cybercoma Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Canada+joins+military+satellite+program+million/6010391/story.html It looks like our soldiers will be going to war all over the globe for a looong time. So much for bringing the troops home. Edited January 20, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Harper spends $337 saves $163 Million joining the military satellite program Fixed it for you. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Canada+joins+military+satellite+program+million/6010391/story.html It looks like our soldiers will be going to war all over the globe for a looong time. Complete nonsense. It's about the ability to share information to military personnel in a secured fashion. It's also about: *Canada will no longer lease bandwidth from commercial satellites, which cost taxpayers $25 million annually.*Boeing will match Canada's investment in the satellite program with a $240-million investment in Canadian industry. *One-fifth of that will be invested in Canada's space sector, according to the Department of National Defence, and 10 per cent will be invested in small- and medium-sized businesses. Take your ultra-partisan hat off for a least once in your life. Edited January 20, 2012 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Fixed it for you. You're welcome. Exactly. On a related note, if Harper saved 10 puppies from a burning building, but two puppies died, people like cybercoma would write a headline "Harper Kills Two Puppies." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Exactly. On a related note, if Harper saved 10 puppies from a burning building, but two puppies died, people like cybercoma would write a headline "Harper Kills Two Puppies." Reading is not one of your strong points is it Shady? Canada only saves money when there are Canadian troops in the "field"! Why is there any freekin troops in the "field" anyways! Was Canada invaded?And by whom? Time to pull our troops back home!And keep them here!As a deterent from any country invading us. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Take your ultra-partisan hat off for a least once in your life. Sounds like you've got your hat so freeking screwed down its covering your eyes from actually reading! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Canada only saves money when there are Canadian troops in the "field"! That's not true. Why is there any freekin troops in the "field" anyways! Peace-keeping involves troops in the field. Not in a war, but in the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Peace-keeping involves troops in the field. Not in a war, but in the field. So now your opinion is Canadas foriegn policy? Field is short for battlefield. Losen the hat buddy. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Quite frankly, I believe the world needs more Canada and needs Canada to continue to play an active role," MacKay said in his prepared remarks. Read more: http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+joins+military+satellite+program+million/6010391/story.html#ixzz1k1eVeD00 What has the world come to when I would agree and support something Peter MacKay said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Peace-keeping involves troops in the field. Not in a war, but in the field. Oh so Canada is returning to only peace keeping missions,when did McKay make this announcement? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Peace-keeping involves troops in the field. Not in a war, but in the field. Peace-keeping, eh? Is that what McKay meant when he said, "I believe the world needs more Canada and needs Canada to continue to play an active role"? The Conservatives are working towards putting our youth behind bars or having them killed around the globe. They're an even bigger threat to Canada's youth than the street gangs they alledge are out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Field is short for battlefield. No, it isn't. It applies to Canadian soldiers stationed outside of Canada for various reasons. Both in combat or peacekeeping missions. Also to Canadian army engineers working in projects around the world, water restoration, construction, etc. Oh so Canada is returning to only peace keeping missions,when did McKay make this announcement? Why do you present a false choice? We don't need to only do combat mission, or peace keeping missions. It's not an either or. But there are various ones going on at the present time. Of both respects. And I imagine that will be the case in the future. Peace-keeping, eh? Is that what McKay meant when he said, "I believe the world needs more Canada and needs Canada to continue to play an active role"? Once again, it isn't an either or. It can be combat related, or peace keeping related. It can be in humanitarian circumstances like in Japan, or other areas needing help with natural disasters. Why do you people pretend to be so obtuse? Or do you only think in terms of combat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Quite frankly, I believe the world needs more Canada and needs Canada to continue to play an active role," MacKay said in his prepared remarks. Thats a very vague statement! Much like what you would hear from astrology! Very open to interpretation. I would use caution and beware! WWWTT Edited January 20, 2012 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 If a socialist is a socialist is a socialist, then war is war is war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 337 million for something that can save lives, where ONT spent 620 million for french language services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Reading is not one of your strong points is it Shady? Canada only saves money when there are Canadian troops in the "field"! Why is there any freekin troops in the "field" anyways! Was Canada invaded?And by whom? Time to pull our troops back home!And keep them here!As a deterent from any country invading us. WWWTT Was Canada invaded?And by whom Yes-- by the Quebec NDP, but not to worry, it was only a temporary thing--- Quebec is already awakening to the anomaly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 The Conservatives are working towards putting our youth behind bars or having them killed around the globe. They're an even bigger threat to Canada's youth than the street gangs they alledge are out of control. Are you saying that more Canadians died on the battlefield than gang members were killed in our cities, because stats would say different... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Why is it always the politicians who push for "active role" when thy themselves would NEVER even think of entering the military to do what they just said? I wonder if any of the front line Tories were even Boy Scouts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Why is it always the politicians who push for "active role" when thy themselves would NEVER even think of entering the military to do what they just said? I wonder if any of the front line Tories were even Boy Scouts? Topaz, could you not ask that question of ALL the MPs, regardless of party? It might be instructive to know the numbers/percentages in all the parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 Field is short for battlefield. Just thought I'd try to clear this up for our poster who doesn't know the application of this word. Field does not always or even very often refer to a battlefield. It means anytime personel are away from barracks/home unit. For instance when I was attached to the recruit training/JLC school in Borden we would have "feild" exercises for the JLC classes. This did not mean we took them out and shot at them. It meant we took them to a wooded area and they would then proceed to undertake various taskings and exercises designed to test their organizational/ problem solving/ leadership skill set. As you can see feild can mean a great deal more than simply battlefeild. Personally I don't see a problem with improving our comm/tracking abilities. Its not like we're arming ourselves with weapons of mass destruction after all. As was also mentioned earlier its small pottatoes compared to some of our rather questionable expenditures in the public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 This semantic argument, no offense, is immaterial. The implication of the article is clear. The Conservatives are moving Canada towards a more active military rolel around the world. Many Canadians are uncomfortable with this for good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) Complete nonsense. It's about the ability to share information to military personnel in a secured fashion. It's also about: Take your ultra-partisan hat off for a least once in your life. Does this mean US boeing is going to buy out Canadian companies and patents, so Canada is paying for Boeing to take over our space industry? While the deal sounds relatively good (figuring it works out to around 8 years of leasing) - sadly though Canada isn't buying satalites it is leasing from the US.. are there no Canadian satalite companies 25 million a year works out to 15 years of leasing, with 5 years additional for free from taxes or 20 years of leasing for the cost of this program. Likewise Canada could buy stock in public companies that are satalite tech IP and manufacturing related and do exactly what boeing is going to do.. that is buy out Canadian companies. I think that this is a conflicted situation. the DnD should concentrate on working with the Canadian Space industry and developing the Canadian space industry DIRECTLY not paying the US to let them take their pick of our patents and industry. BOO. This is clear embezzlement of public funds for no bonus. They are selling out Canadian interests to the US with the deal. --- If the US ain't willing to send communications to our troops fighting wars over seas for free we shouldn't be fighting their war in the first place. Edited January 22, 2012 by William Ashley 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.