Got Chinooks?

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

If you believe that's what I meant, that's your perogative.

It's hard to see what else it might have been; but when you serve up phrasal one-liner red herrings, frequently free of the tyrannical constraints of spelling and grammar, a modicum of guesswork is inevitable.

He was elected many times. So was Castro. Is there a point?

The point, rather obviously, is that "It was not democratic" does not follow from "Dancer pontificates that it was thuggish". Hence your assertion was, yet again, uncontaminated by anything like evidence.

Notice that I do not contest that it was a thuggish government -- at least, not if that means that it was heavy-handed in its use of populism to further its aim of nationalization. It was not a one-party state, like Cuba, however. So that seems a daft comparison. Moreover, it is far from unusual for nascent democracies to see national sovereignty and control of natural resources as an immediate priority; to be highly jingoistic; and to be less than paradigmatically democratic. I suggest you read up on the first several decades of American democracy to see particularly stark examples. Yet a democracy it was.

Turkey has always been considered part of Europe

This would be because it is part of Europe. And also part of Asia, which is why is has always been considered part of Asia. And widely regarded as Middle Eastern -- though not really "always", in that case, since this a relatively recent popular coinage. This point seems curiously difficult for you to digest.

depsite efforts to include nations in the middle east that are neither the near east nor the middle east or even the far east...

Again, neither you nor I has the faintest clue what that little whinge could mean. Turkey has always been considered part of Europe despite efforts to include (e.g.) the Western Sahara in the Middle East? Shouldn't you make at least some effort to make sense?

Or perhaps you really are insisting that Lebanon with its "confessional" democracy is somehow democratic. For those who don't know what confesional democracy means, It's a system devided by France where Christians vote for christians, muslims for muslims and the offices of the government are "reserved" for Muslims and Christians.

Golly, like a system where Albertans vote for Albertans, and Ontarians for Ontarians? Regionalism is but one way of constitutionally stratifying the distribution of seats, in seeking a representative government. South Africa, for example, employs both regional and ethno-cultural distributions of seats. Well, it's not democratic, naturally! Nope, democracy means whatever inane, Procrustean, completely idiosyncratic thing you're forced to say it means, in order for your ill-considered blather about Israel to turn out true.

But that's stupid.

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

In addition to my contrary opinion I'm just as concerned about the folks, many off them innocent, who will be killed when these Chinooks are used to facilitate attacks against your enemies. More to the point I'm considering the likelihood that survivors will in turn seek vengance, which of course will be justice in their view, against Canada.

The Chinooks can play a direct combat role, I suppose, and would certainly play a supporting infrastructure role. But they're at least as useful for the many humanitarian missions the CF undertakes. If you have a beef against the war, make it against the war. Focusing on the Chinooks, which did great non-combat service for Canada when last we flew them, is somewhere between misguided and absurd.

AngusThermopyle · November 8, 2008

The Chinooks can play a direct combat role, I suppose,

You wouldn't be alone in supposing that. However you also wouldn't be alone in how wrong you are.

These are not attack helicopters, they are not equiped to support forward actions in an offensive combat role, e.g. fire support, low level bombing, air superiority or battlefield supremacy.

These are multi use workhorses designed to do their job well with a reasonable chance of survivability.

For those of you with any doubts here's a picture. Look at it and try to honestly tell me how this is any more a war machine than one designed for something like disaster relief or emergency evac or SAR.

Chinook

Edited November 8, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

eyeball · November 8, 2008

No where in what you posted does it honestly illustrate a genuine concern for the guys who will be using these machines.

I expressed my concern for you guys by speaking out against ever sending you into harms way in the first place. They insisted on going anyway however so there's not much I can do about that now is there?

eyeball · November 8, 2008

You wouldn't be alone in supposing that. However you also wouldn't be alone in how wrong you are.
These are not attack helicopters, they are not equiped to support forward actions in an offensive combat role, e.g. fire support, low level bombing, air superiority or battlefield supremacy.

These are multi use workhorses designed to do their job well with a reasonable chance of survivability.

