caesar Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 That information comes from chopped up communication. IT IS FAR FROM BEING RELIABLE INFORMATION Quote
Stoker Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 Are you saying that the CBC would post unreliable information? Can I quote you on that? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted October 17, 2004 Report Posted October 17, 2004 Read the article; it says these reports are unconfirmed. Read the whole article; don't just skim it for what suits your purposes The account of the transmission, which was obtained by CBC News' Investigative Unit as part of an ongoing investigation, has not been verified. Quote
Stoker Posted October 17, 2004 Report Posted October 17, 2004 Read the article; it says these reports are unconfirmed. Read the whole article; don't just skim it for what suits your purposes How would the possable poor judgement of a Canadian sub commander "suit my purpose"? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Stoker Posted October 17, 2004 Report Posted October 17, 2004 Why else did you post it? What was this topic on? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
ceemes Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 The rescue mission was performed by the Royal Navy, so none of our decrepid Sea Kings took part.You're right though, they are Sea Kings, but not ours. This is true.....and their Sea Kings are fairly new and have state of the art electronics and sensors aboard them.... As for the Subs...I have always maintained that Canada should build its own equipment for our military, however the UK does have an excelent reputation and record for building subs......and if I am not mistaken, part of the cost was paid off in granting the UK military training establishments on Canadian soil.....sort of a lend lease deal..... Also, it should be noted that the Canadian Navy did sign off on the refurbished subs and declared them to be completely seaworthy after they had been "Canadianized"....so a large part of the blame has to be given to those that signed off on its seaworthyness. Subs are dangerous at the best of time....even the US and the Russians has lost a couple of nuclear sub with all hands. Quote
ceemes Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Aren't all nuclear weapons banned from Canada? hehehehe.... Well.....Canada has never, as far as I know, had any Strategic nukes, we did have a few tactical ones....namely anti-aircraft airburst bombs designed to take out large incoming Soviet bomber formations and nuclear torps and depth charges......in fact, as late as 1982, CFB Comox had more the a few of anti-air nukes in its inventory..... Quote
ceemes Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 A countries military is something we should be proud of but it is hard wehn you know the Liberals have screwed the whole bloody thing up. I was a soldier back in the late 70's to the mid 80's under both Liberal and Conservative governments.......and to be fair....both gave the CAF the shitty end of the stick..... Sadly, that seem's to be a time honoured tradition in Canada and one most Canadians seem to agree with...ignore the Armed Forces until you need them.....back in '39 when we declared war against Hitler's Germany, the hue and cry went out "Where is our Navy? Where is our Army? Where is our Air Force? Too which the politico's said, "Hey, you didn't want to support (read: spend tax money on them) any of those things, so we cut their funding and shrunk their numbers and equipment allotment just as you wished." Back in the mid to late 70's, a Naval Reserve Commander conducted a study on the size and effectiveness of the entire CAF, including regulars, primary reserves and those who were on the call back list...his findings were that Canada could defend half of Rhode Island for half a day. In 1981, I took part in Exercise RV '81, the first of the RV exercises held. Part of the exercise was to conduct division sized manouvers....trouble was, even pulling in as many reservist as possible, pulling troops out of Germany and from UN missions, we failed to reach divisional numbers... This was almost 25 years and the situation has not improved one iota. Quote
Newfie Canadian Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Well a cousin of mine was an aircraft mechanic in the Forces and ended up taking early retirement not long after the cuts started in the early 1990's. Overworked and underpaid. Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
caesar Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Everybody in every profession feels that THEY are overworked and underpaid; including myself. Quote
Newfie Canadian Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Well he took a civillian job with a regional airline and was a supervisor within a couple of months, with a pretty hefty pay check and benefits out the wazoo, which is good as one of his 3 kids has a lot of medical problems. Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
playfullfellow Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Everybody in every profession feels that THEY are overworked and underpaid; including myself. Yeah, but our troops have be extremely shafted over the past few years and we still expect them to put their lives on the line for us everyday. Quote
caesar Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 It seems to me ; my nephew was able to retire from the navy after 20 years with a good pension. I doubt that he ever was in any real danger; not that others have not been. In civillian life; one needs to work much longer to be able to retire. In civillian life; we generally pay for our own education. It is a trade off. We did not send them into Iraq, did we? Quote
Black Dog Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Listen, boy, you want to talk about someone being in the gestapo don't expect to be treated with respect. Now I've spent considerable time trying to get from you a logical explanation for this obsession you and others have with condemning Israel other than the country being full of Jews and you haven't done much of a job of explaining yourself. So if anyone here would be looking to join an anti-Semitic organization it would seem you'd be a lot more likely than me. You haven't even proven this "obsession" even exists. You gave up your defence of such thinking in the other thread altogether, which proves to me you haven't a leg to stand on. Basically, your position is so untenable that you have to resort to groundless accusations of anti-semetism to stifle the discussion. Not only is it a pathetic, tired argument, it alos serves to devalue the term anti-semetism, which should be reserved for true acts of hatred and not bandied about so loosely by people like you who's concern for the Jewish people is entirely shallow. Mommy! Mommy! The bad man is being mean to me! WaaaaahhhhhhH! I think this about sums up your capacity for intelligent debate. You've been owned, "boy". Black Dog, both thoses "reports" you link to are dated well after Pearl was killed, thus to say that Pearl was killed because of allegations of prisoner abuse in Gitmo (as did Ceaser) is complete and utter fallacy. Well, I was't posting to support the theory that the execution of Pearl was retaliation. I thought you were simly denying teh allegations of torture at Gitmo. Carry on. Quote
