How Canadians view our military

ToadBrother · September 28, 2009

The Russians didn't get to use their German scientists to the same extent that the Americans did...Von Braun and his team were definately the big prize. The Russians had their own genius in the rocket building field, anyways...Korolev...his design routinely goes to space even to this day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_Semyorka

That's because most of the German scientists surrendered to the Americans and the Brits, if they could. It was a lot harder if they were in the Soviet Sector.

While a member of the Nazi party...he had to be to continue work on rockets...Von Braun was a poor Nazi...often at extreme odds with Himmler who hated him. Von Braun was even arrested by Himmler and nearly executed.

To be perfectly fair, I don't think von Braun was ideologically a Nazi. He was pretty much required to be a card-carrying member, but his dreams were always in space. But it is true that his record during the war was heavily whitewashed by the US government, mainly because his missiles had caused such destruction and misery and he had to be made to look a lot less like he had been a willing participant.

bush_cheney2004 · September 28, 2009

The US used magnetic fuses for the first part of the war which indeed were very unreliable....

This is true, but needs some context particularly for the Mk 14 which also has a contact fuse. The exploder is a torpedo subsystem that has the very important role of not permiting the exploder's primer squibs from lining up with the booster/main charge detonation chain until deployed and armed after certain run parameters are satisfied, and the difficult reliability goal of always detonating the main charge when arming and fuzing are complete.

So the US had this top secret proximity (magnetic) fuze design that was guarded very dearly, at the expense of adequate testing. The new technology also distracted attention from good 'ol contact fuzing, which is normally an additional option on many kinds of ordnance, including nuclear warheads. So an aggressive Gato Class skipper would maneuver to get a firing point solution at close range (with a spread of torpedoes), only to have the weapon fail because of depth settings and the geometry of the firing pin at impact even for the contact fuse. Doctrine at the time ideally called for a 90 degree AOB (angle on the bow), which was the worst scenario for the poorly designed firing pin.

Incidently, the weapons testing facility at Keyport Washington, which partners with Canada on the Nanoose Range, has a huge mission statement plaque on the walls that describes this sorry experience, and vows never to let it happen again.

..now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Edited September 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Oleg Bach · September 28, 2009

Just thought I would peak in and say hello to my best American friend - talk to you later..going to sub sub sub channel for a while - Must be getting serious in my old age....regards to you and the nation!

bush_cheney2004 · September 28, 2009

Just thought I would peak in and say hello to my best American friend - talk to you later..going to sub sub sub channel for a while - Must be getting serious in my old age....regards to you and the nation!

Hi Oleg! How's the discipline up/down there? :lol:

DogOnPorch · September 28, 2009

This is true, but needs some context particularly for the Mk 14 which also has a contact fuse. The exploder is a torpedo subsystem that has the very important role of not permiting the exploder's primer squibs from lining up with the booster/main charge detonation chain until deployed and armed after certain run parameters are satisfied, and the difficult reliability goal of always detonating the main charge when arming and fuzing are complete.
So the US had this top secret proximity (magnetic) fuze design that was guarded very dearly, at the expense of adequate testing. The new technology also distracted attention from good 'ol contact fuzing, which is normally an additional option on many kinds of ordnance, including nuclear warheads. So an aggressive Gato Class skipper would maneuver to get a firing point solution at close range (with a spread of torpedoes), only to have the weapon fail because of depth settings and the geometry of the firing pin at impact even for the contact fuse. Doctrine at the time ideally called for a 90 degree AOB (angle on the bow), which was the worst scenario for the poorly designed firing pin.

Incidently, the weapons testing facility at Keyport Washington, which partners with Canada on the Nanoose Range, has a huge mission statement plaque on the walls that describes this sorry experience, and vows never to let it happen again.

..now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Leyte Gulf pretty much vindicated the American torpedo with US destroyers literally blowing the Japanese battleships out of the water with a good field of torps. The Japanese BBs Fuso and Yamashiro with their huge pagoda tower bridges went down in dramatic fashion along with numerous other Japanese ships. Pretty cool from an Admiral's point of view...

For those other than BC-2004...lol...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamashiro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Fus%C5%8D

Jerry J. Fortin · September 28, 2009

What does this have to do with the topic?

DogOnPorch · September 28, 2009

What does this have to do with the topic?