For those of you with any doubts here's a picture. Look at it and try to honestly tell me how this is any more a war machine than one designed for something like disaster relief or emergency evac or SAR.

Chinook

These Chinooks will in fact be used to facilitate our attacks against Afghanistan and probably Pakistan too. They will be used to ferry troops and equipment as soon as they are "fully worked into battle planning" as the CTV article in the OP reported. They are in every sense of the word war-machines intended to be used aggressively and innocent people will be killed. That is just as inevitable in this war as in any other.

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

The Chinooks can play a direct combat role, I suppose,

You wouldn't be alone in supposing that. However you also wouldn't be alone in how wrong you are.

What I wrote was entirely correct. The Chinook can be used in a direct combat role; it can mount an M134 minigun. Ours will almost certainly be used for combat support and humanitarian work -- as I went on to explain in the remainder of the sentence that you didn't quote, and, I assume, didn't read. The same can be said for our C-130s: they can play a direct combat role; a model with mounted minigun was used to awesome effect in Vietnam, for example. But we don't use them that way, only to supply military and humanitarian operations in various ways.

AngusThermopyle · November 8, 2008

They are in every sense of the word war-machines intended to be used aggressively and innocent people will be killed.

They are in the broadest sense of the word war machines. These helo's will not be making attack runs, they wont be dropping bombs, they won't be used for area denial. They'll be used to ferry men and equipment, deliver supplies and evac the wounded, they are a support role machine. Using your criteria we could also claim the boots the guys wear are also part of a war machine. The case could be made but it would be as flimsy as a wet tissue paper in a strong wind.

AngusThermopyle · November 8, 2008

The same can be said for our C-130s: they can play a direct combat role; a model with mounted minigun was used to awesome effect in Vietnam, for example. But we don't use them that way, only to supply military and humanitarian operations in various ways.

The key word in all this is "can", not will be or could be. The simple fact is that you can mount an MMG on a pickup truck and use it agressively, we don't but you "can" if you want. As for C 130 gunships. Have you ever seen one? the only thing these planes have in common with a C 130 is their shape and the amount of engines they have. The gunship is a highly specialized aircraft extensively modified to act as a weapon support platform, given that the vast majority of missions it flies are night missions it sports a host of sensors that other planes of its class do not have.

In short, you can use just about anything as a weapons platform. Hell, we mounted C 9's on bungee cords in our Sea Kings over in Somalia but not for one moment did anyone consider these to be combat aircraft. Just because it can be done does not mean Canada will do it, in this case we will not. These aircraft will be strictly support, no direct combat role at all. If we mount weapons on them they'll be strictly for defensive purposes, our boys will not be swooping around blazing away as they hunt down the Taliban in these machines.

Do you really think we'd risk losing these shiny new helo's to some cheap assed RPG fire right after we've gotten them?

Not to mention the fact that Chinooks would be a horrible combat aircraft, slow and cumbersome, they'd be the easiest target on the battlefield.

Edited November 8, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

Argus · November 8, 2008

In addition to my contrary opinion I'm just as concerned about the folks, many off them innocent, who will be killed when these Chinooks are used to facilitate attacks against your enemies. More to the point I'm considering the likelihood that survivors will in turn seek vengance, which of course will be justice in their view, against Canada.

The implication being that the Taliban aren't YOUR enemies, because.... you like them? No. Because you don't care what they do? Because you believe we shouldn't judge other cultures? Help me out here.

Argus · November 8, 2008

True or False?

And after the "peoples revolution" they got the Ayatollah who brutally repressed political dissent. So why, if they support governments over them which are brutal dictators, would they resent the Americans because the Shah was a brutal dictator?

Edited November 8, 2008 by Argus

Argus · November 8, 2008

I expressed my concern for you guys by speaking out against ever sending you into harms way in the first place. They insisted on going anyway however so there's not much I can do about that now is there?

I take most opposition of this sort as primarily a concern for the well-being of the enemy, who you assume the evil, slavering hordes of the Canadian military will wantonly murder and rape.

