jdi Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Today on www.themarknews.com, The Mark is hosting liberal leader Michael Ignatieff in a live chat at 4:30pm EST. You can submit questions to the opposition leader as he travels cross Canada via The Mark's Facebook page, The Mark's website, or Twitter @themarknews. Submit your questions and comments ASAP! Out of the forum and into the world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Today on www.themarknews.com, The Mark is hosting liberal leader Michael Ignatieff in a live chat at 4:30pm EST. You can submit questions to the opposition leader as he travels cross Canada via The Mark's Facebook page, The Mark's website, or Twitter @themarknews. Submit your questions and comments ASAP! Out of the forum and into the world! ^^^ Masterbates over a picture of Iggy. ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Does anybody ever pay attention to history, how many times do we need to get caught with our pants down and then are scrambling to put the military back together again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Does anybody ever pay attention to history, how many times do we need to get caught with our pants down and then are scrambling to put the military back together again. Uhhh...when have we EVER been "caught with our pants down?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Uhhh...when have we EVER been "caught with our pants down?" See the first couple of battle in both world wars, see Afghanistan, see more than a couple of the peace-keeping missions we went on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 ....Like I said before and many will agree with me, these planes will be used IN Canada for defense. We rarely if ever send any fighter jets to foreign theaters. We simply lack the military infrastructure to project air power in another country.... hell we lack it in our own country. Huh? Just what do you think Canada used for CAP and strike missions during NATO's Kosovo war (1999) or during the Gulf War I bombing of Iraqis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 See the first couple of battle in both world wars, see Afghanistan, see more than a couple of the peace-keeping missions we went on. World War 1 infamously with the Ross Rifle aside, after that, which battles? What in Afghanistan? Which peacekeeping missions? You seem to be making quite a few blanket statement with absolutely no proof to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 World War 1 infamously with the Ross Rifle aside, after that, which battles? What in Afghanistan?.... Jungle green camo? Hitchhiking a ride from the Americans? Iltis jeeps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 In these times one should think about ...the time it takes to pay for ONE jet VS the time its takes to destroy ONE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 In these times one should think about ...the time it takes to pay for ONE jet VS the time its takes to destroy ONE. Alright tell us how many F-18's have been destroyed thus far compared to how long it took to pay for them... There's your answer there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) Jungle green camo? Hitchhiking a ride from the Americans? Iltis jeeps? At the time the green camo went to Afghanstan 1) They were there for a non-combat role so being less visible to the community isn't exactly a good thing 2) The desert camo was just being developed. Can't wear something you don't have. AS for hitchhiking, I'd like a source on that. As for Iltis Jeeps, like I said, the Liberals repalced those fairly quickly. Edited August 10, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) At the time the green camo went to Afghanstan 1) They were there for a non-combat role so being less visible to the community isn't exactly a good thing 2) The desert camo was just being developed. Can't wear something you don't have. Really? You mean that the JTF2 and Task Force K-Bar was a "community" mission? Waiting until desert camo was needed is exactly what we are talking about. AS for hitchhiking, I'd like a source on that. "Our Canadian Forces have been in the unfortunate position of not having any other option than hitchhiking rides with allies to move personnel in countries like Afghanistan." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/helicopters-military.html#ixzz0wELJ9BU5 As for Iltis Jeeps, like I said, the Liberals repalced those fairly quickly. They had too...political pressure for the IED carnage was immense. Got any more excuses? Edited August 10, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Really? You mean that the JTF2 and Task Force K-Bar was a "community" mission? Waiting until desert camo was needed is exactly what we are talking about. No, but the point still stands that the new desert fatigues were still being developed and wouldn't have been ready no matter who was in government or what mission they went on. It's not that the government was stingy, they just didn't have it. "Our Canadian Forces have been in the unfortunate position of not having any other option than hitchhiking rides with allies to move personnel in countries like Afghanistan." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/helicopters-military.html#ixzz0wELJ9BU5 Helicopters? So there are no Canadian soldiers on the side of a road with their thumb out waiting for American trucks and hummers? Just as I thought. Again you've proven you love rhetoric to make things sound far worse than they actually are. They had too...political pressure for the IED carnage was immense.Got any more excuses? What excuses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 No, but the point still stands that the new desert fatigues were still being developed and wouldn't have been ready no matter who was in government or what mission they went on. It's not that the government was stingy, they just didn't have it. Then buy them from those who do...just like Canada buys other war materials. DUH! Helicopters? So there are no Canadian soldiers on the side of a road with their thumb out waiting for American trucks and hummers? Just as I thought. Again you've proven you love rhetoric to make things sound far worse than they actually are. Gotcha...you fell right into the trap: As Canadian officials struggled to secure permission to fly over a number of countries in the Central and South Asian