Jump to content

More dithering by the liberals, More public consultations on our military...


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

This statement has never been more false 

Of course it's true. Sadly these days more than ever.  you could make an argument that there are some sciences which align left more but not many. Sadly the left loves to preach the idea of 'evidence based' thinking but doesn't actually practice it,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Of course it's true. Sadly these days more than ever.  you could make an argument that there are some sciences which align left more but not many. Sadly the left loves to preach the idea of 'evidence based' thinking but doesn't actually practice it,

The climate denying, book banning, vaccine conspiracists who think Noah’s ark and similar ludicrous bible stories actually happened and that people used to ride dinosaurs are all right wing. Texas conservatives decreeing that all history and public education must have patriotic narratives also shows they are hostile to education.  Promoting all sorts of absurd and implausible conspiracy theories against the media, universities governments etc whenever elections or observed reality doesn’t suit your political ideology is also anti-science and anti-education 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

The climate denying,

Turned out the left was even worse OVER stating the problem than the right was understating it. ANd more on the left SAY they do but their actions say otherwise.   I mean seriously - do you have any idea how big al gore's carbon foot print is? Do you think it would be if he really believed what was in his movie?

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

book banning,

Still the democrats i'm afraid. And really bad books too - Can't have dr seuss on the shelves now can we :)

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

 

vaccine conspiracists who think Noah’s ark and similar ludicrous bible stories actually happened and that people used to ride dinosaurs are all right wing.

No, that's just an image teh left likes to portray. I love how you think there's no religious democrats :)

The nutball who just went after pelosi's husband is a left winger for example.

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Texas conservatives decreeing that all history and public education must have patriotic narratives

Compared to the liars ad the 1619 project who are desperately trying to rewrite history despite massive evidence they're wrong? Or the groups that say every american icon statue INCLUDING LINCON should be torn down?

Yeah - no problems on the left :)

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

  Promoting all sorts of absurd and implausible conspiracy theories against the media

Much of which turned out to be true. Remember when it was ultra racists to suggest Covid came from wuhan labs?Only now that's where they think it came from? remember Hunter's notebook and the media? Remember when conservatives said that social media companies were targeting them and were told that's a conspiracy - till suddenly they had to admit it?

Remember when cnn edited the trayvon martin tapes to make it sound like the guy made racist comments when he didn't and they got in crap for it?

And then there's the left wing comments about right wing media. Remember when the convoy was all funded by republicans from the us? LOL

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

, universities governments etc whenever elections or observed reality doesn’t suit your political ideology is also anti-science and anti-education 

That would still be the left. Jordan peterson can't be allowed on campus he's a nazi!!! (He coudn't be further from being a nazi). Etc etc. 

No, the left is worse at most of those things. But - they play a better game of it in the media. The left these days is all about 'muh feels' and facts and science can be damned unless they happen to support the feels :)

Conservatives question, they allow questions, they look at data, they follow the science for the most part. Not always and not all conservatives. But it certainly leans that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Turned out the left was even worse OVER stating the problem than the right was understating it. ANd more on the left SAY they do but their actions say otherwise.   I mean seriously - do you have any idea how big al gore's carbon foot print is? Do you think it would be if he really believed what was in his movie?

False. Do you even know what his carbon footprint is?  People like him spend tens of thousands per yer on offsets and green initiatives As has been said:

The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change) and of poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier, and perhaps more rhetorically effective, than debunking climate science itself. 

But climate change advocates who don’t live a carbon-neutral lifestyle aren’t hypocrites because, for the most part, they’re not asking you to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. They’re asking governments, utilities, energy companies, and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please, without contributing to global warming.

Advocates like Gore certainly have suggested ways individuals can do their part. In 2007, he stated, “The only way to solve this [climate] crisis is for individuals to make changes in their own lives.” But just a year later, he said“In addition to changing the light bulbs, it is far more important to change the laws and to change the treaty obligations that nations have.” Last month, he said the three best ways are to talk about climate change (which he does), look for environmentally responsible choices when making large purchases (which he does), and support climate-friendly political candidates (which he does). Individual action has never been the focus of his message. 

As David Roberts pointed out in Vox last year, the reason climate advocates don’t intensely advocate for personal behavioral changes is that they’re “insignificant to the big picture on climate.” That’s true even for huge energy users. DiCaprio’s emissions “are a fart in the wind when it comes to climate change,” Roberts wrote. “If he vanished tomorrow, and all his emissions with him, the effect on global temperature, even on US emissions, even on film-industry emissions, would be lost in the noise.” And it wouldn’t be hypocrisy, since DiCaprio isn’t asking you to stop flying.

 

In other words what fossil fuel shills on the right don’t understand is that fighting climate change has little to do with individual consumer choices and more to do with the choices made by individual and big business on how energy is sourced and produced. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Still the democrats i'm afraid. And really bad books too - Can't have dr seuss on the shelves now can we :)

False again. Unlike actual book banning laws republicans have actually passed in many states already, liberals/democrats haven’t banned any books anywhere and nobody has “banned” Dr Seuss. 
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's just an image teh left likes to portray. I love how you think there's no religious democrats :)

The nutball who just went after pelosi's husband is a left winger for example.

The religious talibaptist kooks are all republican and the nutball who attacked Pelosi was a mentally ill person who was victim to all kinds of batshit conspiracies of all sorts, including republican conspiracies about Pelosi. Remember when the vile Republican lie machine was trying to falsely claim he was pelosis male prostitute?

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Compared to the liars ad the 1619 project who are desperately trying to rewrite history despite massive evidence they're wrong?

False  that they are rewriting history and false that there’s “massive evidence” that they’re wrong. 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Or the groups that say every american icon statue INCLUDING LINCON should be torn down?

Yeah - no problems on the left :)

Honouring someone as a hero with a statue is not history. History is about teaching facts, not worshipping mythologized heroes and covering up their misdeeds of anyone who managed to achieve hero status in the past. Lincoln may have freed the slaves but we waged a campaign of genocide on Indians and it was indigenous protesters who toppled his statue. 
 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Much of which turned out to be true.

Nope fake news. Your examples are all either exaggerated, cherry-picked, or mundane events portrayed as sinister plots. 

 

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That would still be the left. Jordan peterson can't be allowed on campus he's a nazi!!! (He coudn't be further from being a nazi). Etc etc. 

Huh?  Jordan Peterson’s OPINIONS are OPINIONS, not reality. He insists on constantly and knowingly subjecting his workplace to his constant controversial opinions. And his employer is exercising their right to not have to endure that. Once again we see conservatives are fundamentally unable to distinguish between opinion and fact which is why they are such rabid mouth-foaming intolerant extremists. 

 

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The left these days is all about 'muh feels' and facts and science can be damned unless they happen to support the feels :)

Conservatives question, they allow questions, they look at data, they follow the science for the most part.

LMAO OK BUDDY!

Sorry you’ve got it backwards. Tucker Carlson’s emails demanding that Fox’s News division to stop reporting news that right wing audience doesn’t want to hear is proof enough. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

False. Do you even know what his carbon footprint is?  People like him spend tens of thousands per yer on offsets and green initiatives As has been said:

BZZZT - sorry, the correct answer was 'True".

First off - said by whom? You didn't even post a source. that suggests you know the source is not reputable. So obviously you don't trust it yourself.

Second - carbon offsets are a joke for several reasons, which is why people don't bother anymore.
 

Quote

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/al-gores-climate-change-hypocrisy-is-as-big-as-his-energy-sucking-mansion/

Gore says he buys "carbon offsets" to account for all the CO2 his home and lifestyle produce. For example, he pays $432 a month into a "Green Power Switch" program that helps fund renewable energy projects in Tennessee.

But buying offsets is a highly controversial way to assuage climate guilt.

Over the years, a number of "climate offset" groups have sprung up, claiming that people can erase their carbon footprints simply by writing a check for a few hundred dollars.

While some groups are on the up and up, there are a lot of scammers out there, as the Atlantic discovered when it investigated. "International law enforcement authorities and environmental advocates say that the carbon markets are extremely vulnerable to financial fraudsters," the in-depth article explained. "Their shell games can also be hard to spot."

Beyond that, it's not entirely clear that legitimate "offset" programs are actually offsetting whatever Al Gore is producing.

In an article published by the journal Nature a few years ago, Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, argued that offsets were "worse than doing nothing."

"It is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading and almost certainly contributes to a net increase in the absolute rate of global emissions growth," he wrote.

 

Producing tonnes of carbon and then paying someone else who doesn't and claiming to be carbon neutral is like sleeping with a hooker and giving a nun 50 bucks and telling your wife you're adultry neutral.  The idea was discredited ages ago,

Swing and a miss kiddo :)   And the reality is if gore really believed in climate change he'd have reduced his carbon footprint (before being shamed about it) AND donated to orgs who did good climate work.

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

False Again:

Nope - true again. Sorry.

Passing a law is not the only way to get a book banned. Left wing and democratic orgs pressured the company and threatened shaming if they didn't do it.  And many libraries were ordered to remove them and had to get very creative to keep them from being destroyed.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/03/us/offensive-childrens-books-librarians-wellness-trnd/index.html

Whereas.....

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Unlike actual book banning laws republicans have actually passed in many states already

But they didn't. Did they.  They simply said they couldn't be in SCHOOL libraries.  The books are still sold, available at public libraries, completely available. So - there's no "ban" at all. The books are widely available, and if any parent thinks their kid should read them they can get a copy and let them.

The dr seuss books are gone. Aside from ones that people may keep safe or libraries who find ways to keep them, nobody will be able to buy them any more. THe dems and their supporters have managed to actually deny anyone from buying one again. That's FAR worse.

Soooo strike two for you.

 

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

The religious talibaptist kooks are all republican and the nutball who attacked Pelosi was a mentally ill person who was victim to all kinds of batshit conspiracies of all sorts, including republican conspiracies about Pelosi. Remember when the vile Republican lie machine was trying to falsely claim he was pelosis male prostitute?

So basically all you're doing is pretending that any bad idea you don't like is "republican" with zero evidence or reasoning.

He was a democrat and democratic supporter. Sorry - you're claim that all crazy people are republicans went out the window.

A decent number of the mass murderers in the last several months have been democrat supporters and left wingers. Left wing groups did 5 billion dollars of damage to cities a few years ago in riots.  They took over a large hunk of an entire city to run it as a left wing paradise - it was an unmitigated disaster and people suffered under them horribly.

I could go on for quite a bit. The fact is the left wing is every bit as crazy and violent and even more so nowadays.

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

False  that they are rewriting history and false that there’s “massive evidence” that they’re wrong. 

True on both counts. They've been WIDELY discredited.

