Guest TrueMetis Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Sure they do, but they're also always used in a politicized manner by political hacks such as politicians, journalists, and internet forum ideologues. Also, did I even imply that these terms can't be used in a military context? Why are you stating the obvious? You're implying it in this very post, or do you not know that General's and other high up military officials are just as much politicians as they are military? Edited January 28, 2011 by TrueMetis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Indeed...it is the cognitive dissonance that General Hillier attempted to fix. Peacekeeping has really been "peacekilling", but the lefties at home don't want to hear about that. It drives me nuts, and I hear it all the time. Many Canadians who are completely ignorant of military history go on and on about Canada's glorious history as a "peacekeeping nation"... without knowing or appreciating what had to go into that reputation. Peacekeeping means doing what's necessary to keep the peace, which more often than not involved killing those who disrupt the peace in a war-zone. Sadly, leftist Canadians somehow cannot grasp this simple truth. They think the Canadian military's reputation is grounded in holding foreign babies for photo-ops and handing out candies. It's ridiculous. This is all rooted in some perverse aversion to killing the enemy. There's this prevalent mentality among leftists that killing is wrong, all the time, no matter what. Anyways, I'm sure you catch my drift. We're on the same page, here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 You're implying it in this very post. No, I certainly didn't imply it. Not even close. Unlike you, I don't imply things. I don't make snide insinuations. I state my positions clearly. What I said was simple - that the terms I listed are more often than not politicized by the ignorant. Cut and dry. That's it, that's all. No need to try and read more into it. If you want to dispute it, go ahead. Feel free to even agree with me. What you shouldn't do, however, is put words into my mouth, which seems to be a habit of yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 No, I certainly didn't imply it. Not even close. Unlike you, I don't imply things. I don't make snide insinuations. I state my positions clearly. What I said was simple - that the terms I listed are more often than not politicized by the ignorant. Cut and dry. That's it, that's all. No need to try and read more into it. If you want to dispute it, go ahead. Feel free to even agree with me. What you shouldn't do, however, is put words into my mouth, which seems to be a habit of yours. Yes the ignorant... like military Generals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 What I said was simple - that the terms I listed are more often than not politicized by the ignorant. No, in fact you used the word always. That's quite clear, something that you apparently always are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) If they are, as you say, always used in such a manner; how can they ever, under your terms, have an actual military meaning? Stop being so particular. Replace "always" with "more often than not". Did I really need to clarify that? Are you that robotic? EDIT - With respect to the use of these terms in the media and other outlets of political discourse, they are almost always used in a politicized and misleading context. For example, leftist politicians who constantly call for a shift in Canada's role in the Afghanistan campaign towards "peacekeeping" and away from "offensive" operations. Edited January 28, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 ...This is all rooted in some perverse aversion to killing the enemy. There's this prevalent mentality among leftists that killing is wrong, all the time, no matter what. Anyways, I'm sure you catch my drift. We're on the same page, here. Yes...it is very odd. I like to point out that a Canadian now holds the world record sniper shot (for distance) from early operations in Afghanistan. The Americans were told not to award medals to JTF2 members because it would be an overt admission that they had killed people....lots of 'em. This would be politically embarrassing back home. Very strange..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 EDIT - With respect to the use of these terms in the media and other outlets of political discourse, they are almost always used in a politicized and misleading context. For example, leftist politicians who constantly call for a shift in Canada's role in the Afghanistan campaign towards "peacekeeping" and away from "offensive" operations. Well, the people saying that when it comes to Afghanistan are idiots. Most of the people against the Afghan war however, want us to return to peacekeeping and leave Afghanistan. You see, the intelligent people who are against the war realize that there is no peace to be kept in Afghanistan, and no previous peace to be found. The point of going after you for the use of the word always was this: the words you were refering to have actual meaning, and despite your perception, they are generally used with their implied meanings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Yes the ignorant... like military Generals. You're trying so hard to attack me, it's so infantile. Rather than address the clear message in my posts, you put words into my mouth and misrepresent my statements. I specifically stated that I was referring to the usage of these terms in a politicized manner by politicians, journalists, and the everyman in order to advance political agendas. Are you disputing this? Are you trying to tell me that these terms aren't used, more often than not, in a politicized manner? Are you telling us that the left doesn't try to use the term "peacekeeping" to obfuscate the true nature of military operations? If you want to talk to me, address what I've said, and stop trying so desperately to misrepresent my statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Well, the people saying that when it comes to Afghanistan are idiots. Most of the people against the Afghan war however, want us to return to peacekeeping and leave Afghanistan. You see, the intelligent people who