Wilber Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Huh? The American (and Russian) weapons based in Central Europe, namely West (and East) Germany, were not based along the borders, but far inside their own territory.......and NATO (including Canadians) very much so planned to use tactical nukes, for decades, to plug the Fulda Gap and Northern German plain........ Regardless, NATO has moved its boundaries over 800 km closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg. You can't blame the Russians for being a bit paranoid considering how many times they have been invaded. This isn't the Cold War with NATO opposite the Warsaw Pact. there are other countries caught in between like Belarus who can't be exited about being used as a nuclear battlefield between NATO and Russia. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Topaz Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 I would lke to say to BC, that not every country has 600 Billion to spend on military and no country wants a 20 + trillion national debt. The Russia conflict is NOT for NATO its the US that making this situation worse. The US should keep its nose out of other countries, unless asked, and try to fix they mess they have at home. Quote
taxme Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 I would lke to say to BC, that not every country has 600 Billion to spend on military and no country wants a 20 + trillion national debt. The Russia conflict is NOT for NATO its the US that making this situation worse. The US should keep its nose out of other countries, unless asked, and try to fix they mess they have at home. It would be nice if the elite globalists would take your advice, but they won't. They want a war with Russia, and if they get there way we will all be fried to a crisp. Americans? When are they ever going to learn that wars solve nothing and all the world gets from wars is chaos, injury and death. But if one makes millions from wars then why not get one started somewhere. After all isn't it all just about the money and power? Dam we the people. Quote
Wilber Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Ya, that's a good reason to want a war. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
taxme Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Ya, that's a good reason to want a war. Money and power is what the racket of war is all about. It's hard to make money from allowing peace to exist. Quote
Wilber Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Money and power is what the racket of war is all about. It's hard to make money from allowing peace to exist. Seen the stock market lately? The world is doing just fine without a war between the West and Russia. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
taxme Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Seen the stock market lately? The world is doing just fine without a war between the West and Russia. So, all this doom and gloom about Britain leaving the EU and screwing up the markets big time was all just crap then? The establishment always ends up making themselves look like a bunch of lying fools. The sky was suppose to fall in if Britain left the EU. Well, the sky is still up there. All is good. But don't hold your breath on the West not trying to get a war going with Russia. They are really working hard on that to happen. Aw well. Quote
Smallc Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 SmallC is correct some what....but get ready for the smoking mirrors. So DND had put in place a massive project to replace the LSVW, MLVW and HLVW, with more than 80% of these vehs now sitting rusting out in army compounds around the country, grounded due to maintances conditions, such as rust out, no parts, or no parts available, this portion of the fleet is now being used to keep the other vehs operating, That project of taking these vehs off the road was started in 2013.....today in 2016, units would be hard pressed to have one example on the road..... So the Cons threw DND a bone , yes we will buy some trucks 1500 9.5 ton trucks and 300 trailers. For a grand total of 843 Million dollars....to replace your MLVW fleet....the Orginal project was meant to be a 4 bil project....No other funds where made available.... So lets put the new purchase into context shall we.... There was over 2700 MLVWs 2.5 ton trucks orginal purchased these trucks are used for cargo, office, workshops, CP, maintence trucks MRT, Medical and dental sevs etc etc....this entire fleet will be replaced by a truck not even in the same class.... Now what about the LSVW, with over 2800 vehs in various types, or the HLVW fleet of over 1200 vehs. There is a Military project, but no funding...In fact the Cons had said this to the military, I So the DND, will have to swallow this pill, 1500 trucks will replace , over 7500....Now DND has been prying to the Liberal gods for something to be done....but no movement yet, nor plans of movement.... http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-military-to-get-logistics-trucks-11-years-after-first-being-proposed-1.2472903 The TAPV project: This is the Cons answer to Not buying enough LAV 6.0....it has decided to fill in some of those shortfalls with a much cheaper veh call the TPAV....this 2 bil contract will see the possibly creation of up to 700 Canadian jobs in Quebec.... The TPAV will be used in a role it is not designed to do, be a Infanty fighting vehs....< it is also being used to replace Coyote Recce vehs (240 vehs), plus the RG mine protected veh fleet, (100 Vehs) ....,what is left over will be divided across the army. The ironic part of this rant is the US government offer Canada a sweet deal on Brand new FMTL, or 2.5 trucks as well as the Hemmit line of trucks, They also asked each NATO nation that was in Afghanistan and Iraq if they wanted the same vehs for free, as they did not want to transport them back to the states....all we had to do was pay for the freight, and overhaul....these vehs ended up being shredded and sold for scrap, thousands of them....along with thousands of mine protected vehs, Modified M113, even tanks and IFV's.... Mostly right. Yes, we'll have less of everything (a smaller army force has always been the direction), but these trucks have a MILCOTS fleet to relieve them in Canada. As you know we've been using them for a few years. As for the TAPV, it was purpose designed for our needs. It's exactly what we wanted. The crime is that we cancelled the close combat vehicle project, and no longer have the ADATS, thanks to Harper. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) I would lke to say to BC, that not every country has 600 Billion to spend on military and no country wants a 20 + trillion national debt. The Russia conflict is NOT for NATO its the US that making this situation worse. The US should keep its nose out of other countries, unless asked, and try to fix they mess they have at home. Doesn't seem to stop big bad Canadian prime ministers from writing checks with their mouths that Canada can't cash. Harper and Chretien thought they were bad asses because of defense spending by U.S. and other NATO nations. Remember Rwanda ? Canada didn't have the APCs or means to get them there...wanted the U.S. to do it. Cheap bludgers ! Fix your own "messes" before worrying about what happens with the United States...besides...Canada gladly profits from the wars. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/stephen-harper-ukraine-opinion-1.3251864 Now Trudeau is strutting in Ukraine. Edited July 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 The crime is that we cancelled the close combat vehicle project, Trudeau could restart........he, unlike Harper is the current head of the Government. and no longer have the ADATS, thanks to Harper. Harper didn't make the ADATS obsolete nearly two decades ago.........none the less, unlike Harper, the Trudeau Government, if it elected not to reprofile defense funds, could purchase MOTS any number of MANPADS, anti-armor systems, heavy machine guns etc for Trudeau's whipping out of the army to Eastern Europe.......one would think such systems may have some form of utility against the Russians if they decided to attack........ Can't blame Harper for agreeing to lead a battlegroup with a poorly equipped Canadian army...... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Regardless, NATO has moved its boundaries over 800 km closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg. You can't blame the Russians for being a bit paranoid considering how many times they have been invaded. This isn't the Cold War with NATO opposite the Warsaw Pact. there are other countries caught in between like Belarus who can't be exited about being used as a nuclear battlefield between NATO and Russia. Poor Putin..........the former countries that his nation took over and ruled for generations don't like the prospect of a Russian do-over so they joined NATO......its so bad, Putin felt his only choice was to invade Georgia and the Crimea. Quote
Smallc Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) Trudeau could restart........he, unlike Harper is the current head of the Government. Harper didn't make the ADATS obsolete nearly two decades ago.........none the less, unlike Harper, the Trudeau Government, if it elected not to reprofile defense funds, could purchase MOTS any number of MANPADS, anti-armor systems, heavy machine guns etc for Trudeau's whipping out of the army to Eastern Europe.......one would think such systems may have some form of utility against the Russians if they decided to attack........ Can't blame Harper for agreeing to lead a battlegroup with a poorly equipped Canadian army...... The beauty of being part of NATO is that we don't need to bring everything to the party.It was you that said being asked to lead a group spoke to the respect for the UK. Canada, according to experts, is seen as a top tier nation, and that's why we were asked. Trudeau should buy air defence - I'm not confident he will. Edited July 12, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 The beauty of being part of NATO is that we don't need to bring everything to the party. That's ridiculous.......these are basic small arms, there are third world armies better equipped to deal with a Russian tank army then Canada..........none the less, from what has been made public, Canada isn't bringing much to the party....certainly nothing that could stop a Russian tank...... It was you that said being asked to lead a group spoke to the respect for the UK. Canada, according to experts, is seen as a top tier nation, and that's why we were asked. I never said anything of the sort.....The UK is, after the Americans, the most capable force in NATO and has recent experience leading large formations of combined forces in combat......the Germans, despite decades of cuts and downsizing are still the Germans......Canada was asked after the Dutch and Danes (IIRC?) turned it down. Trudeau should buy air defence - I'm not confident he will. He won't buy anything for this deployment....he is sending Canadian troops into the field, to face a Russian threat (though remote), in even worse shape then his father........which is outstanding in a bad kinda way. Quote
Smallc Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Every PM has left the forces worse than they inherited them, save for possibly Paul Martin, and maybe Harper. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Mostly right. Yes, we'll have less of everything (a smaller army force has always been the direction), but these trucks have a MILCOTS fleet to relieve them in Canada. As you know we've been using them for a few years. As for the TAPV, it was purpose designed for our needs. It's exactly what we wanted. The crime is that we cancelled the close combat vehicle project, and no longer have the ADATS, thanks to Harper. The Milcot fleet your talking about is the MSVS fleet, a veh platform originally purchased to service our reserve forces, it is a civilian truck 7.5 ton, with limited off road performance. The length of the veh prevents it from operating in a lot of field conditions as it is easily high centered. As the regular force began retiring it's veh fleet , they started to strip most of the reserve units of these vehs, leaving behind mostly civilian pick up trucks.....It should also be noted even with the MSVS in service it's total numbers do not even come close to the number of vehs it is suppose to replace. While the truck program was severely downgraded in size, the production of 20 foot containers or office, workshops, cp's, etc went on, meaning now there is these SEV's or 20 foot containers to replace MLVW SEVs or pods, but very