21 pages...what do you have to do with the topic?

Jerry J. Fortin · September 28, 2009

21 pages...what do you have to do with the topic?

Poll taken has more Canadians wanting out military to return to "peacekeeping" rather than enter into a "seek and kill" mode we have in Afghanistan. BTW, I just heard on the news, that a US General is saying that Afghanistan is looking more like a losing battle. The blame has to go to Bush and his gang for pulling out so early the first time and going into Iraq.

There is the original thread. Now what the hell does....

"Leyte Gulf pretty much vindicated the American torpedo with US destroyers literally blowing the Japanese battleships out of the water with a good field of torps. The Japanese BBs Fuso and Yamashiro with their huge pagoda tower bridges went down in dramatic fashion along with numerous other Japanese ships. Pretty cool from an Admiral's point of view..."

have to do with the original thread?

waldo · September 28, 2009

The members that voted on Resolution 1441 were very clear/precise in their explanations of their votes adopting Resolution 1441, careful to state that the resolution did not provide an authorization for force. Let’s see those 1441 meeting quotes once again… the co-sponsor quotes that reinforce no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force:
In the meeting to vote on the draft U.S./UK resolution, both U.S. and UK Ambassadors to the UN formalized the raised UNSC member concerns to the use of force and both Ambassadors acted to negate said concerns by reinforcing that the Resolution 1441 did NOT provide the language to authorize force against Iraq; specifically:

As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

Sorry, did you not again post where 1441 required a second resolution?
I will explain to you...1441 is a contract. Opinions as to what the contract should have had in it, or what other hoped to expect from it aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

All that matters is what is written in 1441. The obligation were met. Serious conseauences followed..ergo, the war was not illegal.

whaaa! Dancer, did you try to slip a last one in?... and... you're not even quoting from a recent post :lol:

you are correct that 1441 stands on the language contained within it. We've already dispensed with your dance around the use of the phrase, "face serious consequences"... versus "all necessary means". You may revel in double-speak but those 2 phrases are distinctly applied within UN resolutions - and only one of those phrases, "all necessary means", is used to imply force authorization.

are you stating that the co-sponsors of 1441, U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock, lied in their statements to other UNSC members? Were Negroponte/Greenstock lying in the assurances they offered that resolution 1441 contained no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force? Were Negroponte/Greenstock lying, Dancer? And if they were lying Dancer, why did they come back and attempt to secure that second resolution you keep bleating on about... the second resolution that never made it past draft form (the draft resolution that has been linked to previously in this thread)... the draft resolution that only had 4 of 15 UNSC members support? If 1441 has the language for force authorization... or if Negroponte/Greenstock were lying... why did they attempt to secure a voting approval for that draft ("second") resolution, Dancer? Why Dancer, why?

but really... c'mon... your dance seems out of step with the position of American officials and their neo-con enablers of the day - their defense was the Iraq war was an act of self-defense, and thereby allowed under the UN Charter... you know, self-defense predicated upon Saddam Hussein's imminent threat - the WMD fabrication! They knew 1441 had no legs Dancer... so, why your desire to go down in flames over it? :lol:

so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

(by the way... are you still working on your no-fly zone research? Any closer to offering up exactly where the UN authorized the establishment of those no-fly zones? Remember... UN Resolution 688... I'm sure it'll be a winner, for ya! :lol: )

M.Dancer · September 28, 2009

so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

Yet there it remains. 1441. Serious comsequences and your inability to show that it was necessary to add further resoluition.

Good luck.

M.Dancer · September 28, 2009

I keep looking for the 'Illegal occupation " statement....

Maybe you can find it...

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/res1483.pdf

bush_cheney2004 · September 28, 2009

I keep looking for the 'Illegal occupation " statement....
Maybe you can find it...

Upon further review, the ruling on the field stands.

Iraq has ben legally invaded / occupied and Saddam is legally dead.

....the US and UK will not be charged a time out.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 28, 2009

Upon further review, the ruling on the field stands.
Iraq has ben legally invaded / occupied and Saddam is legally dead.

....the US and UK will not be charged a time out.

