Got Chinooks?

[William Ashley]

It's not just "this" war....Canada can't decide what it wants to be, even as the much vaunted "middle power" that has been a laughable notion. PM Harper wishes to change that. There is nothing wrong with the CH-47's design variants or block upgrade approach...maybe it is just Canada.

FYI.....we test the torpedoes in Canada at Nanoose.

Actually, Canada is a major arms manufacturer and exporter as well, but the contracts are mostly US bound and kept off the PR radar. I think the Ploughshares folks would detail this very well

Canada was in Cyprus for 25 years.

The American's don't matter if you really believe this. Decide and own your actions with consequences. If that includes alliances with another nation, then that is part of the deal.

On average, wars are very good for the US economy. A really big one brought the nation out of a depression, not just recession.

Won't happen as long as 80% of exports and 30% of capital is associated with the US of A.

Canada honoured its commitment to NATO and supported UN sanctioned actions as a matter of policy. Hell, why did Canada bomb Serbia when the UN didn't even approve of NATO's operation?

Because Canada can afford to pay their own way, and prefers to do so.

Then they were are all fools. Methinks you don't understand the true nature of the "Moon program" wrt defense, intelligence gathering, and "full spectrum dominance".

It accomplished thousands of things...."we do these things..not because they are easy..."

It's not just "this" war....Canada can't decide what it wants to be

No I think it was more a matter of US OR THEM. Canada jumped on the bandwagon, as it was obligated to do as a US satalite state. 50% of the population more or less has been against the war in afghanistan ongoing. NATO simply expected everyone to jump on board.

There is nothing wrong with the CH-47's design variants or block upgrade approach

The only reason the US is going with them, is because they are invested in the techonlogy, and have been for the last 50 years. Canada has no such investment in the Chinooks. They are dated and do not represent "fully modern" technology. However they will do the job, they arn't Grade A.

I remember hearing about Nanoose pop up a few times.

Actually, Canada is a major arms manufacturer and exporter

US 52789 Million

Canada 1757 Million

Population and GDP wise it is a dramatically smaller sector in the canadian Economy. Israel exports more military sector equipment than Canada. If oil was counted as a military technology this may be a different story.

Canada was in Cyprus for 25 years.

So said PEACEKEEPING, not occupying and effecting a regime change.

On average, wars are very good for the US economy. A really big one brought the nation out of a depression, not just recession.

WAR DEBT ACCRUED:

World War II $3.2 trillion

Iraq and Afghanistan $695.7 billion+

Vietnam War $670 billion

World War I $364 billion

Korean War $295 billion

And into huge debt.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0116/p01s01-usfp.html

Won't happen as long as 80% of exports and 30% of capital is associated with the US of A.

What won't happen? Hmm.

Canada honoured its commitment to NATO and supported UN sanctioned actions as a matter of policy. Hell, why did Canada bomb Serbia when the UN didn't even approve of NATO's operation?

Good question. Why did the US bomb Serbia (or the chinese embassy) when the UN didn't even approve of NATO's operation? Perhaps this would scratch the surface.

Because Canada can afford to pay their own way, and prefers to do so.

Canada is running a deficit... Canada's interest payments are half of Israel's total external debt.

Then they were are all fools. Methinks you don't understand the true nature of the "Moon program" wrt defense, intelligence gathering, and "full spectrum dominance".

Space Race. Aliens out there will be one up on us. If the ants didn't go into your picknic basket would they bother you, or would you even notice them? LEO is very different from the Moon

Edited November 2, 2008 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

Nope...you will probably need the Antonovs too.

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/08/anto...re-is-c-17.html

Well, I suppose if we were in a hurry we would. You do realize though, that almost every other country on earth would run into this same problem, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

No I think it was more a matter of US OR THEM. Canada jumped on the bandwagon, as it was obligated to do as a US satalite state.

Not at all.....see Invasion of Iraq.

50% of the population more or less has been against the war in afghanistan ongoing. NATO simply expected everyone to jump on board.

Do you honour your NATO membership commitments or not? How convenient.....

The only reason the US is going with them, is because they are invested in the techonlogy, and have been for the last 50 years. Canada has no such investment in the Chinooks. They are dated and do not represent "fully modern" technology. However they will do the job, they arn't Grade A.

Please....the US has fielded many platforms and variants of platforms. The US scraps more aircraft than Canada can even manage to not buy.