Argus · November 8, 2008

What I wrote was entirely correct. The Chinook can be used in a direct combat role; it can mount an M134 minigun. Ours will almost certainly be used for combat support and humanitarian work -- as I went on to explain in the remainder of the sentence that you didn't quote, and, I assume, didn't read. The same can be said for our C-130s: they can play a direct combat role; a model with mounted minigun was used to awesome effect in Vietnam, for example. But we don't use them that way, only to supply military and humanitarian operations in various ways.

You can mount a machinegun on a Volkswagen beetle, but that doesn't make it a war machine. The Canadian military doesn't arm its helicopters or its transport aircraft.

Argus · November 8, 2008

These Chinooks will in fact be used to facilitate our attacks against Afghanistan and probably Pakistan too. They will be used to ferry troops and equipment as soon as they are "fully worked into battle planning" as the CTV article in the OP reported. They are in every sense of the word war-machines intended to be used aggressively and innocent people will be killed. That is just as inevitable in this war as in any other.

Most of the "innocent people" who die in Afghanistan are either killed by the Taliban, or die in air strikes because NATO forces can't get close to the Taliban. A machine which facilitates the transportation of soldiers would thus be more likely to prevent mistaken deaths.

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

The key word in all this is "can", not will be or could be.

:rolleyes:

Gosh, really?

The Chinooks can play a direct combat role, I suppose, and would certainly play a supporting infrastructure role.

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

You can mount a machinegun on a Volkswagen beetle, but that doesn't make it a war direct combat machine.

Correct, when fixed. Of course the CF will use Chinooks as "war machines"; an APC is a war machine, too, even though its primary purpose is the transportation of troops. But we were talking about whether Chinooks will play direct combat roles, not whether they can be considered war machines.

The Canadian military doesn't arm its helicopters or its transport aircraft.

Like I said, yes. They can be armed, but we will use them for combat support, infrastructure, and humanitarian missions.

AngusThermopyle · November 8, 2008

The Chinooks can play a direct combat role, I suppose, and would certainly play a supporting infrastructure role.

You are convieniently overlooking a couple of other words, those are "will not" as in these will not be used in a direct combat role. As has been pointed out already you can mount some form of weapon on just about anything so in effect they can play a combat role, that however does not indicate that they will.

For example. there was a period of time when they placed armed men on some of the tankers going through the straits. Would this by your yardstick mean they were no longer tankers but warships instead?

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

You are convieniently overlooking a couple of other words, those are "will not" as in these will not be used in a direct combat role.

Whose words am I overlooking? I'm just pointing out that my own post was correct.

The Chinook is designed to mount machine guns if desired. Hence it can have a direct combat role. Yet criticizing it as if it was a direct combat aircraft in the Canadian Forces is -- as I said, in English and everything -- "somewhere between misguided and absurd". If you didn't find it easier to fulminate than to read English, you wouldn't have popped off in the first place.

AngusThermopyle · November 8, 2008

If you didn't find it easier to fulminate than to read English, you wouldn't have popped off in the first place.

Actually you should look over the thread again. What I disagree with is eyeballs opinion that these craft will be used to kill people. Never once did I say you couldn't mount weapons on them. In fact I pointed out that you can mount weapons on just about anything. In this context what can be done with them is irrelevant, the relevant point lies in what will be done with them.

So to reiterate once more, these helo's will not be used to kill people.

But thanks for the gratuitous insult, after reading your posts its pretty much the reaction I expect.

Edited November 8, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

Actually you should look over the thread again. What I disagree with is eyeballs opinion that these craft will be used to kill people. Never once did I say you couldn't mount weapons on them.

Hey, great idea! Let's look at what you actually said, and to whom you said it.

The Chinooks can play a direct combat role, I suppose

You wouldn't be alone in supposing that. However you also wouldn't be alone in how wrong you are.

So, that's not responding to eyeball. And it is saying that it's false that the Chinook can play a combat role. Wrong yet again, on both counts. Is it so hard to say -- if true -- "Sorry, I meant to respond to eyeball"? Or "Ah, I see -- you wrote that they can play a direct combat role, not that they will. My mistake; now I see that you explicitly rejected the idea that they'd be directly used to kill people." The advantages of embarrassing self-contradictory BSing over admitting obvious mistakes are still unclear to me.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Kitchener

AngusThermopyle · November 8, 2008

The Chinooks can play a direct combat role, I suppose
You wouldn't be alone in supposing that. However you also wouldn't be alone in how wrong you are.

