CdnFox Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 7 hours ago, Venandi said: In any case, it should serve as a real deterrent to this sort of thing happening again the next time people scare themselves, stampede, and feel entitled to trample everything in their path. As we speak I am filling out the paperwork Nominating you for the "Optimist of the year" Award His history has taught us anything, they will absolutely scare themselves, stampede, and feel entitled next time. They will also lock the Japanese up in internment camps, Kill all the dogs and cats to fight the plague, and all of the other stupid things we've done as humans over the yeas when we panic. The best line from Men In Black: "But why not tell the people. People are smart." "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
eyeball Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 7 hours ago, Venandi said: There's an additional bonus too, If this doesn't hurt them financially and embarrass them personally, the eyeholes and Herbs of the world will do it again the very next they frighten themselves. It doesn't hurt me in the least. How would you feel about compensating people if they become sick after exposure to diseased unvaccinated co-workers? 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
ExFlyer Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 On 1/9/2026 at 4:29 PM, I am Groot said: I pay nearly that now, and still have to pay thousands extra for a private doctor and for occasional visits to specialists in the US or Quebec because I don't want to wait two years in Ontario. I also get crime-ridden streets which, btw, are riddled with potholes. So, you choose to pay "thousands"...OK. Crime and potholes are generally a municipal and provincial problem. Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
ExFlyer Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 (edited) On 1/14/2026 at 5:02 PM, I am Groot said: Canada is going to buy new helicopters. It will take about 2-3 years to deliver them once ordered. We're planning on having them all in place in about 12 years. Consider that for a moment. We will spend about 8-9 years on the PROCESS before ordering them. Boy, Carney's new procurement system is lightning fast! Government moving faster than we've eer seen it! https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/defence-watch/new-canadian-forces-helicopters The Griffon was a mistake from the get-go. Trying to turn basically a commercial helicopter into a Military one was doomed to failure and in the ongoing years, it has been proven to be a failure. So much maintenance, so many modification and reduction in capability plagued the Griffon. As for 8-9 years of process...well, the Military would be quite sure what it wants but...the government and all the non military players wanting their piece of the pie will for sure drag the process on. It has nothing to do with "Carneys" system. Our Military procurement has been awful for half a century....ask any military person. I was involved with 2 major crown projects...the SAR helicopter replacement and the Sea King replacement. The biggest hold ups and issues and problems were with the Regional Development agencies. ACOA, (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), from the Atlantic Provinces and CED (Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions) which is the worst to deal with, Ontario and, the West (which has now separated into Prairies and BC.) Plus there is now the North. And as always, there was also input required from the indigenous. So, getting all them together was, to say the least, a challenge. LOL. Hence, that is why it takes so long to buy defence products. All those folks need to get their slice and can hold things up if they don't. Edited January 24 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
I am Groot Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 (edited) 55 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: As for 8-9 years of process...well, the Military would be quite sure what it wants but...the government and all the non military players wanting their piece of the pie will for sure drag the process on. It has nothing to do with "Carneys" system. Our Military procurement has been awful for half a century....ask any military person. We are permitted under international trade rules, to do sole source contracts in cases of national security. I don't think we'd have a difficult time justifying doing a bunch of them right now to buy subs, helicopters, tanks, anti-aircraft and antiarmor missiles, armored vehicles, etc. Given the international situation, that is exactly what we should be doing, should have already done. Edited January 24 by I am Groot 1 Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