Population and GDP wise it is a dramatically smaller sector in the canadian Economy. Israel exports more military sector equipment than Canada. If oil was counted as a military technology this may be a different story.

Canada is a major arms exporter. Deal with it.

So said PEACEKEEPING, not occupying and effecting a regime change.

General Hillier says otherwise.

Good question. Why did hte US bomb Serbia when the UN didn't even approve of NATO's operation? Perhaps this would scratch the surface.

Because we wanted too....and had the means to do it. We don't ask for permission.

Canada is running a deficit... Canada's interest payments are half of Israel's total external debt.

What is that worth? More seats in Parliament?

Space Race. Aliens out there will be one up on us. If the ants didn't go into your picknic basket would they bother you, or would you even notice them? LEO is very different from the Moon

The Americans are the aliens.

Edited November 2, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I suppose if we were in a hurry we would. You do realize though, that almost every other country on earth would run into this same problem, right?

I didn't propose the scenario...you did. There is no shame in renting 124's ......

Almost every other country would include about 170 nations without any pretense for such capability.

[Kitchener]

Finally we get some new choppers, this is great news for sure.

For the fourth time, they're not new. But I think you should call them new just one more time.

[Kitchener]

And the concerns in that report have been or are being addressed.

Not really. Perhaps the biggest concern in the report (and biggest problem with the report, but never mind) was that very little could be done for Afghanistan unless the institutional corruption, amateurism, and tribalism entrenched in the government, judiciary, and police forces could be reversed sufficiently for the populace to begin trusting those institutions. Yet virtually nothing in the presence and combat actions of the CAF can plausibly be thought to remedy those endemic problems.

[Argus]

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

Let's recap. Someone said "they started this war" and you responded with "That's just your opinion." The inference here is that you believe American actions were the equivalent of war, and therefore justified the attacks on America. You haven't got the balls to actually come right out and say that, but the inference is clear.

s 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?

It's not our job or duty to be worrying about other people's freedoms. It's to our credit that we do, when we can. As for "controlling" their oil, I don't think there's much doubt we could do that at any time if we were willing to simply shove them out of the way. Taking Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be a cakewalk compared to Iraq, given the location of the oil fields and the small populations.

The cause of extremism is religious, not secular. I don't think the US is the cause for the rise in religious extremism in the Muslim world. The Saudis are.

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

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.

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

.

I don't give dictators any respect at all. That's why I saw no problem at all with the US and its allies pushing out Sadaam. I gather you disagreed. Most on the Left did, whining about "international law" and Saddam's right to be treated with respect as the rightful ruler of Iraq. As for me cheering Chretien and the APEC behaviour, if you cared to check, rather than sounding like a fool, you'd see that I have been extremely critical of Chretien over both incidents. I thought the RCMP at the APEC summit ought to have been arrested and fired for misuse of authority.

But in any event, given that 3/4th of the world's nations are ruled by dictators, just how do you think we ought to be treating them all?

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.

Define "extreme" and what give us a few examples of policies the West has carried out in that area over the last quarter century which justify that term.

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?

No, I think that theocracies are what most Muslims want throughout the world. The "interference" of the West might, in some cases, be responsible for preventing theocracies from coming into power but I fail to see how that appreciably worsens the life or freedoms of the residents of those countries.

[William Ashley]

Not at all.....see Invasion of Iraq.

Do you honour your NATO membership commitments or not? How convenient.....

Please....the US has fielded many platforms and variants of platforms. The US scraps more aircraft than Canada can even manage to not buy.

Canada is a major arms exporter. Deal with it.

General Hillier says otherwise.

Because we wanted too....and had the means to do it. We don't ask for permission.

What is that worth? More seats in Parliament?

The Americans are the aliens.

QUOTE(William Ashley @ Nov 2 2008, 02:43 PM) *

No I think it was more a matter of US OR THEM. Canada jumped on the bandwagon, as it was obligated to do as a US satalite state.

------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all.....see Invasion of Iraq.

I don't quite follow the meaning here.

Do you honour your NATO membership commitments or not? How convenient.....

My commitments are as follows

- Provide for humanity in good faith, in acceptance of my role in exercising the will of God *tinfoil hats for all!

- Serve the interest of the Queen in allegiance and descendants, in what I feel best serves those interests in allegiance bearing all.

- to in good faith answer the call of parliament should there be a mobilization order - parliament being composed of the house of commons, the senate, and the queen.