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Honouring someone as a hero with a statue is not history.

Sure it is. It's a historic symbol of that person. Tearing it down is an effort to erase history. Which is why they do it. Obviously. Those who tear them down claim they FALSELY represent history but - that still makes them a representation of history. And truthfully they don't make their case for it being false well. Kinda like you :)

Yet another miss on your part.

 

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Nope fake news. Your examples are all either exaggerated, cherry-picked, or mundane events portrayed as sinister plots.
 

LOLOL - my me my don't we know a lot of buzz words :)  

Sorry - YEP - all true and no 'conspiracy theories' there. And how do you 'cherry pick' examples like that?

Sorry - another miss by you.

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Huh?  Jordan Peterson’s OPINIONS are OPINIONS, not reality. \

Uhhhh - he's actually a social scientist and has done tonnes of research and quotes other research. This isn't "opinion", this is fact based and research based analysis by a professional.

You see  - the left HATES science the moment it doesn't say what they want  it to.  The moment  science gets in the way of "muh feels!" then suddenly it's not science, it's "opinion".


well -  you must be a stormtrooper. Nobody else misses THAT badly so often :)

Your problem is that you're starting with Left wing talking points as being true and then attempting to defend them. But most of them are indefensible.

These days the Right is where people care about science and facts and reason, the left is all about feelings, misinformation, impressions and repressing the hell out of anyone who disagrees. Sad but true. The people who fought so hard for free speech and open dialogues now fight to shut down ANYONE who dares have a contrary position to their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

BZZZT - sorry, the correct answer was 'True".

First off - said by whom? You didn't even post a source. that suggests you know the source is not reputable. So obviously you don't trust it yourself.

Second - carbon offsets are a joke for several reasons, which is why people don't bother anymore.

Nope False was the correct answer.  

Source:

Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter

Conservatives say environmentalists are hypocrites if they consume more energy than the average American. It's a deceitful, disingenuous argument.
 

https://newrepublic.com/article/144199/al-gores-carbon-footprint-doesnt-matter

Also false that people don’t bother with offsets. 

Lastly note that this entire discussion is about how outright climate denial, which is anti-scientific, is a right wing cause  

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Producing tonnes of carbon and then paying someone else who doesn't and claiming to be carbon neutral is like sleeping with a hooker and giving a nun 50 bucks and telling your wife you're adultry neutral.  The idea was discredited ages ago,

Swing and a miss kiddo :)   And the reality is if gore really believed in climate change he'd have reduced his carbon footprint (before being shamed about it) AND donated to orgs who did good climate work.

False   You fundamentally misunderstand climate change and carbon offsets. First action on climate change is not about getting end users like you me and Al Gore to consume less energy. Most emissions are industrial. Climate action is about transforming the economy and industries to produce more energy efficient   Its not about getting you to drive your gasoline powered car less it’s about getting the automotive industry gasoline powered vehicles with zero emission vehicles which is happening thank to people like Gore. It’s s not about getting you to use less coal powered electricity in your home it’s about getting governments to replace coal fired power plants with renewable energy sources which is also happening thank to people like Gore  The reason most people now believe climate change is real is because of people like Gore despite all the polluter-funded propaganda, character assassination and trolling that Republicans like to spew.
 

Also you fundamentally misunderstand carbon offsets are. They are not paying someone who is already carbon neutral. Offsets fund investment in clean tech sectors, help dirty business become clean and plant trees in protected areas to grow the carbon sink among many other activities  

 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - true again. Sorry.

Passing a law is not the only way to get a book banned. Left wing and democratic orgs pressured the company and threatened shaming if they didn't do it.  And many libraries were ordered to remove them and had to get very creative to keep them from being destroyed.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/03/us/offensive-childrens-books-librarians-wellness-trnd/index.html

Not the same thing at all as Republicans fascist threats to use the power of the state imprison any teachers or librarians who share a book that wasn’t screened and cleared by their partisan censors. A private business crying “Waah liberals publicly shamed me for my racist images” is not the same as being jailed by the state.
 

And while liberal campaigns focus on racist depictions of minorities like black peoples with bones through their noses, Republican censors are trying to silence ideas that they don’t like, particularly ideas about slavery, civil rights amd gay people. The Texas law’s specifically state that education must be “patriotic” while is something you would expect to hear in North Korea or China not a supposedly democratic country. 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So basically all you're doing is pretending that any bad idea you don't like is "republican" with zero evidence or reasoning.

He was a democrat and democratic supporter. Sorry - you're claim that all crazy people are republicans went out the window.

A decent number of the mass murderers in the last several months have been democrat supporters and left wingers. Left wing groups did 5 billion dollars of damage to cities a few years ago in riots.  They took over a large hunk of an entire city to run it as a left wing paradise - it was an unmitigated disaster and people suffered under them horribly.

I could go on for quite a bit. The fact is the left wing is every bit as crazy and violent and even more so nowadays.

Batshit bullshit. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sure it is. It's a historic symbol of that person. Tearing it down is an effort to erase history. Which is why they do it. Obviously. Those who tear them down claim they FALSELY represent history but - that still makes them a representation of history. And truthfully they don't make their case for it being false well. Kinda like you

So you think the Germans should have kept their statues of Hitler?  I think hero worship of anyone including non-controversial people is foolish but I certainly think its not wrong to say “this person whom we thought was a hero actually isn’t one”.  By the way the people who tear down statues only bring to light the facts that people would rather not hear, such as the undisputed fact that Lincoln ordered the massacre and displacement of Indians. They people opposed to statue toppling usually don’t even deny the claims they simply say they don’t care   
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry - YEP - all true and no 'conspiracy theories' there. And how do you 'cherry pick' examples like that?

Your crackpot right wing outlets curate your lies and misrepresentations and do the cherry picking for you. All you right wingers have to do is be gullible and parrot everything they say without questioning it. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Uhhhh - he's actually a social scientist and has done tonnes of research and quotes other research. This isn't "opinion", this is fact based and research based analysis by a professional.

No. It’s still opinion. As I’ve said many many times, conservatives fundamentally cannot distinguish between fact and opinion. He’s done research which informs his opinion. Others have done research that leads the to opposing opinions. Opinions are not facts. And Social science is not actual physical science and therefore even widely held beliefs (which Petersons are not) are not immutable. Also note that a cornerstone of science is scientific consensus and Peterson views are not the scientific consensus. 
 

Today’s right doesn’t give a dn about facts or science or reason it’s a conspiracy-riven ideological cesspool obsessed with identity politics and bought and paid for by polluters, big oil, corporations and billionaires who want to eliminate democratic government and rule by decree from behind the throne using puppet officials they control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Nope False was the correct answer.  

Sorry but true was correct. I posted actual facts that address the point but all you've provided is an opinion piece that frankly is just stupid.  It's not hypocrisy because this is a 'standard conservative tactic'.  What the hell does that have to do with it? Or the claim he's not asking YOU to live a carbon reduced life, just gov'ts. Well how the hell is the gov't going to do anything without affecting me? So he IS asking people to live THEIR lives different.

But here's my favorite, and it proves me 100 percent correct from your own article -he's not a hypocrite because LOTS OF LIBERALS DO IT!!!!  It's so common they've got a term -  learjet liberals :)  

So there's your proof that liberals just don't actually care that much about climate change. THey want OTHER people to change as long as it doesn't affect them and they're able to burn as much jet fuel as they want :) 

That IS hypocrisy kiddo. Sorry.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Also false that people don’t bother with offsets. 

Also true actually  The only groups that do are ones that want to 'greenwash' their own activites and LOOK like they're environmentally friendly. They don't even look into the companies they deal with, MOST OF WHOM ARE FAKE.

Here's one of the latest;

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe

Now - if you gave a crap about the environment and you were using offsets, wouldn't you take the time to see if they really WERE offsetting anything?

THis problem has been around for ages and nobody serious uses offsets anymore. It's only remaining value is to convince the weak minded that the company cares somehow.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Lastly note that this entire discussion is about how outright climate denial, which is anti-scientific, is a right wing cause  

Sorry, it's not a right wing cause in the slightest. The vast majority of conservatives believe the climate is changing. Most of them also believe mankind plays some role in that although they do acknowledge other sources (which is legit and often not researched well). They are MORE apt to say we should be learning to cope with it more than trying to stop it right now. ANd there's an argument for that.

According to this research below only 12 percent of those who identify as republican think humans aren't contributing to climate change. That's only a few points higher than democrats.  ANd in reality, if you look at the numbers by age it's probably more likely to be an age related issue than a republican/democrat issue. Young people are much more likely to think it's not only real but should be a top priority.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/23/on-climate-change-republicans-are-open-to-some-policy-approaches-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/

So you were wrong there - there is no "conservative cause" to deny climate change.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

False   You fundamentally misunderstand climate change and carbon offsets. First action on climate change is not about getting end users like you me and Al Gore to consume less energy. Most emissions are industrial.

oooooo - sorry, you're wrong again. THat's why we have the carbon tax. If the carbon tax isn't about changing how people use carbon fuels and products - why the hell are they charging it to people.

 I don't know HOW you forgot about that. But 100 percent absolutely it's about changing people's behavior.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Also you fundamentally misunderstand carbon offsets are. They are not paying someone who is already carbon neutral. Offsets fund investment in clean tech sectors, help dirty business become clean and plant trees in protected areas to grow the carbon sink among many other activities  

No, sorry, carbon offsets are a scam to let people greenwash their activities.  If you actually cared about the environment you would just invest in green companies. Sorry kiddo but the whole 'offset 'thing was just a scam.  And if you think about it a little it kind of has to be.

And even if it did work as intended it would still be exactly as i said. You're excusing your own bad behavior by coattailling on someone else's good behavior as if it magically makes your own behavior good.  That's not the way the world works.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

 

Not the same thing at all as Republicans fascist threats to use the power of the state imprison any teachers or librarians who share a book that wasn’t screened and cleared by their partisan censors.

Entirely the same thing. If you print off copies of those doctor seuss books and distribute them you're also liable for a lawsuit and jail time.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

A private business crying “Waah liberals publicly shamed me for my racist images” is not the same as being jailed by the state.
 

As noted you get jailed either way. Soooo - yet another miss.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

And while liberal campaigns focus on racist depictions of minorities like black peoples with bones through their noses, Republican censors are trying to silence ideas that they don’t like, particularly ideas about slavery, civil rights amd gay people. The Texas law’s specifically state that education must be “patriotic” while is something you would expect to hear in North Korea or China not a supposedly democratic country. 

So in other words, you feel that YOUR brand of hate and oppression is better than THEIR brand of it. Because you like your subject matter better.