ExFlyer Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 10 minutes ago, I am Groot said: We are permitted under international trade rules, to do sole source contracts in cases of national security. I don't think we'd have a difficult time justifying doing a bunch of them right now to buy subs, helicopters, tanks, anti-aircraft and antiarmor missiles, armored vehicles, etc. Given the international situation, that is exactly what we should be doing, should have already done. Yes we are but...we do not , especially for major crown procurement projects. As I mentioned, there are too many players demanding significant slices of the pie to be able to satisfy them all and pi$$ing any one of them off would be political disaster. Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Venandi Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, eyeball said: How would you feel about compensating people if they become sick after exposure to... an experamental vaccine they were coerced into taking to save their job. 2 hours ago, eyeball said: ....diseased unvaccinated co-workers? Actually, the real money would be in compensating people exposed to diseased vaccinated co-workers. 2 hours ago, eyeball said: It doesn't hurt me in the least. Sometimes pain compliance techniques don't work on the mentally ill. Edited January 24 by Venandi Quote
eyeball Posted January 24 Report Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Venandi said: an experamental vaccine they were coerced into taking to save their job. It simply became a condition of employment. They always had a choice to find an employer whose conditions they agree with. 2 hours ago, Venandi said: Actually, the real money would be in compensating people exposed to diseased vaccinated co-workers. Exposure from vaccine cooties? LMAO! They even have dating sites and clubs for people freaked out about vaccine cooties. 2 hours ago, Venandi said: Sometimes pain compliance techniques don't work on the mentally ill. So violent coercion you mean? That rarely works on anyone but that never stops you people from trying. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Army Guy Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 (edited) 6 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Yes we are but...we do not , especially for major crown procurement projects. As I mentioned, there are too many players demanding significant slices of the pie to be able to satisfy them all and pi$$ing any one of them off would be political disaster. you forgot about C-17, CH147F, CH`147D, then the Russian helos, G wagon, Mercedes heavy trucks, additional C-130J, New Leopard tanks..... it seems we only take our time when the liberals are in charge...not to mention anything for Latvia, like anti systems, drones, new light wheel trucks which were purchased by the liberals to make it look good...but hardly major programs... Edited January 25 by Army Guy 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Venandi Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 (edited) A final thought and it's simply because the military releases bug me... it ended more careers than you probably think, the official numbers are actually disciplinary releases (and artificially low) because they don't include voluntary ones undertaken to avoid a disciplinary outcome. If you want to pursue this further start a new thread. 12 hours ago, eyeball said: It simply became a condition of employment. They always had a choice.. Pretty stark choices and it illustrates the sort of heavy handed abuse of power “you people” have been repeatedly warned about. I think it was a bad precedent to set and casually dismissing coercion as being a “choice” virtually ensures that it will spawn other coercive choices that will be applied to things you don’t like in the future. Self deport or we’ll deport you by force" is a choice too… and it’s built on the foundation of your own logic. 12 hours ago, eyeball said: Exposure from vaccine cooties? LMAO! That ass must be creeping down your leg and dragging on the floor by now. Since you weren’t paying attention during that covid thingy it might surprise you to know I refer to exposure via vaccinated sick people… the ones who loudly asserted the vaccine prevented transmission and later pretended they knew all along that it wouldn’t. 12 hours ago, eyeball said: They even have dating sites and clubs for people freaked out about vaccine cooties. Cool, at least you’ll have something to talk about at dinner; I’m sure she’ll find you just as charming as we do. Wear old clothes though, the red wine she’s drinking will leave a stain. 12 hours ago, eyeball said: So violent coercion you mean? That rarely works on anyone... POOF… progress at last. Violent coercion is a close cousin to the administrative coercion you already defend. Both provide undeniable short term gains for those holding the power to wield it. After the fact considerations always make it a function of legality, the validity of the agenda itself and it invariably sets precedents we will all live with later. Both are techniques of compliance and both are deliberately applied in support of a selected agenda whether that be handcuffing a bad guy or compelling vaccination. It’s also worth noting that both are directed at an unwilling participant… an important consideration for establishing those future precedents. Left unchecked, the intensity and intrusiveness of both versions will incrementally increase over time… and it starts with condoning a single step in that direction. Turns out we have an entire thread and a lot of debate on choices resulting from precedent. And here's the rub, if memory serves you don’t like how parallel (but opposite) choices are already playing out in Mn right now… more stark choices are likely coming there. So... if you’re content to let the see-saw of political polarization decide such things in a “choice of the day” manner when you happen to be in charge, be assured that you won’t like the new choices on offer when your not. Edited January 25 by Venandi Quote