limited prime movers. meaning a unit will not have the ability to make tactical moves with out support from other resources.... Not to mention that it stills leaves the forces which was in desperate need of lift before the forced retirement of most of its fleet of almost 10,000 wheeled vehs, now it has to make do with 1500 vehs....or to put that in context , it will have the G wagons (jeeps) and then a split truck fleet of new and old MSVS trucks, with no other capabilities in between or the heavy trucks it was looking for. Then once you break those numbers down again for specialty vehs such as refuelers, recovery, arty prime movers, PLS trucks which form the bulk of the fleet, the Army, and Air force will have next to nothing in the form of cargo vehs......Once again if you can not move cargo the army is not mobile.... It is one thing to create a smaller force, if done in scale that is balanced ,thisis taking away the ability to move your forces....period..... The TAPV is not what DND wanted, it was what was forced upon them by fiscal restraints, and political handling, I've talked to some of the armored guys that were involved in the testing and they said it was not the best choice of what was available, The armored corp was looking for a RECCE platform, to replace the Coyote Recce veh, one armed with a decent gun, an improved surveillance package. what they got was a smaller veh, with a light RWS system. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Every PM has left the forces worse than they inherited them, save for possibly Paul Martin, and maybe Harper.Knowing this how can you justify your position, with any cuts....knowing that the forces have been cut to the bone, all that is left is to cut capabilities....keeping on topic, how can we justify NOT being able to move your forces which was barely able to with over 10,000 wheeled vehs now forcing it to do that job with only 1500 vehs.... All this is going to do is force DND to rent the Civilian contractors, or vehs to get the job done, how does that save any funds, How would they ever handle say another Winnipeg flood, or ICE storm.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 I want a smaller force that is always equipped with the latest and greatest. I'm not asking for any money to be cut. Thr ability to deploy 1000 regular soldiers, 300 special forces, and 300 from a dedicated DART. Quote
Argus Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) If i get your drift here I think that we do need mandatory insurance for some things, like car insurance. But I don't really believe that need to have a military unless you are a warmonger. A military is to expensive to run. So are you one a warmonger? Just asking? So we have no military, and belong to no military alliances. And Russia says its found an oil field in our arctic waters and it belongs to them. What do you plan on doing? Go cry to the United Nations? Edited July 12, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 I want a smaller force that is always equipped with the latest and greatest. I'm not asking for any money to be cut. Thr ability to deploy 1000 regular soldiers, 300 special forces, and 300 from a dedicated DART. And if we have another Oka style insurrection we've still got the boy scouts, right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 What I read and listen too makes a lot more sense to me than what you like to read and listen too. Then you have very poor judgement. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 And if we have another Oka style insurrection we've still got the boy scouts, right? You don't thing 1600 troops could handle Okay? Quote
taxme Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 So we have no military, and belong to no military alliances. And Russia says its found an oil field in our arctic waters and it belongs to them. What do you plan on doing? Go cry to the United Nations? Well, isn't that what the United Nations is there for? After all, don't we give them some of our tax dollars to protect our rights and will protect and settle any disputes over land rights? So, belonging to NATO will save us then, eh? I think that NATO would probably instead say to Canada that you are on your own, we don't want a war with Russia. A bloody stupid thing to do for sure. So, what can Canada do anyway if Russia did just that? We would send some of our few broken down military equipment and go fight them with our few soldiers? We would not last an hour fighting with the Russians. Canada is an insignificant and a broken down country that could not fight it's way out of a wet paper bag if it had too. We basically are a gang of insignificant losers. And believe me that I hate having to say that but it is so true. The only thing Canada seems to be good for is flooding the country with refugees and third world immigrants from the rest of the world who only come here to take advantage of our generous social and medical services. We Canadians are such suckers for the rest of the world and they all know it too. Just my opinion of course. Quote
taxme Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 Then you have very poor judgement. Not as far as I am concerned.The judgement I have made for myself is working quite well for me.I enjoy learning as to what is really going on behind the scenes. Works for me. Quote
Argus Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 You don't thing 1600 troops could handle Okay? 1300. I don't think the DART people are going to be putting down heavily armed natives. And you assume all 1300 are going to be available at any given time and that the government won't send anyone overseas for anything, like the several hundred guys we have in Ukraine at the moment, or the thousand we'll have in Latvia. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted July 12, 2016 Report Posted July 12, 2016 1300. I don't think the DART people are going to be putting down heavily armed natives. And you assume all 1300 are going to be available at any given time and that the government won't send anyone overseas for anything, like the several hundred guys we have in Ukraine at the moment, or the thousand we'll have in Latvia. To have 1600 available (the DART people would still be soldiers first) you need to have 3 times that many people. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.