Kid - do you really need me to explain why that's a terrible argument? If you absolutely need me to i will but i'm really hoping you can work that one out on your own

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Batshit bullshit. 

Sadly the most intelligent argument you've made so far :)

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

So you think the Germans should have kept their statues of Hitler?  Blah blah blah rant rant rant

Nice attempt to change the channel. The issue was are they history, not are statues a good thing. So at least you've given up trying to claim they aren't.

To address your points i think you can put up a monument to the good things a person did without overriding the fact that they also may have done things that werne't good. Nobodys' perfect, and if you're looking for a 'perfect' hero it's not going to happen. So you just have to make sure that the discussion is inclusive of all the facts, and you can still admire them for the good things they did. Tearing it down is simply denying history.

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:


 

Your crackpot right wing outlets curate your lies and misrepresentations and do the cherry picking for you. All you right wingers have to do is be gullible and parrot everything they say without questioning it. 

Uh oh  - easy muffin, we can hear you drooling and foaming as you type :)  It's not my fault your echo chamber ideas aren't standing up to scrutiny :)

I get your frustration.  The left LOVES to pretend it's about truth and facts.  It's not. Its about hypocrisy and deception. So when you try to defend it, it falls apart. And that's got to hurt a little.

But yes, the right is more inclinded to care about facts and truths and logic than the left these days. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 6:46 PM, CdnFox said:

Not really. If you read most of the stories in the last decade, if they discuss our guys in the field it's all about the 'training' we're doing for other countries, not about our actual fighting. And there's not much in there about gear. We get some stuff like the new fighters but that's always downplayed as "oh the current ones are fine, we should take our time and really ake sure we've got the right choices", which we saw for the replacement of the sea kings and the f-18's.

Then we hear about the gear just as new gear is being purchased. The northern rangers get new rifles and we hear all about how their old ones barely fired any more - but so what, they're getting new ones so problem solved. It was the same with the pistols.

Every now and then someone notes that some of teh gear is 'older than the young men using it'. but they never say there's a real problem or anything.

So everyone kinda knows in a general sense that our gear isn't top of the line, but they don't really think there's a problem. Seems like everything's ok regardless.

It's not so much an 'active choice' as just not realizing how serious the problem is. BUt - pretty much yeah.

I can give you dozens of stories dating from 2020 til now, all run in major media outlets, including CBC, all of them with the same story over and over, how our military is not a little but vastly undermanned and under-equipped... i can find at least 10 stories just over a 6 month period... if you have not seen them i is because you're not looking.

Pistols ya, i can see where a pistol purchased just after WWII, would not be big news, let alone big dollars to pay out and is yet to be fully replaced today, i mean it is not because they were worn out, barrels shot out, frames cracked, or near worn out, etc etc...or one could do more damage by throwing it than firing it... this one example is one piece out of thousands...and when combined they make a huge hole...a hole that gets bigger each day...

45-plus years to find another fighter jet is not taking your time, and being careful...Same as the sea king replacement, took over 50 years to pick a winner, and it's junk... it is the country saying F*** you...

How long do you keep your car? 40 or 50 years ...why is that, and if it runs why would you want to replace it... well they don't make parts anymore, or it is very expensive to maintain, it sucks fuel like a hooker on crack, it does not do the same job as a newer model, and the fact newer ones will be much safer to operate on a modern battlefield.. but it is only bodies right, we got lots of those...and they are cheaper to bury than buy new stuff... 

Canadians know exactly how bad our military status is, and it is on life support, When the commanding general of the military states his military is not prepared or equipped to fight today's military concerns, people should listen, or at least ask the question...i thought we were golden ?... well we are not golden most things are covered in shit...we have lost most of our capabilities that we can not even get ourselves to the battlefield and once there don't have the logistical arm to keep us there without direct support from our allied ... and what capabilities we do have are well past the due date...The Russians are better equipped...and they have almost lost everything of value.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Canadians know exactly how bad our military status is, and it is on life support, When the commanding general of the military states his military is not prepared or equipped to fight today's military concerns, people should listen,

General Eyre destroyed his credibility

when he sided with Justin Trudeau & the Chinese Communists against the Freedom Convoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry but true was correct. I posted actual facts that address the point but all you've provided is an opinion piece that frankly is just stupid.  It's not hypocrisy because this is a 'standard conservative tactic'.  What the hell does that have to do with it? Or the claim he's not asking YOU to live a carbon reduced life, just gov'ts. Well how the hell is the gov't going to do anything without affecting me? So he IS asking people to live THEIR lives different.

But here's my favorite, and it proves me 100 percent correct from your own article -he's not a hypocrite because LOTS OF LIBERALS DO IT!!!!  It's so common they've got a term -  learjet liberals :)  

So there's your proof that liberals just don't actually care that much about climate change. THey want OTHER people to change as long as it doesn't affect them and they're able to burn as much jet fuel as they want :) 

That IS hypocrisy kiddo. Sorry.

Also true actually  The only groups that do are ones that want to 'greenwash' their own activites and LOOK like they're environmentally friendly. They don't even look into the companies they deal with, MOST OF WHOM ARE FAKE.

Here's one of the latest;

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe

Now - if you gave a crap about the environment and you were using offsets, wouldn't you take the time to see if they really WERE offsetting anything?

THis problem has been around for ages and nobody serious uses offsets anymore. It's only remaining value is to convince the weak minded that the company cares somehow.

Sorry, it's not a right wing cause in the slightest. The vast majority of conservatives believe the climate is changing. Most of them also believe mankind plays some role in that although they do acknowledge other sources (which is legit and often not researched well). They are MORE apt to say we should be learning to cope with it more than trying to stop it right now. ANd there's an argument for that.

According to this research below only 12 percent of those who identify as republican think humans aren't contributing to climate change. That's only a few points higher than democrats.  ANd in reality, if you look at the numbers by age it's probably more likely to be an age related issue than a republican/democrat issue. Young people are much more likely to think it's not only real but should be a top priority.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/23/on-climate-change-republicans-are-open-to-some-policy-approaches-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/

So you were wrong there - there is no "conservative cause" to deny climate change.

oooooo - sorry, you're wrong again. THat's why we have the carbon tax. If the carbon tax isn't about changing how people use carbon fuels and products - why the hell are they charging it to people.

 I don't know HOW you forgot about that. But 100 percent absolutely it's about changing people's behavior.

No, sorry, carbon offsets are a scam to let people greenwash their activities.  If you actually cared about the environment you would just invest in green companies. Sorry kiddo but the whole 'offset 'thing was just a scam.  And if you think about it a little it kind of has to be.

And even if it did work as intended it would still be exactly as i said. You're excusing your own bad behavior by coattailling on someone else's good behavior as if it magically makes your own behavior good.  That's not the way the world works.

Entirely the same thing. If you print off copies of those doctor seuss books and distribute them you're also liable for a lawsuit and jail time.

As noted you get jailed either way. Soooo - yet another miss.

So in other words, you feel that YOUR brand of hate and oppression is better than THEIR brand of it. Because you like your subject matter better.

Kid - do you really need me to explain why that's a terrible argument? If you absolutely need me to i will but i'm really hoping you can work that one out on your own

Sadly the most intelligent argument you've made so far :)

Nice attempt to change the channel. The issue was are they history, not are statues a good thing. So at least you've given up trying to claim they aren't.

To address your points i think you can put up a monument to the good things a person did without overriding the fact that they also may have done things that werne't good. Nobodys' perfect, and if you're looking for a 'perfect' hero it's not going to happen. So you just have to make sure that the discussion is inclusive of all the facts, and you can still admire them for the good things they did. Tearing it down is simply denying history.

Uh oh  - easy muffin, we can hear you drooling and foaming as you type :)  It's not my fault your echo chamber ideas aren't standing up to scrutiny :)

I get your frustration.  The left LOVES to pretend it's about truth and facts.  It's not. Its about hypocrisy and deception. So when you try to defend it, it falls apart. And that's got to hurt a little.

But yes, the right is more inclinded to care about facts and truths and logic than the left these days. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Ok Tl;DR and we are way off topic but interestingly I just saw you on another thread defending EVs and here you are swearing conservatives aren’t climate deniers or pro gas shills. And yet this forum is full of conservative climate deniers and Republicans amd Albertas are in the news bashing EVs , renewable energy, peddling all kinds of lies and conspiracy theories about climate change is a plot by Bull Gates to enslave the planet  Meanwhile DeSantis, Tucker and the rest of the Republican scum are raging that clean technology investing is “woke capitalism”  

 

And where do you think all these EVs and renewable energy sources came from?  Do you think they just fell from the sky yesterday?  It was because of people like All Gore and climate activists and progressive governments in places like Europe and California who have been pressuring industry with carrots and sticks and educating the public.  Carbon taxes are taxes industry not on consumers.  The goal has always been for industry and the economy to change and provide sustainable options for the consumer. Consumer behaviour alone is not significant enough to change anything and even if it were you can’t count on individuals voluntarily acting out of the goodness of their hearts to change the world anyways. 
 

Besides the people who go out of their way to attack literally every climate advocate and climate initiative (but who you strangely think aren’t anti-climate) exaggerate Gores footprint. They add up not only his personal consumption but the consumption of his businesses, charities etc. 

 

And I don’t know where you get your stats on republicans not being climate deniers. It’s like the last 40 years never happened or something were you stranded on the moon or something?  Nearly half of conservative Republicans don’t believe human activity contributes to climate change and nearly 75% of them believe climate policies to address climate change do more harm than good or have no effect all  I could go on but you cam read it yourself

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/ps_11-25-19_climate-energy-00-09/

Former Republican go enter of Florida Rick Scott actually forbade employees from using the words “climate change” or “global warming”  and DeSantis avoids naming it directly  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

can give you dozens of stories dating from 2020 til now, all run in major media outlets, including CBC, all of them with the same story over and over, how our military is not a little but vastly undermanned and under-equipped.

Ok - pick five and i'll show you how the rest of the country sees it.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

45-plus years to find another fighter jet is not taking your time, and being careful.

The liberals said it was. The military didn't say much when they added seven plus years to the procurement process. So - why would the public believe different? Surely the gov't knows.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

How long do you keep your car?

Well that's a question i can answer. I have  a car and have owned cars.  But i have no idea how long they keep planes. They don't drive the planes to work every day right? They spend lots and lots of money fixing them so maybe they last longer? i don't know - i'm just a lowly civillian. So when the gov't tells me things are fine who am i to say otherwise? If it was REALLY urgent someone would be making a fuss about it.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Canadians know exactly how bad our military status is

They really don't.  And pretending they do is just as bad as pretending that our military is in good shape.

The public thinks some of our gear is old but no big deal. Honestly. Sometimes you hear the military would like new gear but everyone everywhere likes new gear. How bad can it be?