ExFlyer Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 (edited) 12 hours ago, Army Guy said: you forgot about C-17, CH147F, CH`147D, then the Russian helos, G wagon, Mercedes heavy trucks, additional C-130J, New Leopard tanks..... it seems we only take our time when the liberals are in charge...not to mention anything for Latvia, like anti systems, drones, new light wheel trucks which were purchased by the liberals to make it look good...but hardly major programs... The conservatives were not friends of the Military. Answer from AI to question: "Have conservative governments been military friendly"...... "Conservative governments in Canada have historically purported a "military-friendly" image, emphasizing strong national defense, increased equipment procurement, and support for veterans. However, this record is mixed, with critics often pointing to gaps between rhetoric and actions, particularly regarding funding levels, procurement delays, and support for injured veterans during their time in power (notably under the Harper government)" The same procurement processes and political and agency interference were involved in all our Military procurement, regardless who was in power. Edited January 25 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
eyeball Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 4 hours ago, Venandi said: Both are techniques of compliance and both are deliberately applied in support of a selected agenda whether that be handcuffing a bad guy or compelling vaccination. Or waiting for a red light to turn green. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Venandi Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 34 minutes ago, eyeball said: Or waiting for a red light to turn green. Since I don't know wtf you're talking about and suspect you don't either, you should pursue your train of logical absurdity on the tracks of a new thread. I've got nothing else for you.... Quote
eyeball Posted January 25 Report Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Venandi said: Since I don't know wtf you're talking about and suspect you don't either, you should pursue your train of logical absurdity on the tracks of a new thread. I'm just talking about rules and following them. Whether it's a traffic light or murder there are rules and laws that compel us to get with the program. We do have choices but we also have consequences. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Zeitgeist Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 The latest defense loser move: McGuinty says Canada won’t be pursuing nuclear weapons. Can we please have serious smart people in charge of defending our country? Quote
Army Guy Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 48 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: The latest defense loser move: McGuinty says Canada won’t be pursuing nuclear weapons. Can we please have serious smart people in charge of defending our country? I agree with him, and I'm sure he has not had a valid military thought in his life, and I'm sure this very thought has come out of the our Military....I don't think Canada has the budget or know how to operate Nuks, not sure the Nuclear club will allow another member....pretty sure the US would Veto that anyways....one thing the world does not need any more of, is another nation holding nukes....What does it give us really, power, sovereignty, freedom for attack...Israel has had nukes and is still attacked, you'd need more than one to make a difference... dozens at the very least....and then what we maintain them, spend bils upgrading them...only to dismantle them in the end... The world has enough nuks to kill it thousands of times over....you don't even need to be hit with one , just wait for the fall out to settle that's traveling around on the trade winds, to kill every last Canadian....Radiation poisoning is a horrible way to die BTW...will it make you feel better knowing we had a role killing bils....not going to change anything... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 20 minutes ago, Army Guy said: I agree with him, and I'm sure he has not had a valid military thought in his life, and I'm sure this very thought has come out of the our Military....I don't think Canada has the budget or know how to operate Nuks, not sure the Nuclear club will allow another member....pretty sure the US would Veto that anyways....one thing the world does not need any more of, is another nation holding nukes....What does it give us really, power, sovereignty, freedom for attack...Israel has had nukes and is still attacked, you'd need more than one to make a difference... dozens at the very least....and then what we maintain them, spend bils upgrading them...only to dismantle them in the end... The world has enough nuks to kill it thousands of times over....you don't even need to be hit with one , just wait for the fall out to settle that's traveling around on the trade winds, to kill every last Canadian....Radiation poisoning is a horrible way to die BTW...will it make you feel better knowing we had a role killing bils....not going to change anything... If they're so useless why did the other nuclear powers bother? If you are saying that nuclear weapons have no deterrent effect then you're stepping outside of your military knowledge and entering into political knowledge which is something that I have a lot more experience with than military. Nuclear weapons are absolutely a deterrent. And they absolutely do limit the size and nature of attacks. I would refer you to the attacks we saw in the 60s and 70s where their opponents attempted to destroy Israel in a very serious fashion. Since acquiring nuclear weapons that has never happened. They will harass and pressure Israel but they make certain never to threaten its existence for fear of retaliation. Russia and china, are two biggest components, but certainly be very reluctant to set foot on Canadian soil if they knew that there might be a nuclear exchange We absolutely can afford to have a small nuclear arsenal. And it should be considered. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Zeitgeist Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 (edited) 2 hours ago, Army Guy said: I agree with him, and I'm sure he has not had a valid military thought in his life, and I'm sure this very thought has come out of the our Military....I don't think Canada has the budget or know how to operate Nuks, not sure the Nuclear club will allow another member....pretty sure the US would Veto that anyways....one thing the world does not need any more of, is another nation holding nukes....What does it give us really, power, sovereignty, freedom for attack...Israel has had nukes and is still attacked, you'd need more than one to make a difference... dozens at the very least....and then what we maintain them, spend bils upgrading them...only to dismantle them in the end... The world has enough nuks to kill it thousands of times over....you don't even need to be hit with one , just wait for the fall out to settle that's traveling around on the trade winds, to kill every last Canadian....Radiation poisoning is a horrible way to die BTW...will it make you feel better knowing we had a role killing bils....not going to change anything... Canada has had the technology to build nukes for decades. It’s old had. We export reactors. We need the power of life and death over any potential enemy. Knowing Canada can nuke your major cities is enough deterrent. Of course it’s absurd to even consider using them against just about any country, but it does put certain threats to our country to bed. We’re not a small country anymore. With over 40 million people and plans to add many more millions we can justify harder power. Edited February 4 by Zeitgeist Quote
BeaverFever Posted February 4 Author Report Posted February 4 57 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Canada has had the technology to build nukes for decades. It’s old had. We export reactors. We need the power of life and death over any potential enemy. Knowing Canada can nuke your major cities is enough deterrent. Of course it’s absurd to even consider using them against just about any country, but it does put certain threats to our country to bed. We’re not a small country anymore. With over 40 million people and plans to add many more millions we can justify harder power. 1) The USA will not allow foreign controlled nukes on its border. The second they catch wind of our ambition even a progressive democrat would hit us with punishing sanctions or military action or our leading nuclear scientists would fall out of windows or all of the above, years before we ever actually had a functional nuke. The only nukes they would ever allow would be US military deployed on Canadian soil 2) There is no threat Canadian nukes would deter. In fact it t would be an invitation for America to invade It is not realistic to expect that Canada would respond to a conventional invasion by launching a nuclear first strike against anyone especially because the other nuclear powers have thousands of warheads that will blow Canada off the map. Secondly the only country we realistically have to worry about invading us is USA and even if we somehow prevented a nuclear retaliation from them we’d still be irradiating ourselves as we’d surely experience some of the fallout. Case in point: India and Pakistan both have nukes, India recently bombed sites across Pakistan. Russia has nukes, Ukraine invaded and held Russian territory for over a year without a nuclear response. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 (edited) 11 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: 1) The USA will not allow foreign controlled nukes on its border. Don't tell him to god until we got them I doubt they'd start a nuclear war over it. And we no longer care what the Americans think. If they don't like the idea they are absolutely welcome to come talk to us about a whole range of issues we have with them right now and maybe we can work something out 12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: 2) There is no threat Canadian nukes would deter. In fact it t would be an invitation for America to invade Absolute 100 percent bullshit. There is EVERY reason canada would respond to an invasion with nuclear strikes, and if the US struck back it would be dropping nukes right on the doorsteps of it's own cities. Nobody would risk it. You think russia would be in ukrane right now if they still had nukes? Nopers. Edited February 4 by CdnFox Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Zeitgeist Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 (edited) 28 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: 1) The USA will not allow foreign controlled nukes on its border. The second they catch