neighbourhood, the U.S. special forces, which was leading the Canadian operation, came to JTF2’s rescue with food and bullets, plus eight American armoured Humvees with which to move around southern and eastern Afghanistan, their corners of the battlefield. http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/jtf2-and-task-force-k-bar/ What excuses? Your excuses...see above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Then buy them from those who do...just like Canada buys other war materials. DUH! When you spend money developing your own, buying others would be kind of stupid, no? Gotcha...you fell right into the trap: As Canadian officials struggled to secure permission to fly over a number of countries in the Central and South Asian neighbourhood, the U.S. special forces, which was leading the Canadian operation, came to JTF2’s rescue with food and bullets, plus eight American armoured Humvees with which to move around southern and eastern Afghanistan, their corners of the battlefield. http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/jtf2-and-task-force-k-bar/ Not being able to gain access to airspace is quite a different thing than not being able to provide basic equipment. Your excuses...see above. Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 No, but the point still stands that the new desert fatigues were still being developed and wouldn't have been ready no matter who was in government or what mission they went on. It's not that the government was stingy, they just didn't have it. First if all, if I remember news reports at the time (I'd have to do some digging to find the reference), Canada actually HAD desert camouflage (although of an older design) but had chosen to get rid of them before the new ones were available. (Even if they weren't "as good" as what they eventually got, they'd still be better than the green ones.) Secondly, as someone else said, they had the option of buying them. I don't think what the Canadian forces got was significantly better than what other countries (e.g. the Americans) were already using. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 When you spend money developing your own, buying others would be kind of stupid, no? No...stupid would be going to war without those materials just because yours were in "development". Not being able to gain access to airspace is quite a different thing than not being able to provide basic equipment. What part of "food, bullets, and eight Humvees" did you not understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 No...stupid would be going to war without those materials just because yours were in "development". Which is why the entire US Army went to war with substandard body armour, but whatever. What part of "food, bullets, and eight Humvees" did you not understand? Semantics again. No interest in real facts. Will do anything to win an argument no matter the circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) Which is why the entire US Army went to war with substandard body armour, but whatever. Correct....they couldn't buy anything better from Canada. Semantics again. No interest in real facts. Will do anything to win an argument no matter the circumstances. Not semantics....and in the words of Canadian forces....you just refuse to concede the point. 'Canadian Military Acquiring New Helicopters, Drones', CBC News, 7 August 2008 EXCERPT: "After years of 'hitchhiking' rides with allies and relying heavily on dangerous land convoys, Canadian soldiers will soon have new helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles at their disposal. On Thursday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed plans to purchase and lease new equipment. Edited August 10, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Not semantics....and in the words of Canadian forces....you just refuse to concede the point. 'Canadian Military Acquiring New Helicopters, Drones', CBC News, 7 August 2008 EXCERPT: "After years of 'hitchhiking' rides with allies and relying heavily on dangerous land convoys, Canadian soldiers will soon have new helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles at their disposal. On Thursday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed plans to purchase and lease new equipment. Of course it is. We had helicopters in Afghanistan before the chinooks, of which coalition troops rode on. Yet, we don't see articles saying American troops hitched with Canadian helicopters, do we? No, we just decided to buy more. So please, give it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) We had helicopters in Afghanistan before the chinooks, I don't think that's true. We could have had either Sea Kings or Griffons there though, we just didn't. Edited August 10, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 I don't think that's true. We could have had either Sea Kings or Griffons there though, we just didn't. The Griffons were there. I was in cadets up until 2004. In 2003 at a cadet day in Borden they were doing traning as they were deploying in 2 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 Of course it is. We had helicopters in Afghanistan before the chinooks, of which coalition troops rode on. Yet, we don't see articles saying American troops hitched with Canadian helicopters, do we? No, we just decided to buy more. So please, give it up. Because they didn't have to...the Polish and Dutch had more assets to share in theatre than did Canada: http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/02/05/will-griffons-be-deployed-to-kandahar-now-polish-choppers-are-available.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 10, 2010 Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 The Griffons were there. I was in cadets up until 2004. In 2003 at a cadet day in Borden they were doing traning as they were deploying in 2 months. hmmm...if it happened, I don't remember it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted August 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2010 hmmm...if it happened, I don't remember it. Now that I read up about it, it seems I'm wrong. Though I have a really good memory and they definitely told us that these guys were being trained to go over because everyone who went got a ride in one. Oh well, obviously a person in uniform a little overzealous as to what they're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.