So on one side we've got you and your type in the military thinking everyone knows. On the other side we've got the people oblivious thinking everythings  more or less fine.  And in between, the politicians who get  to pretty much get away with whatever they like.

You see the problem. 

Now i get the military has to be careful speaking out officially but some way or another there has to be a serious effort to educate the public. If a politician like PP does it they'll call him a warmonger. He can push a little but it ain't gonna cut it on it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Ok Tl;DR and we are way off topic but interestingly I just saw you on another thread defending EVs and here you are swearing conservatives aren’t climate deniers or pro gas shills.

Those two things are not in conflict - if anything conservative support for ev's to the degree their tech has matured is in keeping with their vision of how best to deal with climate change.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

And yet this forum is full of conservative climate deniers and Republicans amd Albertas are in the news bashing EVs , renewable energy, peddling all kinds of lies and conspiracy theories about climate change is a plot by Bull Gates to enslave the planet  

Well assuming that's true one can still believe climate change exists and also believe ev's aren't a good solution for that. The science is not THAT clear and there are issues. So there's room for debate.  That doesn't make them deniers, it just means that they don't think EV's are part of the solution.

And i did note in that thread that even those who don't think they're much of a good idea overall did feel that  in specific cases they probably would be and they support that.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Meanwhile DeSantis, Tucker and the rest of the Republican scum are raging that clean technology investing is “woke capitalism”  

I think i posted earlier an article showing that the republicans are open to climate change policy - they just put a different priority on it and think different solutions are in order.

But sure - the republicans ratchet up the rhetoric, and the dems are every bit as bad or worse on the other side, making equally rediculous claims and we wind up seeing this stupid tribal culture emerge where having an intelligent conversation about it (or anything else) becomes near impossible. it's  how politics is done these days.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

And where do you think all these EVs and renewable energy sources came from?  Do you think they just fell from the sky yesterday?  It was because of people like All Gore and climate activists and progressive governments in places like Europe and California who have been pressuring industry with carrots and sticks and educating the public.

Ahhh  no. Cimate change wasn't even on the public radar when the first HEV's came on the market. They were sold more as a way to save at the pump and reduce the costs of gas.  You may not have been around in the 90's but i remember the marketing well. And 'less pollution in the cities' was a thing, not global warming.  So no.

And the NEXT big jump to full electric was driven by ELON MUSK.  Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting he's a liberal? Or some how caved to left wing pressure to start up an electric car company?

The reason those things exist is because capitalist entrepreneurs saw a market, and moved to fill it. And that's just how the next round will come.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Carbon taxes are taxes industry not on consumers. '

WtF?!?! What country do you live in boy? You can't be canadian and say that with a straight face. You very clearly do not know anything about carbon taxes.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

 The goal has always been for industry and the economy to change and provide sustainable options for the consumer. Consumer behaviour alone is not significant enough to change anything and even if it were you can’t count on individuals voluntarily acting out of the goodness of their hearts to change the world anyways. 

Tell me you're not canadian without telling me. You are 100 billion percent wrong in this country.  Imagine saying carbon tax only applies to business.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Besides the people who go out of their way to attack literally every climate advocate and climate initiative (but who you strangely think aren’t anti-climate) exaggerate Gores footprint.

I don't know why they would, it's well established that the truth is horrific enough. His footprint is insane.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

They add up not only his personal consumption but the consumption of his businesses, charities etc. 

well what IS he doing to minimize those activites? I mean - we're all going to die if we don't, and i thought you said carbon emissions were  SUPPOSED to apply to businesses  not people.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

And I don’t know where you get your stats on republicans not being climate deniers.

From the PEW research paper i posed. Please pay attention. And even you can't argue that PEW is bias.

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It’s like the last 40 years never happened or something were you stranded on the moon or something?  Nearly half of conservative Republicans don’t believe human activity contributes to climate change and nearly 75% of them believe climate policies to address climate change do more harm than good or have no effect all  I could go on but you cam read it yourself

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/ps_11-25-19_climate-energy-00-09/

Uhhhhh - you realize that's an article on the effect of climate policy, which is not what we're discussing.  And the rest shows how many believe who the biggest influence is when considering mankind's influence over natrure's in whats causing climate change - Not who does or doesnt' believe in climate change. And there is no column for 'no influence'.

And when you look at the republicans its way more than 50 percent who think it's substantial, either moderate or higher. You misread it.

In fact it shows that the strong majority of republicans think man causes climate change significantly and for the remainder a good hunk think it does somewhat.

Which jives with the previous pew research i posted showing only 18 percent don't thnk climate change is a thing.

Thanks for proving MY point - odd thing to do really. Maybe  you should have read that more.

All that paper shows you is it was correct and you don't know how to read papers :)

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Former Republican go enter of Florida Rick Scott actually forbade employees from using the words “climate change” or “global warming”  and DeSantis avoids naming it directly  

 

And i care why?

Sorry but that's not even relevant. As i recall it was AOC or the like who said the trend will be irreversible and we would all die if we didn't get it under control within 4 years. THat was about 4 years ago. Everyone laughed and eventually she had to change her tune. 

Politicians can say stupid things if they think someone's going to like it,that only shows politicians can be stupid. I knew that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I can give you dozens of stories dating from 2020 til now, all run in major media outlets, including CBC, all of them with the same story over and over, how our military is not a little but vastly undermanned and under-equipped... i can find at least 10 stories just over a 6 month period... if you have not seen them i is because you're not looking.

Pistols ya, i can see where a pistol purchased just after WWII, would not be big news, let alone big dollars to pay out and is yet to be fully replaced today, i mean it is not because they were worn out, barrels shot out, frames cracked, or near worn out, etc etc...or one could do more damage by throwing it than firing it... this one example is one piece out of thousands...and when combined they make a huge hole...a hole that gets bigger each day...

45-plus years to find another fighter jet is not taking your time, and being careful...Same as the sea king replacement, took over 50 years to pick a winner, and it's junk... it is the country saying F*** you...

How long do you keep your car? 40 or 50 years ...why is that, and if it runs why would you want to replace it... well they don't make parts anymore, or it is very expensive to maintain, it sucks fuel like a hooker on crack, it does not do the same job as a newer model, and the fact newer ones will be much safer to operate on a modern battlefield.. but it is only bodies right, we got lots of those...and they are cheaper to bury than buy new stuff... 

Canadians know exactly how bad our military status is, and it is on life support, When the commanding general of the military states his military is not prepared or equipped to fight today's military concerns, people should listen, or at least ask the question...i thought we were golden ?... well we are not golden most things are covered in shit...we have lost most of our capabilities that we can not even get ourselves to the battlefield and once there don't have the logistical arm to keep us there without direct support from our allied ... and what capabilities we do have are well past the due date...The Russians are better equipped...and they have almost lost everything of value.  

 

I agree, I’ve never met anyone who thought our military was well-equipped. I’ve met many in the past (pre 9-11) who didn’t even know we had a military.  
 

The cyclone helicopters aren’t junk though they’re just new kit with teething problems as per usual.  I think it’ll get worked out. The decades it took to procure them was a tragic joke though. Canada sucks at procurement. Always has and sadly always will. 
 

So they’ve already announced urgent acquisition of new MANPADS, PAXM, and both vehicle born and portable amti-Drone. We need vehicle mounted SHORAD, and we need to restore if not expand the leopard fleet.

 

Plus fill the vacant positions across the force. What I’ve found interesting about the CAF is that if you join as a young man you’re welcome to stay until retirement but they don’t seem interested in recruiting mid-career people n their 30s or 40s even if they’re in good physical shape…unless they’re a dentist or doctor or pilot or something with special skills.  There are a lot of CAF occupations in support roles and desk jobs where you don’t need to be in peak physical fitness or the prime of life and with the labour force shrinking indefinitely and an aging Canadian population the CAF is just going to have to start actively seeking and recruiting older demographics.

 

Where possible I think they are also going to have to make more positions available in or near metropolitan population centres because nowadays people, especially those who are mid-career in their 30s and 40s, are not as interested in relocating their family to places like Petawawa or Goose Bay. Obviously you can’t do that for every military occupation but the CAF did once have military bases in Calgary and Toronto which they sold off and they relocated 2 PPCLI from Winnipeg to CFB Shilo (near Brandon) over the objections of many troops who said their spouses now had terrible commutes or even lost their jobs. Certainly a lot of administrative jobs could be done from CAF offices in populated areas and nearby bases such as CFB Borden could take on a greater role for those positions as well.
 

I think this will also create a need to professionalize and fully integrate the Reserves with the Regular forces such that it is common for them to be working side by side with similar resources and training, with the main difference simply being the employment contract. It should be easier for CAF personnel to move back and forth between Reg Force and Reserve as they go through life. 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Those two things are not in conflict - if anything conservative support for ev's to the degree their tech has matured is in keeping with their vision of how best to deal with climate change.

Well assuming that's true one can still believe climate change exists and also believe ev's aren't a good solution for that. The science is not THAT clear and there are issues. So there's room for debate.  That doesn't make them deniers, it just means that they don't think EV's are part of the solution.

And i did note in that thread that even those who don't think they're much of a good idea overall did feel that  in specific cases they probably would be and they support that.

I think i posted earlier an article showing that the republicans are open to climate change policy - they just put a different priority on it and think different solutions are in order.

But sure - the republicans ratchet up the rhetoric, and the dems are every bit as bad or worse on the other side, making equally rediculous claims and we wind up seeing this stupid tribal culture emerge where having an intelligent conversation about it (or anything else) becomes near impossible. it's  how politics is done these days.

Ahhh  no. Cimate change wasn't even on the public radar when the first HEV's came on the market. They were sold more as a way to save at the pump and reduce the costs of gas.  You may not have been around in the 90's but i remember the marketing well. And 'less pollution in the cities' was a thing, not global warming.  So no.

And the NEXT big jump to full electric was driven by ELON MUSK.  Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting he's a liberal? Or some how caved to left wing pressure to start up an electric car company?

The reason those things exist is because capitalist entrepreneurs saw a market, and moved to fill it. And that's just how the next round will come.

WtF?!?! What country do you live in boy? You can't be canadian and say that with a straight face. You very clearly do not know anything about carbon taxes.

Tell me you're not canadian without telling me. You are 100 billion percent wrong in this country.  Imagine saying carbon tax only applies to business.

I don't know why they would, it's well established that the truth is horrific enough. His footprint is insane.

well what IS he doing to minimize those activites? I mean - we're all going to die if we don't, and i thought you said carbon emissions were  SUPPOSED to apply to businesses  not people.

From the PEW research paper i posed. Please pay attention. And even you can't argue that PEW is bias.

