free. I remind you again that in every single case of terrorism and violence perpetrated against the US the terrorists involved were OPPOSED to any form of democracy. Throughout the Muslim world, the organized, violent opposition groups are ALL supportive of a religious theocracy along the lines of Iran and Sudan. So knock off the bullshit about the poor huddled masses disparate for freedom.

Speaking of bullshit I didn't mention the poor you did. The west's foreign policy in the Gulf and surrounding region is extreme, there's no other word for it and as I mentioned extremism begats more of the same. Notice how these theocracies keep popping up in the wake of deposed US puppet regimes. Did you think this is just a co-incidence or something?

I'm not apologizing for anyone's actions, you are.

[bush_cheney2004]

They ordered these straight away, there was no playing around. Because of the wars that the US is in, the soonest they could get the helicopters was 2011. A 2007 order for a 2011 delivery date. Thats just the way it is. has nothing to do with weather or not Canada was slow to order.

No they didn't...much farting around for one-off design changes as reported by Army Guy.

[William Ashley]

Why wouldn't they...or to customers who already ponied up with their dollars. Waiting for Canada to poop or get off the pot when it comes to such procurements is a common experience.

Go for it...remember...you paid $1/2 billion not to produce helicopters!

Yes.....but much of that talent is working in the US or for US corporations in Canada.

As for the deals these were not my choices. As far as "a lack of talent" I think that is not so much the truth. There are a lot of very skilled Canadians. Canada just isn't intelligent in its R&D aquisitions. They normally contract. They don't appear to hire staff for NRC type operations. Canada just isn't targetting, it appears. It is filling very tight nieche needs largely based on emulation of other NATO members operations systems. For me to say I know the right way vs. This is how the world military does it is a hard sell.

None the less if I can design weapon systems that outpace US military weapon systems, then I'm geussing the truely skilled engineers can do far better than myself. The equipment is sadly underfunctioning for the dollars. I would really argue it is the way the operation is being carried out. None the less I've said it is more like one big training exercise than a war. Very pivotal time right now.

Canada has a lot of very capable engineers, also skills training is a very large posibility to job turnover due to the recession. Also the recession in the US may serve for an oppourtunity to hire. The technology isn't that advanced, that is in service. From what I've seen of it.