Whether or not is is legal or not, it is a done deal. The cost to the taxpayer was bad news, but it made lots of money for the defense industry and the rumour is that the civil engineering guys are doing pretty good rebuilding stuff. Meanwhile the oil is flowing and being used to pay for everything being done. Nice work!

eyeball · September 29, 2009

Now we just wait for the other shoe to drop so we can tally up the actual cost. Will it be worth it if its anything like 9/11?

bush_cheney2004 · September 29, 2009

Now we just wait for the other shoe to drop so we can tally up the actual cost. Will it be worth it if its anything like 9/11?

Doesn't matter....you claim the "other shoe" would have dropped anyway because of what happened in 1953...or was it 1853?

Edited September 29, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

Jerry J. Fortin · September 29, 2009

The cost is endless. That is the price America has decided it will pay for freedom for all. The entire world owes the American people for the sacrifices they have made around the world. It matters not whether they make a dollar or two in the effort, a small price for freedom in my books.

waldo · September 29, 2009

Yet there it remains. 1441. Serious comsequences and your inability to show that it was necessary to add further resoluition.

Dancer - non-stop dancing! Buddy, I'm typing reeeealllll slow, just for you... we can finish this quite easily; really, we can:

just state: - that the co-sponsors of 1441, U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock, lied in their statements to other UNSC members about 1441 containing no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force.

just state: - why 1441 verbiage was changed from the original "all necessary means" phrasing to the subsequent "face serious consequences" phrasing.

just state: - why, after notice from 1441 was given, U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock unsuccessfully peddled that second resolution before the UNSC, the 'draft resolution', seeking force authorization. Why bother with the second resolution you say wasn't needed? Why?

just state: - what the second resolution, the 'draft resolution' was for.

c'mon Dancer - you can do it... just state the above - you'll feel better for it... I know you will! :lol:

so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

M.Dancer · September 29, 2009

just state: - that the co-sponsors of 1441, U.S./UK Ambassador's Negroponte/Greenstock, lied in their statements to other UNSC members about 1441 containing no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force.
yadda yadda yadda......lol:

so, again... your principal assertion is false - there was no UNSC Resolution to authorize force against Iraq... to substantiate the illegal U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. Not Resolution 1441 - not any UNSC Resolution.

I see no point in refuting irrelevancies. This is contract law, not whose out of work pundit opinion makes me feel nice.

Come up with the contract that says otherwise....while your throwing sophomoronic coed slogans around, find the resolution calling it illegal. I say you can't, for the same reason you can't abrogate the contract called 1441

Jerry J. Fortin · September 29, 2009

A contract? I hardly think so, we don't have nearly enough international law on the books to do that. It was merely a political paper to cover the asses of those that signed onto it.

M.Dancer · September 29, 2009

A contract? I hardly think so, we don't have nearly enough international law on the books to do that. It was merely a political paper to cover the asses of those that signed onto it.

Read it.It is a contract. Treaties are contracts, so are UN resolutions and legally they have to be seen in that context.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 29, 2009

Read it.It is a contract. Treaties are contracts, so are UN resolutions and legally they have to be seen in that context.

I know what you mean but having a contract without any means of enforcement seems to be a bit of a joke don't you think?

M.Dancer · September 29, 2009

I know what you mean but having a contract without any means of enforcement seems to be a bit of a joke don't you think?

I think the means of enforcement were used decidely.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 29, 2009

Sure it was, the most powerful nation in the world bombed rocks into dust in the poorest nation in the world in Afgan, then took the show on the road due to the WMD's in Iraq. Where did they find those things anyways?

Army Guy · September 29, 2009

There has always been a lobby against Tanks. They serve a purpose not a solution. Their function on the battlefield and in support missions and security cannot be denied. Yes they are expensive, but compared to WHAT?

I think they are the solution, until something better comes along....Tanks form the very piont of the spear, be it in defensive or offensive operations. if there was any wpns system we should be putting money into it's tanks....expensive compared to what...lives i guess this equipment plays a key role into saving lives....and giving soldiers the edge to defeat any of our countries enemies here or overseas....

bush_cheney2004 · September 29, 2009

I think they are the solution, until something better comes along....

That something may be the Oshkosh M-ATV:

http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/defense/products~matv~home.cfm

This vehicle addresses the most common IED hazards to personnel (blast penetration, shrapnel, and acceleration) with an armored "V frame" hull. Suspension is fine tuned for Afghanistan terrain, unlike a MBT.