Uhhhhh - you realize that's an article on the effect of climate policy, which is not what we're discussing.  And the rest shows how many believe who the biggest influence is when considering mankind's influence over natrure's in whats causing climate change - Not who does or doesnt' believe in climate change. And there is no column for 'no influence'.

And when you look at the republicans its way more than 50 percent who think it's substantial, either moderate or higher. You misread it.

In fact it shows that the strong majority of republicans think man causes climate change significantly and for the remainder a good hunk think it does somewhat.

Which jives with the previous pew research i posted showing only 18 percent don't thnk climate change is a thing.

Thanks for proving MY point - odd thing to do really. Maybe  you should have read that more.

All that paper shows you is it was correct and you don't know how to read papers :)

And i care why?

Sorry but that's not even relevant. As i recall it was AOC or the like who said the trend will be irreversible and we would all die if we didn't get it under control within 4 years. THat was about 4 years ago. Everyone laughed and eventually she had to change her tune. 

Politicians can say stupid things if they think someone's going to like it,that only shows politicians can be stupid. I knew that already.

So you have no recollection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, Republican “Coal Rollin”, the Prius being the first true popular hybrid and it being ridiculed by Republicans who made into an identity symbol for effeminate environmentalists? And you have no recollection of all fever pitch climate denial from the right wing these past decades ?  Your revisionism is stunning. I give tou example after example and you just claim they’re random one-offs that don’t represent the silent majority of conservatives l. How many more examples do you need? 
 

It’s true that conservatives have come around slightly on climate change in recent years, thanks to liberal persistence the message just dominated the zeitgeist in the end. Just like they did on cigarettes and then marijuana   Remember conservatives used to say there’s no evidence of a link between smoking and cancer or when they used to say marijuana was no less dangerous than crack or heroine?  Nowadays they even deny supporting the Iraq invasion and deny their islamophobic  hysteria from the past couple decades invasion and Canadian conservatives even deny opposing gay marriage   The thing about conservatism is that conservative causes always lose in the end and their supporters always deny having supported the the losing cause.  Soon you’ll be telling us you’re not aware of any Republicans who denied the 2020 election results. The Republican election denial denial is definitely a thing that’s coming soon. 
 

And yes the carbon tax is a tax levied on industry not consumers. Taxpayers receive carbon rebates to offset any costs producers pass on to consumers but the purpose is primarily to reform industry 

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

So you have no recollection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth,  blah blah

Buddy. Inconvenient truth came out almost a decade after the first HEV hit the market. A decade.  And that doesn't account for the time they spent developing it.  And you're going to claim that it was responsible for HEV's?

Your credibility is nosediving radically here. Step it up and prove to me you're not just some mindless dolt not worth discussing things with. That whole paragraph was utter drivel. Do better.

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

It’s true that conservatives have come around slightly on climate change in recent years, thanks to liberal persistence the message just dominated the zeitgeist in the end.

Sure kid. It must have been the inconvenient truth that pushed them over.  :)

Fun fact - conservatives were the first to propose a carbon tax. Originally the model looked promising. It turned out that energy expenditures were not as elastic as originally predicted and they dropped it believing it would not work (which has since proven right for that very reason).  That was before 'inconvenient truth' came out too :)

Conservatives have always been concerned about the climate, just not as much as the libs and they differ on what the best approach is.

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Just like they did on cigarettes and then marijuana  

Marijuana yes. cigs no.

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Remember conservatives used to say there’s no evidence of a link between smoking and cancer or when they used to say marijuana was no less dangerous than crack or heroine? 

No. And neither do you. It never happened, neither was a conservative position. Ever. About the closest you can come is that conservatives did take the position that it was a gateway drug but then so did a lot of liberals, and the police, and many others.

 

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Nowadays they even deny supporting the Iraq invasion and deny their islamophobic  hysteria from the past couple decades invasion and Canadian conservatives even deny opposing gay marriage

Virtually none of that is true. Sorry. Conservatives correctly might say that they dropped the gay marriage thing 20 years ago and that was an internally driven decision. To be honest, it was only ever a small vocal minority that really cared about it.  I was at that convention. My candidate that i volunteered for that election was gay btw. We lost but we did fairly well it was a liberal stronghold riding.  But they woudn't claim they were never against gay marrange.

Amusigly it's the libs who like to rewrite history there. They were VERY againt gay marriage and when the courts ruled it had to be allowed they went to the surpreme court and basically asked can we do something other than marriage, what's the least we can get away with here.

Then when forced to it, they were all for it.  But you won't hear liberals repeating that history today very much ;)

 

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

  The thing about conservatism is that conservative causes always lose in the end and their supporters always deny having supported the the losing cause.  Soon you’ll be telling us you’re not aware of any Republicans who denied the 2020 election results. The Republican election denial denial is definitely a thing that’s coming soon. 

LOL - that's ALL americans. Whatever side loses - it was unfair.  A CRAP tonne of democrats denied trump won the election, claiming the russians won it for him and it was rigged. Hell - clinton is STILL TO THIS DAY saying she didn't lose, that it was stolen from her.  Then theres  the democrat that STILL insists she's the real governor in the state she lost in ;) thats not just trump.

 

52 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

And yes the carbon tax is a tax levied on industry not consumers. Taxpayers receive carbon rebates to offset any costs producers pass on to consumers but the purpose is primarily to reform industry 

That coulnd't be more wrong.  first the budget officer has announced that the vast majority don't give back what they're taxed, But more importantly each step of the consumer process carbon tax is added to the cost. Unlike gst and similar tax which are not charged to the businesses until the consumer buys - but carbon tax is build into the prices with no rebate to busnesses.  So the consumer pays a lot of carbon tax even before they pay their carbon tax which they won't get back. It drives cost up substantially and the industry doesn't pay it, they just pass it on.

Further they charge GST on the tax, and that doesn't get returned either.

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ok - pick five and i'll show you how the rest of the country sees it.

The liberals said it was. The military didn't say much when they added seven plus years to the procurement process. So - why would the public believe different? Surely the gov't knows.

Well that's a question i can answer. I have  a car and have owned cars.  But i have no idea how long they keep planes. They don't drive the planes to work every day right? They spend lots and lots of money fixing them so maybe they last longer? i don't know - i'm just a lowly civillian. So when the gov't tells me things are fine who am i to say otherwise? If it was REALLY urgent someone would be making a fuss about it.

They really don't.  And pretending they do is just as bad as pretending that our military is in good shape.

The public thinks some of our gear is old but no big deal. Honestly. Sometimes you hear the military would like new gear but everyone everywhere likes new gear. How bad can it be?

So on one side we've got you and your type in the military thinking everyone knows. On the other side we've got the people oblivious thinking everythings  more or less fine.  And in between, the politicians who get  to pretty much get away with whatever they like.

You see the problem. 

Now i get the military has to be careful speaking out officially but some way or another there has to be a serious effort to educate the public. If a politician like PP does it they'll call him a warmonger. He can push a little but it ain't gonna cut it on it's own.

1.Here is a few that i have saved i can get you more if you wish, there is plenty out there...

Why No One Should Join the Canadian Forces | HuffPost Latest News

Naval-gazing Canada has neglected its military: French ambassador | National Post

CAF: Members urged to contact Habitat for Humanity amid housing crisis | CTV News

‘We are not taking defence and security seriously’ in Canada: Vice-Admiral Mark Norman (msn.com)

The only thing that will fix Canada's military is public outcry - Macleans.ca

You Rarely Hear About Canada's Army, Exactly What the Government Wants (businessinsider.com)

Donald Trump is right to criticize Canada's military spending (waterloochronicle.ca)

The Unspoken Capability Gap in Canada's Mechanized Units - DefenceReport

We've given up on Canada's military, so let's abandon it altogether - Macleans.ca

The military is like a beaten dog, in some rare cases it will stand up to it's masters, but for the most part they know the government is not going to support them, and then also know it's citizens don't care to spend the energy or time to help...

Look I'm not putting this on you, but the equipment status is criminal, remember the story about the tanks going to Ukraine. thats true....and tanks are considered one of the priority units in the army.... think what the rest is going to look like...  soldiers get to exercise by school buses, and what ever we can beg and borrow from other units...And yes the government knows, it is reported up the chain once a week, but if the public does not care why do you think the politicians care...

They have a saying in the military ignorance is no excuse.. that and the fact we are reminded atleast once a month by our media...And when reporters from CBC say they can not believe the status of our military that has got to ring some bells right...even they are very concerned...they also say green energy is going to create more jobs and opportunities in the oil patch, that Hunting rifles are bad, and we should ban them, Oil is bad, getting out resources to market bad, and saying that china is interfering with our electoral process is racist...Sometimes the government is just full of shit...

I tried to put this into perspective but i was into 5 paras and only half way done... lets just say it is a shit show from start to finish, some of our gear is top notch, but most of it sucks ass, and is so obsolete that soldiers often buy there own gear if they find out they are deployed...and no none of it is tax deducible..

I see the problem with both eyes wide open, but I'm not the problem the public is...refusing to see it is a "THEM" problem, not a me problem, i do what i can on this forum, anything else is on them ....., i bet if it was free beer they would find out....when it comes time for our nation to use our sons and daughters for what ever reason, it is THEM that will be paying the price, it is them that will be burying their family I've already done my share of burying friends and family...it's someone else turn...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I agree, I’ve never met anyone who thought our military was well-equipped. I’ve met many in the past (pre 9-11) who didn’t even know we had a military.  
 

The cyclone helicopters aren’t junk though they’re just new kit with teething problems as per usual.  I think it’ll get worked out. The decades it took to procure them was a tragic joke though. Canada sucks at procurement. Always has and sadly always will. 
 

So they’ve already announced urgent acquisition of new MANPADS, PAXM, and both vehicle born and portable amti-Drone. We need vehicle mounted SHORAD, and we need to restore if not expand the leopard fleet.

 

Plus fill the vacant positions across the force. What I’ve found interesting about the CAF is that if you join as a young man you’re welcome to stay until retirement but they don’t seem interested in recruiting mid-career people n their 30s or 40s even if they’re in good physical shape…unless they’re a dentist or doctor or pilot or something with special skills.  There are a lot of CAF occupations in support roles and desk jobs where you don’t need to be in peak physical fitness or the prime of life and with the labour force shrinking indefinitely and an aging Canadian population the CAF is just going to have to start actively seeking and recruiting older demographics.