Newfie Canadian Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Well it just keeps getting better about our poor military. It now seems troops in Haiti lacked essential equipment. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...8_37?hub=Canada Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
Enuf Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Fire strands Canadian sub in the AtlanticWaits for tow off coast of Scotland; caught fire underwater; nine crew reported injured Canada needs to become more independent in militarty matters, especially defence contracts. I suggest we more away from the war-mongers, Britain & the US, and start develpoping military relationships with countries we have more in common with. How many times are we going to get screwed before we wake up? This second-hand submarine is just the latest in a long series of misadventures. The problems in the military are deeper that that if the Military isn't totalt reborn in the next 8 year it will cease to have a functionable role in military affairs as a nation. Simply put there is too many cheifs and not enuf indians (forgive the racial slur) Quote
Stoker Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 Well, I was't posting to support the theory that the execution of Pearl was retaliation. I thought you were simly denying teh allegations of torture at Gitmo. Carry on. Not denying the allegations, but whether they are true or not, is another debate Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Newfie Canadian Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 It now appears that the wire insulation trouble was known by the British. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
caesar Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 If we cannot even trust our mother country to be open and honest with us; who can we trust. We should build our own ships. Quote
Newfie Canadian Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 Lord knows there are enough idle and dying Canadian shipyards out there that could use the work. Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
Stoker Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 Read the third paragragh of the linked story......... Both the British and Canadian navies independently devised upgrades for one water-prone location on the subs, but neither navy extended the upgrades to insulation on connections where high-voltage lines pass through. At the end of the day, the Canadian Navy signed off on the subs, as proved by the last few lines in the story: "If you had rummaged through the files you would have found it," Westwood said.And the Canadian navy did find the problem, but not until after the Chicoutimi fire If we cannot even trust our mother country to be open and honest with us; who can we trust. We should build our own ships Are you prepaired to pay closer to four billion dollars for four subs, instead of one billion for four? As for building our own, go read about the headaches the Australians are having with their Collins class.......makes are problems puny (in terms of cost) in comparison. We should have went with an American (nuclear) design........ Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Newfie Canadian Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 At the end of the day, the Canadian Navy signed off on the subs, as proved by the last few lines in the story: I agree that there is enough blame to go around here, Stoker, and all the facts still aren't in. But, if I were going to sell something to a close ally that had serious problems, problems that could be disastrous, I think I'd have to mention it. Still, as you point out, our navy appears to have dropped the ball a bit too. Are you prepaired to pay closer to four billion dollars for four subs, instead of one billion for four? I think the $4 billion would be worth it if the damned thing worked right. And if it didn't, we'd have ourselves to blame. No one knows what the repair and refit costs are going to balloon to before these subs become totally operational, IF they ever do. The parts and refit budget has already skyrocketed. Plus, it would create optimism and employment in an area of the economy that has really suffered in the last decade or more. We should have went with an American (nuclear) design........ Agreed. Apparently, and I may be misinformed, diesel subs are not able to patrol under the Arctic ice, but nuclear subs can. Quote "If you don't believe your country should come before yourself, you can better serve your country by livin' someplace else." Stompin' Tom Connors
Stoker Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 I think the $4 billion would be worth it if the damned thing worked right. And if it didn't, we'd have ourselves to blame. No one knows what the repair and refit costs are going to balloon to before these subs become totally operational, IF they ever do. The parts and refit budget has already skyrocketed.Plus, it would create optimism and employment in an area of the economy that has really suffered in the last decade or more. Thats the rub........Canada doesn't (like Australia) have expereince building subs. Now as I pointed out, Australia's "foray" into sub building has proven extremly costly and at the end of the day, they have a product that is not that much better then our current subs. It's sad to say (and I worked in the industry for a brief time) that Canadian shipbuilding, for the most part, is dead. We just can't keep up with other more modern yards in the United States, Norway, South Korea and Japan. When it comes to military hardware, our men and women in the services deserve the very best........and in the vast majority of cases, it happens to be built by the Americans. I'd rather buy American, and if possable work out some sort of offset, then buy used, forgeign built or Canadian made junk. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Guest eureka Posted October 30, 2004 Report Posted October 30, 2004 I have not read enough about the hustory of these subs, but, as I understand it, these were not "old" subs. I think that I read that Britain built these diesel subs and nuclear subs as the modern fleet. They were the equal of the nuclear ones but designed for different operations. The subs may never have been operational - I don't know for sure. However, they would seem to be state of the art and we have a bargain. Britain decided that it could not operate two different fleets or it would be using them. I don't believe for a moment that the faults were known. I wonder also whether they are actually faults ot simply something that is the consequence of the lengthy mothballing that should have been found by the inspections. Perhaps we should have bought some of their nuclear class instead and thuse also diverted some of our trade to a market we should be cultivating. Quote
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.