wind of our ambition even a progressive democrat would hit us with punishing sanctions or military action or our leading nuclear scientists would fall out of windows or all of the above, years before we ever actually had a functional nuke. The only nukes they would ever allow would be US military deployed on Canadian soil 2) There is no threat Canadian nukes would deter. In fact it t would be an invitation for America to invade It is not realistic to expect that Canada would respond to a conventional invasion by launching a nuclear first strike against anyone especially because the other nuclear powers have thousands of warheads that will blow Canada off the map. Secondly the only country we realistically have to worry about invading us is USA and even if we somehow prevented a nuclear retaliation from them we’d still be irradiating ourselves as we’d surely experience some of the fallout. Case in point: India and Pakistan both have nukes, India recently bombed sites across Pakistan. Russia has nukes, Ukraine invaded and held Russian territory for over a year without a nuclear response. The Americans offered us nukes decades ago. We don’t have them on our soil but have the capability to carry and drop them already. We can deploy them already. Britain and France have them. Canada has the right to defend itself. Edited February 4 by Zeitgeist Quote
I am Groot Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 On 1/25/2026 at 7:56 AM, ExFlyer said: The conservatives were not friends of the Military. Answer from AI to question: " I find that AI answers are often wrong. They can be changed depending on the wording of the question. And they're often influenced by things as ephemeral as Reddit posts. On 1/25/2026 at 7:56 AM, ExFlyer said: Have conservative governments been military friendly"...... "Conservative governments in Canada have historically purported a "military-friendly" image, emphasizing strong national defense, increased equipment procurement, and support for veterans. However, this record is mixed, with critics often pointing to gaps between rhetoric and actions, No one refers to Harper's time in power as a decade of darkness. Nor Mulroney's. And it was under Trudeau that the military virtually fell apart while he was busy genuflecting to BLM, feminism, identity politics, and fashionable antiracism. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
ExFlyer Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: I find that AI answers are often wrong. They can be changed depending on the wording of the question. And they're often influenced by things as ephemeral as Reddit posts. No one refers to Harper's time in power as a decade of darkness. Nor Mulroney's. And it was under Trudeau that the military virtually fell apart while he was busy genuflecting to BLM, feminism, identity politics, and fashionable antiracism. AI answers are only wrong is you don't agree with them. Sometimes the facts are not what one wants to hear. I was in the Military for 35 years, under liberal and conservative, and can say that neither were pro military but I can say, the liberals got things done (as little as it may have been LOL) Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
I am Groot Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: AI answers are only wrong is you don't agree with them. Sometimes the facts are not what one wants to hear. I was in the Military for 35 years, under liberal and conservative, and can say that neither were pro military but I can say, the liberals got things done (as little as it may have been LOL) Here's an idea for you. Maybe the Liberals were able to get things done because they didn't have the official opposition fighting furiously to stop them from getting things done. It was the Liberals who fought tooth and nail to stop the tories from buying the EH101 and the F35. I can't recall the tories ever opposing any increase or capital purchase for the military. Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
ExFlyer Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 23 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Here's an idea for you. Maybe the Liberals were able to get things done because they didn't have the official opposition fighting furiously to stop them from getting things done. It was the Liberals who fought tooth and nail to stop the tories from buying the EH101 and the F35. I can't recall the tories ever opposing any increase or capital purchase for the military. You mean like when Harper was in power?? Harper had a majority government. I was on the EH101 (Cormorant) procurement project. The issue, at the time was getting the EH101, which had no SAR and Maritime variants at the time. Also, it was to buy the one type to do both roles and that was not feasible as the ships could not and would not be able to be modified to house the EH101. So, the program was cancelled and later resurrected as 2 procurement projects. As it turned out, we did get the EH101 variant (Cormorant) for SAR. I then worked on the Sea King replacement project and the EH101 was not even bid by Agusta/Westland at the time. The replacement ended up being the Sikorsky Cyclone. The F35 procurement is ongoing. We, Canada Military, have been part of the F35 development program since 1997. Spending millions per year so we could have a stake in it. Chretien was in power in 1997. Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.