 

Where possible I think they are also going to have to make more positions available in or near metropolitan population centres because nowadays people, especially those who are mid-career in their 30s and 40s, are not as interested in relocating their family to places like Petawawa or Goose Bay. Obviously you can’t do that for every military occupation but the CAF did once have military bases in Calgary and Toronto which they sold off and they relocated 2 PPCLI from Winnipeg to CFB Shilo (near Brandon) over the objections of many troops who said their spouses now had terrible commutes or even lost their jobs. Certainly a lot of administrative jobs could be done from CAF offices in populated areas and nearby bases such as CFB Borden could take on a greater role for those positions as well.
 

I think this will also create a need to professionalize and fully integrate the Reserves with the Regular forces such that it is common for them to be working side by side with similar resources and training, with the main difference simply being the employment contract. It should be easier for CAF personnel to move back and forth between Reg Force and Reserve as they go through life. 

They are junk, take a look what everyone else is using, they helos we wanted the first time are the best there is or atleast in the top 5 , try and find the Cyclone... 

The purchase they are making is for troops in Latvia only...just like the equipment they purchased for Afghanistan, when it is done normally it is sold off or left in the country... don't get you hopes up of all the Army getting this equipment...it has rarely happened in the past...

Recruiting right now is aimed at diversification, way to many white people, not enough color..with the recruiting crisses i'm sure if you go to a recruiting center you'll be accepted. and it is common for all ages, the last private i had was 52 years old, he wanted a change in his life he retired before i did at 55. 

Any trade or job, requires you to be in minimum shape, everyone needs to pass PT test once a year, or if your going to be deployed, I get it in todays world it is not socially expectable to exclude people for weight, size, hair color, piercings,  sexual preference, But not many leaders are going top put up with a soldier that can't fight, or is not in shape enough to do minimum physicals tasks, 24 hours a day for days at a time...then your going to find your self on the unemployment line. Average age of the forces in 2014 was 34 years old...

One of the reasons there is army bases in the middle of now where is becasue the Army likes to blow shit up...in the middle of the night, drive on the roads with no lights on, fly helicopters/ jets at tree top level, Civvies don't like that....even the airforce with it's jets and cargo planes operate around the clock... ever heard a C-130 doing engine run ups all night... again people don't like that...And yes it would be nice to have a few bases located near cities, like Edmonton, but to do any exercises your traveling 3 hours to wainwright, try paying that fuel bill for 7000 troops and 1000's of vehicles...

 I agree this has been the plan for decades, and in some cases regular force units do take out reserve units when feesable, but keep in mind reserve units are mostly students and people with regular jobs, so the summer time is their best time , while for regular force units late summer time is leave period, and reserve units have a training time table as well, it is hard to make both sides line up... it is also common for Regular force units to take on reserves in full time position in regular force units, to fill out vacant positions, normally for a full year.

a lot of spouses do find jobs on base , not all but a lot, in supporting positions in public service or other jobs. Or if they have good jobs already there is something the spouse can live in one pronvince and the other goes to the military base they are posted Unaccompanied posting... it is not very common, but possible, i know of lots of couples that did it... please note it is very difficult on the marriage...

Some military bases like Borden, are training bases for support and Airforce trades, they face a very high turn around of students, but are quite,  others like Wainwright, Gagetown, Suffield, are Army training areas, they blow shit up there almost every day and night...it's like living next to a railroad, you get used to it, but occasional they blow something up thats really big and it does get the heart pumping...Cold lake is fighter town, they to like to blow shit up, or like sonic booms don't buy a house there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1.Here is a few that i have saved i can get you more if you wish, there is plenty out there...

well you're welcome to post as many as you like. This is an exercise in showing how the public sees the articles so you understand why the message may not hit home.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

So in that article they identify budget cuts, old gear and the fact that veteran affairs will screw you.

So - budget cuts gets a lot of discussion. VA gets a lot and is a much more emotional thing. The only 'equipment mentioned is our fighters.

Well we're already working on new fighters so problem solved there.

You see how the state of the gear is seriously downplayed. The average person reading that says "the military wants more money, yawn, we need new planes, well we're doing that, and gosh - that really is crappy about veterants affaris that's what i should be annoyed about in this article.

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

This one even YOU should be able to realize the problem with - it says  we need a BIGGER military. And this is the french talking - well known for their decades of military prowess.  When people sell a rifle that's in near perfect condition with only a few dings they call it in 'french' condition - never fired and only dropped once.  That is the average opinion of the french military.

Oh and we need subs. So we need a bigger military and subs.  NO ONE walks away from this article thinking our soldiers need better gear.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Nobody can find affordable housing. Next.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

This one doesn't mean anything to the average person. I 'm sure he's correct - but all they hear is "we need MOAR military because reasons".  It doesn't tell them that the soldiers don't have enough ammo to practice with.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Well this one shoots you guys in the foot right off the bat - it says our military despite cutbacks is really capable and functional.  We just need moar!  Total zone out from the average person.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

From the article: The poll found that awareness of, and familiarity with, the Canadian Armed Forces was generally very low, and virtually non-existent among younger Canadians.

THIS IS WHAT I"VE BEEN TELLING YOU :)

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Another 'we should spend moar' article that doesn't highlight how bad the soldiers have it.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Dude - the average person is not reading defense report. And all this says is we should have tanks. The average person won't know enough to agree or disagree but they'll assume the experts know better and probably DO read Defense Report and they'll figure it out. 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yeah i'm not watching that. I'm pretty sure the other articles depressed me eough :)  But i'm sure it's the same

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

 

Look I'm not putting this on you, but the equipment status is criminal,

I know - and i actually am one of the few non military people who know with a reasonable degree of accuracy how bad the soldiers have it. My cousin is in the military and they're having a tough time getting enough ammo to practice with.

And i have to be clear - I"M AGREEING WITH YOU 100 PERCENT with regards to the situation and the problem.

What i'm trying to point out is that the public is NOT being educated on this. All those articles YOU think are very informative have NOTHING for the average person to make them actually concerned EXCEPT for the VA stuff. Which actually has  been a political issue more than procurement.

It mentions subs without explaining who we need to torpedo. (most people don't understand the surveillance aspect). It says we need tanks without explaining why in average-person language so they say 'well the experts will deal with that".

And there's virtually nothing in there about the lack of basics for the soldiers -  so people think the soldiers are fine they just dont' have subs or tanks, but when was the last time we fought on the ocean or invaded poland? What do we need that stuff for'? I'm not giving up free lesbian dance theory to pay for that.

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

 

I tried to put this into perspective but i was into 5 paras and only half way done...

I do NOT doubt that :)  The situation is abysmal.

But for it to change the public has to care. And right now the public is being sheltered from the worst of it. THey're being told that aside from some older planes and no torpedo subs the military is capable and we're damn proud of them here at the gov't! So don't you worry.

They're also being told that we dont' need a bigger military, we don't attack people. We're peacekeepers.

So there's zero sense in the public that there IS a problem here. And it's tough because as long as the media and the politicians want to spread that thinking it's brutally hard to educate the people.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

 

I see the problem with both eyes wide open, but I'm not the problem the public is...refusing to see it is a "THEM" problem, not a me problem,

Well yes and no.  I mean  it's not you.  But it's not really the public either per se. They believe what they're told - sure maybe some gear is old but mostly it's all good. And the military is limited in how much they can say to the public to educate them.

And the good our military does is severely downplayed in schools and education - sure we're proud of them but they're peacekeepers right? And the worlds best snipers! So there you go we're good.

What probably has to happen for things to change is for a civilian org of ex military or well educated civvies to set up shop wiht the express intent of educating the public with a free voice and shaming the gov't like hell especially during election time and becoming a genunie advocacy  group.

But my feeling is that idea will rub military people the wrong way. It'll feel like begging or whining to the public. But that's how things get done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

They are junk, take a look what everyone else is using, they helos we wanted the first time are the best there is or atleast in the top 5 , try and find the Cyclone... 

There were teething problems with the EH-101s (now AH101) that you refer to also  and our own current modernization of the SAR version (Cormorant) that we bought has hit snags too. The Cyclone is new but Sikorsky has a good and trusted reputation overall and the civilian version works just fine. The cause of the tail cracking issue (weight of military EW equipment in the tail) was identified and fixed (reinforced tail section) last year. The 2020 crash of STALKER 22 I understand was due to an autopilot software glitch that they are still working on but in the meantime there is a work around (don’t use the autopilot in certain situations).   Also AFAIK the choppers that “everyone else is using” are mostly the much smaller Seahawks and NH90s  

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

The purchase they are making is for troops in Latvia only...just like the equipment they purchased for Afghanistan, when it is done normally it is sold off or left in the country... don't get you hopes up of all the Army getting this equipment...it has rarely happened in the past...

Yeah its for Latvia for now but some of it is here to stay or will he expanded upon Im sure, the anti-drone stuff especially. 
 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Recruiting right now is aimed at diversification, way to many white people, not enough color..with the recruiting crisses i'm sure if you go to a recruiting center you'll be accepted. and it is common for all ages, the last private i had was 52 years old, he wanted a change in his life he retired before i did at 55. 

Any trade or job, requires you to be in minimum shape, everyone needs to pass PT test once a year, or if your going to be deployed, I get it in todays world it is not socially expectable to exclude people for weight, size, hair color, piercings,  sexual preference, But not many leaders are going top put up with a soldier that can't fight, or is not in shape enough to do minimum physicals tasks, 24 hours a day for days at a time...then your going to find your self on the unemployment line. Average age of the forces in 2014 was 34 years old...

One of the reasons there is army bases in the middle of now where is becasue the Army likes to blow shit up...in the middle of the night, drive on the roads with no lights on, fly helicopters/ jets at tree top level, Civvies don't like that....even the airforce with it's jets and cargo planes operate around the clock... ever heard a C-130 doing engine run ups all night... again people don't like that...And yes it would be nice to have a few bases located near cities, like Edmonton, but to do any exercises your traveling 3 hours to wainwright, try paying that fuel bill for 7000 troops and 1000's of vehicles...

 I agree this has been the plan for decades, and in some cases regular force units do take out reserve units when feesable, but keep in mind reserve units are mostly students and people with regular jobs, so the summer time is their best time , while for regular force units late summer time is leave period, and reserve units have a training time table as well, it is hard to make both sides line up... it is also common for Regular force units to take on reserves in full time position in regular force units, to fill out vacant positions, normally for a full year.

I didn’t say there won’t be challenges but the CAFs personnel shortage problems are in large part due to the fact that not enough people want to join the military. I barely ever see CAF recruiting ads and when I do they’re always aimed at young people. How many 50 yr old recruits are there really? The CAF needs to start ACTIVELY promoting itself to these individuals rather than simply passively accepting them if they happen to apply. Do the CAF’s accountants and IT support and Public Relations officers really need to be combat capable and in peak physical shape?  Do they really need to be ion remote bases where things get blown up even though they don’t blow anything up?  The CAF really needs to rethink who REALLY needs to be on remote bases and who REALLY needs to live there full time vs simply deploying there as needed. 