Actually I will admit to a mistake here. My mistake was the belief that you were talking about our Chinooks. I wonder how I could possibly have thought that? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the thread is about Canadian Chinooks, not other countries Chinooks.

Now if you wish to discuss what other countries do with various weapons platforms then feel free to do so, I'm more than happy to participate as this is an area of great interest to me.

So let me make this perfectly clear to you our Chinooks will not be front line combat, they will be support and as such will not kill anyone, unless they crash. I highly highly doubt you will see mini guns on them either, we won't go to the expense of supporting a weapon system in very limited numbers that will probably never be used. At best you'll see them with a couple of LMG's or MMG's, purely for defense, not offense.

Now, is my point a little more clear or would you now like to tell us about what other countries do with what they buy, the relevance to our situation of course being zero.

Kitchener · November 8, 2008

Actually I will admit to a mistake here. My mistake was the belief that you were talking about our Chinooks.

Our Chinooks, like any D/Fs, can be used for a direct combat role. That's a fact that might motivate an apparent pacifist like eyeball. But it's very unlikely that they will be, which makes it strange, even absurd, to make the Chinooks -- yes, our Chinooks -- the focus of one's opposition to Canada's operations in Afghanistan.

This is what I've said, in clear English, from the outset. It remains mysterious -- to you as well, apparently, since you seem to agree with all of that -- why you felt compelled to pontificate about my not knowing just how wrong I was.

eyeball · November 8, 2008

Our Chinooks, like any D/Fs, can be used for a direct combat role. That's a fact that might motivate an apparent pacifist like eyeball. But it's very unlikely that they will be, which makes it strange, even absurd, to make the Chinooks -- yes, our Chinooks -- the focus of one's opposition to Canada's operations in Afghanistan.
This is what I've said, in clear English, from the outset. It remains mysterious -- to you as well, apparently, since you seem to agree with all of that -- why you felt compelled to pontificate about my not knowing just how wrong I was.

The focus of my opposition is the operation because the war is portrayed as being necessary to the defense of Canada but since Afghanistan never attacked we shouldn't be there. This thread as well as being about Chinook helicopters is also about promoting our involvement.

Yes the Chinooks sound just dandy for lots of things we might need here at home since they're not here then obviously we don't need them.

eyeball · November 8, 2008

The implication being that the Taliban aren't YOUR enemies, because.... you like them? No. Because you don't care what they do? Because you believe we shouldn't judge other cultures? Help me out here.

I guess in your case, its because you're the one over there picking a fight with them, not me.

If the Taliban launched a counter-attack against Canada and even if my family were injured or killed I'd hold Ottawa and Washington just as responsible. Does that help?

bush_cheney2004 · November 8, 2008

The focus of my opposition is the operation because the war is portrayed as being necessary to the defense of Canada but since Afghanistan never attacked we shouldn't be there. This thread as well as being about Chinook helicopters is also about promoting our involvement.

Please read the fine print of the NATO Charter, of which Canada is a founding member. Canada wasn't attacked by Germany either, or Korea, or Serbia, or Iraq, or Haiti.

Yes the Chinooks sound just dandy for lots of things we might need here at home since they're not here then obviously we don't need them.

Then why have any aircraft at all.....bring back the mules! :lol:

Edited November 8, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

eyeball · November 8, 2008

They are in the broadest sense of the word war machines. These helo's will not be making attack runs, they wont be dropping bombs, they won't be used for area denial. They'll be used to ferry men and equipment, deliver supplies and evac the wounded, they are a support role machine. Using your criteria we could also claim the boots the guys wear are also part of a war machine. The case could be made but it would be as flimsy as a wet tissue paper in a strong wind.

Considering the flimsy case for our involvment in joining the attack against Afghanistan I'd say any case against staying goes.