- Uphold my own values and constitution, and protect the Canadian Constitution, in notion of ethical grounds of interaction, and uphold law and order in good faith.

and some other things

I have no NATO membership that I am aware of, or that i have entered into in knowledge. If you beleive I have, could you kindly reference where you got this from?

Please....the US has fielded many platforms and variants of platforms. The US scraps more aircraft than Canada can even manage to not buy.

Maybe the US should sell them to Canada at the scrap value...??

Canada is a major arms exporter. Deal with it.

I think we can agree to disagree. Part of this may be due to the difference in what we consider major. Also domestic production, vs. production for parts assembly in other states. That is where are the "finished" products. Can canada actually build something with the production it has currently?

General Hillier says otherwise.

Ok if it isn't a regime change, why are they there?

QUOTE

Canada is running a deficit... Canada's interest payments are half of Israel's total external debt.

----------------

What is that worth? More seats in Parliament?

What is what worth?

The Americans are the aliens.

Can you tell my psychiatrists that.

[William Ashley]

====

Edited November 2, 2008 by William Ashley

[Mr.Canada]

I find us as Canadians very lucky to have a PM that values a strong military for a sovereign nation. The Liberals would have dissolved our military and had the US military to babysit us and wipe our arse. Even though they were constantly bashing the US. Our military has become the laughing stock of the world and that isn't right. Even the Liberals finally agreed that our military was falling apart by over a decade of Liberal budget cuts. Thank God Stephan Harper has the foresight to keep us a safe and independent nation. The Liberal party doesn't hold this view.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't quite follow the meaning here.

Obviously Canada can say no when it wants to / has to. So much for being a satellite of the USA.

[M.Dancer]

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

A sea hawk?

[M.Dancer]

They planned to buy newer ones, but the Liberals put a stop to that.

If you are refering to the "Cadillacs" The EH 101.....They're not heavy lift helicopters.

[AngusThermopyle]

Just as some people may think that 911 was a declaration of war... that's how THEY see it.

A declaration of war, this is an interesting point. For myself it appears fairly obvious that that is exactly what it was. A declaration of war does not always have to be in the form of a written or spoken missive.

For instance using an aquisition and targetting radar to "paint" a ship of another nation is considered an act of war, to attack that ship is considered a declaration of war. As you can see a declaration of war does not always have to be in the form of written or spoken word.

[William Ashley]

I find us as Canadians very lucky to have a PM that values a strong military for a sovereign nation. The Liberals would have dissolved our military and had the US military to babysit us and wipe our arse. Even though they were constantly bashing the US. Our military has become the laughing stock of the world and that isn't right. Even the Liberals finally agreed that our military was falling apart by over a decade of Liberal budget cuts. Thank God Stephan Harper has the foresight to keep us a safe and independent nation. The Liberal party doesn't hold this view.

Yes we must protect the artic and afghanistan - because those are both places we are making more souvreign for American Oil Companies. Safe and Independant - does totally owned by foreign influences and hugely in debt gaurentee safty and independance - if so - what is the point?

Thank you Mr Harper for all you have done.

Edited November 3, 2008 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

A declaration of war, this is an interesting point. For myself it appears fairly obvious that that is exactly what it was. A declaration of war does not always have to be in the form of a written or spoken missive.

For instance using an aquisition and targetting radar to "paint" a ship of another nation is considered an act of war, to attack that ship is considered a declaration of war. As you can see a declaration of war does not always have to be in the form of written or spoken word.

It should usually be by the nationals of the state that you are thinking are going to war with you.. and the nation should admit to it, and it should be prooven. Sadly none of those are true in the case of 911. Since only Pakistan via a US Senate Intelligence committee advisor was implicated in 911 by the domestic act of terrorism, by the FBI. Osama did not claim responsibility - However the FBI cited Pakistan as being behind the attack, both in funding, and training. (Although Britain and the US are also implicated)

[Army Guy]

There seems to be some confusion as to our helo purchase, BC hit the nail on the head, and some of you are finding it hard to believe.

We purchased the Ch-47F because there is simply no other like it, Most of our purchases have to be multi purpose, Our version of the CH-47F is unique, so much so that it requires extra time on the assembly line, our version requires to not only have the regular cargo specs, but also alot of Spec OPs specs, and SAR specs....hence why our price is higher, hence why our wait is longer, hence why the US just can't let us jump in que. But this was explained in the link i provided, and BC refed to.