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Or if they have good jobs already there is something the spouse can live in one pronvince and the other goes to the military base they are posted Unaccompanied posting... it is not very common, but possible, i know of lots of couples that did it... please note it is very difficult on the marriage..

Yeah no kidding. Col. Russel Williams had the unaccompanied posting and he ended up becoming a Serial killer and rapist.  Yet another reason to give it it a rethink.   Again I’m not suggesting you can have an artillery range in downtown Toronto, I’m asking if the Brigade’s accountants and IT architects need to be posted to Petawawa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

There were teething problems with the EH-101s (now AH101) that you refer to also  and our own current modernization of the SAR version (Cormorant) that we bought has hit snags too. The Cyclone is new but Sikorsky has a good and trusted reputation overall and the civilian version works just fine. The cause of the tail cracking issue (weight of military EW equipment in the tail) was identified and fixed (reinforced tail section) last year. The 2020 crash of STALKER 22 I understand was due to an autopilot software glitch that they are still working on but in the meantime there is a work around (don’t use the autopilot in certain situations).   Also AFAIK the choppers that “everyone else is using” are mostly the much smaller Seahawks and NH90s  

 

Yeah its for Latvia for now but some of it is here to stay or will he expanded upon Im sure, the anti-drone stuff especially. 
 

I didn’t say there won’t be challenges but the CAFs personnel shortage problems are in large part due to the fact that not enough people want to join the military. I barely ever see CAF recruiting ads and when I do they’re always aimed at young people. How many 50 yr old recruits are there really? The CAF needs to start ACTIVELY promoting itself to these individuals rather than simply passively accepting them if they happen to apply. Do the CAF’s accountants and IT support and Public Relations officers really need to be combat capable and in peak physical shape?  Do they really need to be ion remote bases where things get blown up even though they don’t blow anything up?  The CAF really needs to rethink who REALLY needs to be on remote bases and who REALLY needs to live there full time vs simply deploying there as needed. 

 

Yeah no kidding. Col. Russel Williams had the unaccompanied posting and he ended up becoming a Serial killer and rapist.  Yet another reason to give it it a rethink.   Again I’m not suggesting you can have an artillery range in downtown Toronto, I’m asking if the Brigade’s accountants and IT architects need to be posted to Petawawa. 

1.... one needs to ask the question WHY, we are the only nation to take a cyclone and pack it over stuffed with the kitchen sink, when everyone else is using EH101, Sea hawks. Most countries have a similar equipment purchase set up as we do, only 1000 times faster, the navy wanted the EH101 becasue at the time it was the best there is, and was compatible with our SAR helos. 

2.  Most of the equipment they purchased for Afghanistan, armoured logistic truck fleet, gone...MRAPS gone, M777 they purchased another 24 for a total of 30 , to put that into perspective, each Arty regt was suppose to have 24 guns each for each or the 3 brigades.... the rental MI-9 helos gone, the purchase Ch-147D from US army gone...You see the patern here... it is one thing to say we have it in inventory, and then they make it sound every unit has them, not true.. same for specialized anti mine equipment, specialized Cell tracking equipment, all gone... what we did keep is anti IED tech and devices now standard equipment of most fighting vehicles...

3.... it is not common, but it does tell you that they are taking in anyone that can pass the weakened standards.

Yes everyone needs to be physical fit, the battle field can be any where in Afghanistan we had FOBS, any soldier male or female, and what ever their job was , is expected to defend or conduct military operations, from resupplying troops via vehicle convoys,  meaning going to where the fight is...or defending the base they are housed at, manning gates, towers, defensive positions/ bunkers, operating crew served weapons', anti tank weapons, grenades, radios, plus on top of all that and more do there own jobs,  making sure all the paper work is done, paying troops, providing medical and dental services, religious services, ammo and supply, and keeping all the equipment running....when they say drive it like you stole it, thats what that means....to making sure they have all their clothing and equipment they need... for every person on the front it takes 100 people to support them, from bullets to beans, to everything else they use...right down to shit paper, it was common that when the combat guys went out on operations we would be gone for 2 to 3 weeks, i would try to drink on average 8 to 10 lts bottles of water each day, and wash in one or 2 each day... resupply came to us or near us  every few days, or everyday after a contact with the enemy...Men and women of every trade conduct these missions...if your not fit you won't last very long in plus 55 desert heat. 

Like i said for every combat soldier there is about 100 supporting them...every where the fighting guys are the support guys are not that far off...Our military could afford to lose a few bases, Try to convince a politicians of that, not going to happen...the military's is pretty much cut to the bone right now when it comes to bases...most large military bases have a long heritage, Petawawa was created just before WWI, entire towns and cities have grown around them...

Military bases operate 24 hours a day, with NO days off, you can go there during X-mas and find the base still active to some degree...all units have duty personal on duty every hour of the day... and no, everyone in these remote bases lives close by, by regulations... there are duty units, which during that period, they are restricted from taking leave or courses, that unit will be the first out the door if something happens, normally within 24 to 48 hours. be it military, or domestic, or disaster assistance. This is the military, when you join you lose a shit ton of freedoms everyone else has...like living a certain area, your working hours sometimes 24 hours a day for days..., training hours, being on duty, you have very little say on most things...and your family is along for the ride...

every man and every women has a job to do with the brigade, including fighting and defending then their job...... everyone is a soldier first trades person last...and now that they are short 10,000 those jobs still need to get down, everyday, so now people are getting burned out, combine all of that with people taking courses, leave, deployments, and soon your numbers are even lower...

And Col Williams was a wing nut, and like every department or job, your going to have turds in your salad...thank god he was caught and is now getting spoon fed his salad by a guy named bubba... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

 

 

 

I do NOT doubt that :)  The situation is abysmal.

But for it to change the public has to care. And right now the public is being sheltered from the worst of it. THey're being told that aside from some older planes and no torpedo subs the military is capable and we're damn proud of them here at the gov't! So don't you worry.

They're also being told that we dont' need a bigger military, we don't attack people. We're peacekeepers.

So there's zero sense in the public that there IS a problem here. And it's tough because as long as the media and the politicians want to spread that thinking it's brutally hard to educate the people.

Well yes and no.  I mean  it's not you.  But it's not really the public either per se. They believe what they're told - sure maybe some gear is old but mostly it's all good. And the military is limited in how much they can say to the public to educate them.

And the good our military does is severely downplayed in schools and education - sure we're proud of them but they're peacekeepers right? And the worlds best snipers! So there you go we're good.

What probably has to happen for things to change is for a civilian org of ex military or well educated civvies to set up shop wiht the express intent of educating the public with a free voice and shaming the gov't like hell especially during election time and becoming a genunie advocacy  group.

But my feeling is that idea will rub military people the wrong way. It'll feel like begging or whining to the public. But that's how things get done.

I'm concerned, as should everyone, but if or when the shit hits the fan, I'm not the one going to be in the reporting center, getting fitted for my new uniform... it's going to be the sons and daughters of those that thought everything is OK... And while i hear what your saying the average joe doe s not know how bad things are, becasue that is what the hear from the government, and yet since when did we put our faith in to the government, when did we start trusting them to the point we believe them about this, and not vaccines, or climate change, or gun control, or health care, education, 1 million genders, the list goes on... we question all of it, but for some reason we trust them on military matters...I have seen enough red flags in the media to start asking questions, talking to friends still serving and they time after time say it is a lot worse than they are saying... 

And after all that because i'm not the only veteran talking about this... the guys still serving are screaming about it on social media..., which perplexes me on how people do not know, or maybe they hear what they want to hear... ever system in Canada has major problems with it why would DND be immune to it...any ways the world is a crazy place...and now more than ever do we need a robust security apparatus.

Every conflict we have attended we have started of ill prepared, criminally ill prepared... and Canadians have paid for those mistakes with their lives... and we have learned nothing from our history...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 since when did we put our faith in to the government, when did we start trusting them to the point we believe them about this, and not vaccines, or climate change, or gun control, or health care, education, 1 million genders, the list goes on...

Since June 25th 1968 actually.

 

21 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

we question all of it, but for some reason we trust them on military matters...

Most don't question any of it. They believe there's a billion genders they believe refusing the vaccine is tantamount to murder, they are convinced the carbon tax will sort out climate change. That is the majority of Canadians.

21 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I have seen enough red flags in the media to start asking questions, talking to friends still serving and they time after time say it is a lot worse than they are saying... 

And always has been.

The problem is the gov't has better media people than the military.

21 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And after all that because i'm not the only veteran talking about this... the guys still serving are screaming about it on social media..., which perplexes me on how people do not know, or maybe they hear what they want to hear...

When your echo chamber ideals and extensive gov't conditioning state something and someone else says it's different, the conditioning tends to win,.

21 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Every conflict we have attended we have started of ill prepared, criminally ill prepared... and Canadians have paid for those mistakes with their lives... and we have learned nothing from our history...

Exactly. Which is why they keep getting away with it,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

1.... one needs to ask the question WHY, we are the only nation to take a cyclone and pack it over stuffed with the kitchen sink, when everyone else is using EH101, Sea hawks. Most countries have a similar equipment purchase set up as we do, only 1000 times faster, the navy wanted the EH101 becasue at the time it was the best there is, and was compatible with our SAR helos. 

Years ago during the first decade of the sea king replacement debacle I read that CAF doctrine requires large maritime helicopters (Sea King was also large) so that the helicopter could easily re-task from one mission to another without having to waste time returning to ship/base to reconfigure and re-equip (in particular, respond to a rescue call in our vast territorial and arctic waters). The original Mulroney era contract was for up to 50 EH101s to fill both SAR and MH roles replacing Sea King and the Labrador SAR helo. For the much later MH contract which I believe was circa 2003 or 2004 I don’t know if EH101 was still a favourite and I think they even dropped out or weren’t in the running and it was just down to the S-92 and the NH90 (which also had/has teething problems of its own). Keep in mind there were unsolved problems with cracks in the EH101 / Cormorant tail rotor hub that had just come to light at the time that resulted in the entire fleet being grounded. Aside from taking many years to successfully re-engineer the defective part (at least one set of redesigned part’s also cracked), AFAIK there are still some permanent operating restrictions and increased inspections required on the aircraft. 

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

2.  Most of the equipment they purchased for Afghanistan, armoured logistic truck fleet, gone...MRAPS gone, M777 they purchased another 24 for a total of 30 , to put that into perspective, each Arty regt was suppose to have 24 guns each for each or the 3 brigades.... the rental MI-9 helos gone, the purchase Ch-147D from US army gone...You see the patern here... it is one thing to say we have it in inventory, and then they make it sound every unit has them, not true.. same for specialized anti mine equipment, specialized Cell tracking equipment, all gone... what we did keep is anti IED tech and devices now standard equipment of most fighting vehicles...