are against the war realize that there is no peace to be kept in Afghanistan, and no previous peace to be found. The point of going after you for the use of the word always was this: the words you were refering to have actual meaning, and despite your perception, they are generally used with their implied meanings. So now you want to move the conversation to something else, entirely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Well, the people saying that when it comes to Afghanistan are idiots. Most of the people against the Afghan war however, want us to return to peacekeeping and leave Afghanistan. You see, the intelligent people who are against the war realize that there is no peace to be kept in Afghanistan, and no previous peace to be found. Oh...you mean like the peace in Iraq, the Balkans, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.? Or did you mean 29 years and more deaths in Cyprus? Yes sir...that was some mighty fine "peacekeeping". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) So now you want to move the conversation to something else, entirely? Well since the conversation is actually about jets..... I'm not sure what you're talking about now though. I'm saying that you're wrong, and that the words are generally used with their actual meanings in mind. Yes, just like an offensive war, peacekeeping involves soldiers killing and dying. However, the killing and dying is being done for different reasons, and that's where an ideological argument forms. The argument, or disagreement, if you prefer, isn't in the actual meaning of words, but rather in the intent of a mission. Peacekeeping, as an activity, is something very different than an offensive peacemaking or anti insurgency operation. Some people prefer (I'm not among those people) to be involved in operations such as that unless absolutely necessary. Edited January 28, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 You're trying so hard to attack me, it's so infantile. Rather than address the clear message in my posts, you put words into my mouth and misrepresent my statements. I specifically stated that I was referring to the usage of these terms in a politicized manner by politicians, journalists, and the everyman in order to advance political agendas. Are you disputing this? Are you trying to tell me that these terms aren't used, more often than not, in a politicized manner? Are you telling us that the left doesn't try to use the term "peacekeeping" to obfuscate the true nature of military operations? If you want to talk to me, address what I've said, and stop trying so desperately to misrepresent my statements. You said. Sure they do, but they're also always used in a politicized manner by political hacks such as politicians, journalists, and internet forum ideologues.Also, did I even imply that these terms can't be used in a military context? Why are you stating the obvious? Military Generals are as much politicians as they are military men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Everyone seemed to avoid why buying a majority control Lockheed instead of the f35's would be a bad deal for Canada? You know then use the profit from lockheed to give free jets to Canada! As well as Canada having all lockheeds patents and assets - that canada could port to Canada to make a domestic next gen fighter of their own or future ones. Lockheeds market capitalization is less than $30 billion. 51% share would be less than the jet fighter deal. If you think how much is R&D overhead etc.. Canada would probably get a much much better deal on their own f35's if they owned a majority of lockheed. also having lockheeds 100000 specialist engineers under the DND's r&d arm would likely provide oodles in terms of new techs at much lower costs. A 16 billion investment in buying out lockheed is the rational thing to do for the DND. AND with the US's 1000+ orders of f35 the company would be a relatively secure asset.. afterall as McKay says it is the only plane out there. Stepehen Harper and Peter McKay should do the right thing and buy Lockheed NOT their planes. Net earnings for the first quarter of 2010 were $547 million, fourth-quarter net earnings grew to $983 million or $2.73 per share from $827 million http://rttnews.com/CONTENT/QuickFacts.aspx?Id=1537213 Net sales for 2011 are expected to lie in the range of $45.75 billion - $47.25 billion. Dude.. buy the kit... get the caboodle for free. Geuss what other aircraft they make... Surely US national security isn't threatened by their friendly nieghbour almost slave child buying one of their aircraft manufacturors. (Heck they want to include us in a North American Security Perimiter.. surely their assets must be safe in that. We gave them the arrow. Maybe its time for a return of the favour. Edited January 28, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Everyone seemed to avoid why buying a majority control Lockheed instead of the f35's would be a bad deal for Canada? You know then use the profit from lockheed to give free jets to Canada! As well as Canada having all lockheeds patents and assets - that canada could port to Canada to make a domestic next gen fighter of their own or future ones. Umm, because the US would not allow a foreign government to purchase one of their defense contractors involved in classified projects? Look up ITAR sometime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Everyone seemed to avoid why buying a majority control Lockheed instead of the f35's would be a bad deal for Canada? You know then use the profit from lockheed to give free jets to Canada! Sorry....Canada cannot get majority control of Lockheed without US Gov't approval...which ain't gonna happen. As well as Canada having all lockheeds patents and assets - that canada could port to Canada to make a domestic next gen fighter of their own or future ones. See above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Sorry....Canada cannot get majority control of Lockheed without US Gov't approval...which ain't gonna happen. See above. Beat you to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Beat you to it. That's OK...you're on this side of the border. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Oh, I'm sure that Obama wouldn't be upset if Canada bought lockheed - how would US national security be compramized by little old Canada buying lockheed? Both Canada and the US are partners in Norad and both flying the planes arn't they? It is still a US company even if Canada buys it. It is still a global company. Why is a public company suddently private when the Queen of Canada tries to buy it? She is a person too just like any other corporation or person. Why is a Canadian Entity not allowed controling stake in a mutual defence industry? Or are Canada and the US really not allies, really not partners in Defence, both air, and in groups like NATO.. Canada has been fighting US wars for decades... yet it can't be trusted with ownership in a US arms company? But you expect Canada to put all its eggs into that company.. maybe it is Canadian national security at risk with having their entire air force dependent on a foreign government controlled company rather than a public and free company. Who knows letting the Queen in right of Canada own it might elicit the United Kingdom and Austrailia to be warmer to the whole idea of buying lockheeds planes. Edited January 28, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Oh, I'm sure that Obama wouldn't be upset if Canada bought lockheed - how would US national security be compramized by little old Canada buying lockheed? Both Canada and the US are partners in Norad and both flying the planes arn't they? It is still a US company even if Canada buys it. It is still a global company. Why is a public company suddently private when the Queen of Canada tries to buy it? She is a person too just like any other corporation or person. Why is a Canadian Entity not allowed controling stake in a mutual defence industry? Or are Canada and the US really not allies, really not partners in Defence, both air, and in groups like NATO.. Canada has been fighting US wars for decades... yet it can't be trusted with ownership in a US arms company? But you expect Canada to put all its eggs into that company.. maybe it is Canadian national security at risk with having their entire air force dependent on a foreign government controlled company rather than a public and free company. Who knows letting the Queen in right of Canada own it might elicit the United Kingdom and Austrailia to be warmer to the whole idea of buying lockheeds planes. Blah blah, rage against it all you like, the US is hardly gonna let another country buy one of its biggest defense contractors. Anyway, it would never actually go anywhere close to Obama, any such proposal would be automatically rejected by any lowly official under the terms of ITAR. It does go both ways, by the way, though it's not as automatic in Canada. When an American company tried to buy MDA, the Canadian government blocked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Its not like we don't know all of US's classified projects anyway.. you think your secrets are actually secret? Wasn't there something about intelligence sharing. Or is someone maybe not being as honest as they say they are? Echelon et al. Is the US hiding something in lockheed that we don't know about. Doubtful. It should be noted under more recent security programs that the US is directing toward Canada - the US security establishment would be able to exercise far more security over Canada than the US. What harm could possibly come with Canadian Control of a US defence industry in that environment? It seems that it would be even safer in Canadian Control. The risk of domestic unrest, rioting, and terrorist attack on facilities in Canada would also seem to be much lower. No need to import raw materials if you can just use them right in the North. it is mutually benificial, and actually improves the US national security position. Edited January 28, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 That's OK...you're on this side of the border. Not by much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Oh, I'm sure that Obama wouldn't be upset if Canada bought lockheed - how would US national security be compramized by little old Canada buying lockheed? Obama is not the issue...US Congress is. Both Canada and the US are partners in Norad and both flying the planes arn't they? It is still a US company even if Canada buys it. It is still a global company. It is a US Defense Contractor.....not Avro. Why is a public company suddently private when the Queen of Canada tries to buy it? She is a person too just like any other corporation or person. Why is a Canadian Entity not allowed controling stake in a mutual defence industry? US Federal Law...the same guys who told the King/Queen to pack sand. Or are Canada and the US really not allies, really not partners in Defence, both air, and in groups like NATO.. Canada has been fighting US wars for decades... yet it can't be trusted with ownership in a US arms company? Canada is an ally, but not the closest ally. Ironically, that would be the United Kingdom. But you expect Canada to put all its eggs into that company.. maybe it is Canadian national security at risk with having their entire air force dependent on a foreign government controlled company rather than a public and free company. It certainly is....why did Canada sell out like that years ago? Oh....I know..."free" health care. Who knows letting the Queen in right of Canada own it might elicit the United Kingdom and Austrailia to be warmer to the whole idea of buying lockheeds planes. Where else are they going to buy a 5th gen strike fighter. Hell, The UK is a Tier 1 partner in the program, with a longer VTOL history. US Marine Corps bought AV-8 Harrier from Hawker-Siddeley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Its not like we don't know all of US's classified projects anyway.. you think your secrets are actually secret? There is lots Canada doesn't know...the UK and Israel know more than Canada, depending on the topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 There is lots Canada doesn't know...the UK and Israel know more than Canada, depending on the topic. And even they obviously don't know everything. There are thousands of major classified projects going on at any given time and information on many of them is just not distributed around for no reason. 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.