The US government has actually gone out of it's way to try and sell, lease, give us helos, not only with this deal but many in the past...

and we have continily brushed them off, or refused them....and as much as i love the PC's when it comes down to piont fingers i'm sorry but you have to eat this one....

As for the poles, we do have access to 2 of thier 4 MI-17, provided that they are not using them for other missions, etc etc etc, sounds good on paper, until you try a book a helo....so back to square one...Soon however we will have our own CH-47D d's the ground, that will be here to service us first , coalition next....

[Smallc]

There seems to be some confusion as to our helo purchase, BC hit the nail on the head, and some of you are finding it hard to believe.

I apologize to BC for my misunderstanding.

[White Doors]

Yes we must protect the artic and afghanistan - because those are both places we are making more souvreign for American Oil Companies. Safe and Independant - does totally owned by foreign influences and hugely in debt gaurentee safty and independance - if so - what is the point?

Thank you Mr Harper for all you have done.

There is no oil in Afghanistan, Einstein

[bush_cheney2004]

.....As for the poles, we do have access to 2 of thier 4 MI-17, provided that they are not using them for other missions, etc etc etc, sounds good on paper, until you try a book a helo....so back to square one...Soon however we will have our own CH-47D d's the ground, that will be here to service us first , coalition next....

Thanks for the backup AG....despite my ornery nature, I would rather that Canadian Forces get what they need ASAP without having to depend on other, less certain arrangements. It is frustrating to watch this story unfold....going all the way back to those damn Iltis jeeps. I don't need to tell you how much it sucks to rely on other force elements that you don't control, even in a NATO context.

Transport helicopters are an integral part of military operations on land and at sea...Canada has been ill served by lacking resources for both.

When I saw that Bell 212 going down the highway on a flatbed trailer last Friday, it immediately reminded me of the UH-1 Huey variant....which can be traced to Bell/Textron manufacturing in Quebec.

----------

Smallc - no need to apologize...you were right about the 47D's vs. 47F's.

[Army Guy]

Hey don't sweat it SmallC, no big deal. my orginal comments was not directed at you.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

BC, our entire purchasing policy, is extremily painful....which is made that more shameful, when these purchases could have saved lives....

The US government has offered our government many different outs, but we've pushed them aside....that just adds salt to those wounds....

[eyeball]

Let's recap. Someone said "they started this war" and you responded with "That's just your opinion." The inference here is that you believe American actions were the equivalent of war, and therefore justified the attacks on America. You haven't got the balls to actually come right out and say that, but the inference is clear.

You're reading what you want to into that. You're the one who is doing all the infering here. You're saying my understanding of why America was retaliated against is equal to supporting the enemy. Nothing justifies that because its just not true. Nobody deserved to die the way people did during the attacks on 9/11.

It's not our job or duty to be worrying about other people's freedoms. It's to our credit that we do, when we can.

Its to our shame that we don't all the time, and I beg to differ, but it is our duty.

As for "controlling" their oil, I don't think there's much doubt we could do that at any time if we were willing to simply shove them out of the way. Taking Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would be a cakewalk compared to Iraq, given the location of the oil fields and the small populations.

The cause of extremism is religious, not secular. I don't think the US is the cause for the rise in religious extremism in the Muslim world. The Saudis are.

Really, even though the US has armed and funded them to the teeth. That doesn't strike you as being a little wierd?

I don't give dictators any respect at all.

Really? You sure seem to have lots of respect for people who do. What's the difference?

That's why I saw no problem at all with the US and its allies pushing out Sadaam. I gather you disagreed. Most on the Left did, whining about "international law" and Saddam's right to be treated with respect as the rightful ruler of Iraq.

Do you see any problem with it now? I was whining about the US and the west's support for this scumbag back before the 1st Gulf War. I nearly puked when the US didn't finish cleaning up their mess and they left the Iraqi people high and dry. That's why I disagreed with Canada for having anything to do with following the US around this time around, including in Afghanistan.

As for me cheering Chretien and the APEC behaviour, if you cared to check, rather than sounding like a fool, you'd see that I have been extremely critical of Chretien over both incidents. I thought the RCMP at the APEC summit ought to have been arrested and fired for misuse of authority.

I fail to see why given that it's not our job or duty to be worrying about other people's freedoms.