Yes I’m mostly just being optimistic that this gear will stick around long term. Even if some of it’s just kept in theatre for different rotations to use that could be suitable. I think the MANPAD and anti-drone are going to be core requirements they will bring back to the units though. PAXM we will see. Dedicated anti-tank might not get procured in large numbers if there’s still a belief that the future is still mostly counter-insurgency / low intensity but something that can be used in those other scenarios against bunkers etc will probably get proliferated. I believe DND already stated they were going to replace the entire Carl G and M72 inventory with the newest versions.   We still have the Chinooks, in fact we now have 15 the newer CH-147F, procured in 2013 as opposed to the 6 D versions we had in Afghanistan. Fun fact from DND: 

The Canadian version of the model-F Chinook is recognized by allies as the most advanced version available, due in part to specific technology developed as a component of this project. Several countries have signaled their interest in purchasing Canada's Chinook configuration. Canada will receive royalties from Boeing for every aircraft sold to international customers following the technology developed as part of this project.

 

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes everyone needs to be physical fit, the battle field can be any where in Afghanistan we had FOBS, any soldier male or female, and what ever their job was , is expected to defend or conduct military operations,

Yeah but the reality is most accountants and IT help desk and office staff will never deploy to a conflict theatre anyway. The CAF shout realists about how many actually need to be deployment ready and how many are just needed for the home front. You don’t need 100% of your accountants to be fit and combat capable, you only need enough of those to have a reasonable selection when an operation comes up, the majority of the accountant corps are just doing paperwork on the home front at any given moment 

 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Our military could afford to lose a few bases, Try to convince a politicians of that, not going to happen...the military's is pretty much cut to the bone right now when it comes to bases...most large military bases have a long heritage, Petawawa was created just before WWI, entire towns and cities have grown around them...

Im not suggesting we close any bases. Im suggesting we expand to have more bases or facilities that are close to population areas and think clearly about who needs to work from which location. Expanding the Reserves and opening more armouries is am easy start. Im in the GTA, population 7 million and there is only 1  reserve unit within a 30 minute drive. It’s an “armoured” regiment which in the reserve means they drive around in G-Wagons and Silverados pretending they’re tanks or Coyotes and there are no other trades or occupations at that location from what I can tell. No thanks. 
 

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

and now that they are short 10,000 those jobs still need to get down, everyday, so now people are getting burned out, combine all of that with people taking courses, leave, deployments, and soon your numbers are even lower...

Exactly. That’s going to continue to be the case until the CAF figures out how to become an attractive employment option for Canadians. Doing more of the same with closed mind and a fossilized understanding of the world is only going to make the problem worse. One of the biggest differences been government and the private sector is that government including the military is terrified of change and innovation and obsessed with following the established policy above all else simply because it is the established policy. By contrast the private sector is far more likely to simply develop new solutions to their problems without fretting over any sacred cows.

You can’t just sit there and hope that the things you’ve been doing that haven’t been working for decades will suddenly start working you have to accept that you will need to change the way things are done. “That’s not how we currently do it” is not a valid excuse to resist needed reforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Years ago during the first decade of the sea king replacement debacle I read that CAF doctrine requires large maritime helicopters (Sea King was also large) so that the helicopter could easily re-task from one mission to another without having to waste time returning to ship/base to reconfigure and re-equip (in particular, respond to a rescue call in our vast territorial and arctic waters). The original Mulroney era contract was for up to 50 EH101s to fill both SAR and MH roles replacing Sea King and the Labrador SAR helo. For the much later MH contract which I believe was circa 2003 or 2004 I don’t know if EH101 was still a favourite and I think they even dropped out or weren’t in the running and it was just down to the S-92 and the NH90 (which also had/has teething problems of its own). Keep in mind there were unsolved problems with cracks in the EH101 / Cormorant tail rotor hub that had just come to light at the time that resulted in the entire fleet being grounded. Aside from taking many years to successfully re-engineer the defective part (at least one set of redesigned part’s also cracked), AFAIK there are still some permanent operating restrictions and increased inspections required on the aircraft. 

Yes I’m mostly just being optimistic that this gear will stick around long term. Even if some of it’s just kept in theatre for different rotations to use that could be suitable. I think the MANPAD and anti-drone are going to be core requirements they will bring back to the units though. PAXM we will see. Dedicated anti-tank might not get procured in large numbers if there’s still a belief that the future is still mostly counter-insurgency / low intensity but something that can be used in those other scenarios against bunkers etc will probably get proliferated. I believe DND already stated they were going to replace the entire Carl G and M72 inventory with the newest versions.   We still have the Chinooks, in fact we now have 15 the newer CH-147F, procured in 2013 as opposed to the 6 D versions we had in Afghanistan. Fun fact from DND: 

The Canadian version of the model-F Chinook is recognized by allies as the most advanced version available, due in part to specific technology developed as a component of this project. Several countries have signaled their interest in purchasing Canada's Chinook configuration. Canada will receive royalties from Boeing for every aircraft sold to international customers following the technology developed as part of this project.

 

 

Yeah but the reality is most accountants and IT help desk and office staff will never deploy to a conflict theatre anyway. The CAF shout realists about how many actually need to be deployment ready and how many are just needed for the home front. You don’t need 100% of your accountants to be fit and combat capable, you only need enough of those to have a reasonable selection when an operation comes up, the majority of the accountant corps are just doing paperwork on the home front at any given moment 

 

Im not suggesting we close any bases. Im suggesting we expand to have more bases or facilities that are close to population areas and think clearly about who needs to work from which location. Expanding the Reserves and opening more armouries is am easy start. Im in the GTA, population 7 million and there is only 1  reserve unit within a 30 minute drive. It’s an “armoured” regiment which in the reserve means they drive around in G-Wagons and Silverados pretending they’re tanks or Coyotes and there are no other trades or occupations at that location from what I can tell. No thanks. 
 

Exactly. That’s going to continue to be the case until the CAF figures out how to become an attractive employment option for Canadians. Doing more of the same with closed mind and a fossilized understanding of the world is only going to make the problem worse. One of the biggest differences been government and the private sector is that government including the military is terrified of change and innovation and obsessed with following the established policy above all else simply because it is the established policy. By contrast the private sector is far more likely to simply develop new solutions to their problems without fretting over any sacred cows.

You can’t just sit there and hope that the things you’ve been doing that haven’t been working for decades will suddenly start working you have to accept that you will need to change the way things are done. “That’s not how we currently do it” is not a valid excuse to resist needed reforms. 

Look i get it,  you think the S-92 is the best Aircraft on the market, and while i'm not a naval expert, i will say this, if it is so good why are other navies not using it, they run similar tests and research as we did, their requirements are not much different than ours. In this process being better or best is not the main objective here, what plays a greater role is can it be made in Canada, what and how much is the offsets, meaning what is the company going to give back to Canada i call it the bribe, is there any other Governmental department that will benefit, etc...lets not forget the military will test every model that the civies procurement guys pick,  military writes glowing reports this is the one we want, it is then the final decision is made by a politician, who may like the color , design, or like the offsets, the military is just happy to be getting something new, not like they can refuse to take it...

You can be optimistic, i did that for 34 years and i might have paid off once or twice...we currently do have air defence people in the CF, just no anti air defense equipment per say, we have radars, but nothing to shot at anything...and only one unit here in Gagetown, there not even call air defense any more...The Ukrainian war has shown us a few things if you don't have a layered air defense everything else is going to die...also anti tank missiles in the hands of grunts can be used to devastating effect...but we knew this when we got rid of inventory of anti tank systems... M-72 LAWS are pretty much useless against a modern tank, we pretty much used them to take out bunkers or MG position... or trucks... 84mm CG are pretty much used on IFV, you could disable or get a mobility kill, but your pretty much just going to make them mad ...they turn on thermal sites and you can run all day and still going to be under their guns...so to get a kill you would need a bunch of them all concentrating on one target...not like the movies...to kill a tank you need something heavy like the javelin, or something in the spike family, or old school TOW which is what we got rid of becasue it was expensive..

Yes WOW Canada has a piece of modern equipment the CH147F, 15 of them, not top of the line but close, top of the line would be the new MH147G spec ops helo.. way better than ours , but the US is not willing to part with those secrets with us any ways. which is why we ordered ours pack full of stuff nobody has, becasue ours will be flying 40 years from now...

Here is the reality, you don't get 6 months warning that you are going to deploy or go into an operation normally... so hence the reason there is a minimal pt standard...it's really not that high, and if you seen some of these support people you'd say shit i bet i could do it...besides if you can't make the minimum standard your not going anywhere. until you do , if it continues you will most likely sent to the Hospital, see a dietician, doctor who will put you on a program to get you to the minimum standard, fail to do that and that is grounds for dismal...

YOU say they don't need it, but lets just say your fire team partner is 300 lbs , he has passed his minimum pt test , he gets wounded and can not move , could you pick him up and run under fire to save his life...if you say no then he bleeds out...and the next day you get a new fire team partner...at the same time someone mom is getting a letter, informing her , that her son is dead, becasue someone could not bring him to an aid station...

During Afghanistan, rotations were set up so that every brigade would do 2 in one year, every 3 years you would get atleast one tour... there are guys with more than 8 tours, on average 3 to 5 were normally...thats with everyone healthy and fit... once you start subtracting unhealth guys, life issues, courses, medical issues, mental health issues, soon you had guys doing a tour almost every year...

I'm not sure i'm explaining this right. every member of the CAF will be fit, to at least minimum standards, if not your going to be asked to find work else where... In the fighting units, being fit was held at a much higher standard...and if you failed that then yes it would not take long to see you transferred or reassigned jobs or trades. I watched a female medic pick up a 200 lbs soldier with an additional 50 ponds of equipment under fire in a narrow ally way and run at full speed 100 meters to safety.. yes she was very motivated the Taliban were trying to kill her with everything they had...thats why you need to be in shape...becasue it will safe lives your comrades or your own... This is not about going downtown and working in a office building, it is about military life which rarely gets you in an office if your deployed...

the equipment held at Reserve units is shameful, but it is another indicator just how bad it is at the regular forces side of the house...which is why regular force units regular hire reserves for summer or a full year to expose them to the regular forces side and perhaps pick up a recruit on the side...there are a few Reserve units in the TO area, Dougie's is in TO i believe...and well the reserves also need to grow in size, that should be the regular forces primary recruiting ground, but why do it full time?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...