But in any event, given that 3/4th of the world's nations are ruled by dictators, just how do you think we ought to be treating them all?

I think our policy should be one of absolute zero tolerance for dictators. All of them, all the time, in any way, shape and form, not just when its convenient...death before dishonour and all that...

Its how we treat ourselves that's the real issue here. The very first thing we should do is walk the talk right from the beginning. If we can't do that unequivocally then we should shut up and sit down. We cannot stand for fairness and justice and take ourselves seriously when we also support the likes of people who support the likes of Saddam Hussein or the House of Saud or Mushareff, or the Shah of Iran etc etc etc and on and on and on it goes. We simply cannot support any country that sends military aid to dictators. That is just not on and it makes me deeply and profoundly ashamed that we do. The first thing we should do is get on the world stage and denounce the US for doing so. Nothing would have a deeper impact on the fortunes of dictators than if the best friend of the US stood up and said 'stand down'.

Of course what I think we should do and what we are doing is two different things and since we send aid to dictators ourselves, it won't surprise me in the least slightest bit if and when Canada is attacked one day too.

Define "extreme" and what give us a few examples of policies the West has carried out in that area over the last quarter century which justify that term.

Citing only the last quarter century leaves out to much. The West's overthrow of democracy in its infancy in Iran probably consitutes the most extreme example of stupidity the West has perpetrated in that area. It caused the rise of Islamic extremism. As for the last 25 years I'd say leaving Iraqi's high and dry during the 1st Gulf War was the West's most extreme example of venality. Giving Saudi Arabia a free pass in the wake of 9/11 and bombing the shit out of Afghanistan was the most extreme example of cowardice and what else... oh yeah, the invasion of Iraq. I almost forgot that.

No, I think that theocracies are what most Muslims want throughout the world. The "interference" of the West might, in some cases, be responsible for preventing theocracies from coming into power but I fail to see how that appreciably worsens the life or freedoms of the residents of those countries.

I think you must be as blind as a bat and as deaf as a post.

You want a real definition of extreme? The difference in the way we see the world around us. It's almost unbelievable that we share similar views on Sgt. Pepper but I'll take it as a sign that at least we're in the same universe. How do we build on that?

[Kitch]

You're confusing me in trying to understand how your arguments could work in the real world. First off, Hitler DID attack countries before they attacked his! Second, he succeeded so well because those countries WERE woefully unprepared for war!

Now today the situation is even more extreme. Any large scale war would be over in weeks and months, if not even days! There would be no time for Canada to draft and train troops. No time to take a year setting up a British Commonwealth Air Training Program. Wars today are "come as you are" affairs and if you're not prepared, then that's just too bad!

Canada is poorly prepared. That's a fact. We've relied on Uncle Sam to protect us for free and then got crabby if we lost some respect on the world stage for being military freeloaders.. I smile every time someone brings up the example of Jean Chretien keeping our F-18's out of the direct combat of the first Iraqi war, as if he did it out of some moral sense. In actual fact, our planes were so obsolete with their electronics, particularly "Friend or Foe" automatic radar identification and scrambled communications that the other countries refused to ALLOW Canada to fly into combat as it would only confuse things and add to the risk of accidents!

Perhaps I missed something and you could elucidate.

It's kind of tough to get back into this after a few days... I really can't remember what my train of thought was, but let me give it a try.

I originally quoted Einstein who said that "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." Which is a statement that I agree with.

Somebody then pointed to Hitler for an example of why we need to prepare for war, and said that had the 'west' prepared better then the war may have been prevented (sorry if I misquoted).

Well, there's a difference between preparing to defend yourself and developing weapons used only to destroy large areas, or only to kill populations of people. And preparing to defend yourself does not include preemptive attacks. I encourage you to try to refute this, but keep in mind that if this was OK, then it SHOULD be OK to kill an individual who you believe is conspiring to harm or kill you. But the laws that apply to individuals don't always apply to 'nations', do they? Is that right? Whether or not you think it's... useful, do you think it's right?

[Kitchener]

My brother piloted the "old" Chinook-C for years, including the Voyageur version in SAR. He swore by 'em, but they were pretty expensive to maintain.

In fact, he once brought his Chinook (not a Voyageur, this one) over, landed it in the field next to my school, and let the kids climb aboard for a tour. Probably a lot harder to do it without 37 levels of permission these days; that was over 20 years ago now. Pretty huge coolness factor for a kid in high school, though...