Do you support Canadian Troops?

[Mogz]

First of pete, learn to quote.

What the hell do you think a military does in a democracy?? It serves to protect the economic interests of its controllers, so yes, oil is center stage.

A lot more than that actually Pete. I served in Bosnia, did that have any economic impact on Canada? What about Somalia, where was the economic impact there? Haiti? Rwanda? The Golan Heights? Cyprus? Egypt? East Timor? The Congo? Every one of these operations that Canada put troops in to had no economic impact on our economy. Read the news and see the good we're doing in 'ghan, you might learn something.

dig a little deeper. It was nearing production stage. Yes it was the most expensive platform ever developed in Canada, but those costs had already been covered. The per unit costs would have been greatly reduced on full production. The project was halted because it would have been the only effective counter to the U2. That fact was pushed by the American aerospace industry on Ike. Dauglas and Lockheed did not like compitition. And of course the Canadian Conservatives liked to suck up to the Americans.

Uh, the Arrow got more expensive per week due to design flaws. They had to utterly redesign the wings to fit the iroquois engines, something that cost tons of money that late in the game. With regard to the Arrow being a counter for the U2, that makes no sense. The Arrow was an all weather interceptor that was simply much faster than anything at that point in history. Why would the U2 shut down the best thing for the defence of North America just so that their BEST ally wouldn't have a potent aircraft, and as such deny themselves the same fighter? Lastly the U2 is still used today and aircraft can easily tackle them now, so why doesn't the U.S. place this moratorium on all super-sonic aircraft? Oh right, because the whole concept is intellectually bankrupt.

as defence minister he demoralized the military. I quess you're too young to know that, but it still echoes in some parts.

General Hillier has never been the defence minister of Canada, what the hell are you talking about?

So it was a Russian transport, but because I said it, it can't be true. Is there some kind of peculiar bias creeping in here

It wasn't a Russian transport, it was a Russian design. Our CF-18's are made by MacDonald-Douglas, yet they aren't American fighers, they're Canadian. Russia didn't own the aircraft that transport the relief team to New Orleans, it was owned by a French company. As for disagree with you, ever hear of fallacious writing? In a nutshell, your wording of the issue related to the antanov made it sound like we had used a Russian Air Force antanov, I disagreed with the intent of conveying the truth.

so this discredits your response about having the best hardware in the world. In truth we don't. and if we started looking into design and production we would be lightyears ahead of where we are now. We can do it. We need to do it. And often the hardware we could produce would have civilian adoption / use. Like a good twin engine helecopter. But the Americans wouldn't stand for the compitition. Do we even make a decent rifle? I don't think so. We depend on makers such as Colt. and we know their safety record! and their record for smuggling weapons into Canada.

I never said we had the best hardware in the World. I do believe I said, and I quote:

we have some of the most advanced military equipment in the World

Big difference there my friend. With regard to our equipment, there is nothing wrong with anything I listed above. We do have crap equipment, I will admit that, in fact i'm probably one of the chief advocates of getting better stuff, however I refuse to lump all stuff we use as crap. Our small-arms are fine, a lot of our land force vehicles are great, and our Navy has some decent vessels (also some crap ones). With making our own equipment, we do. Our LAV family are all built in Canada, those include:

Grizzlys
Cougars
Bisons
Huskys
Beavers
Badgers
Coyotes
LAV-IIIs
TLAVs

We've exported Grizzlys and LAV-IIIs to the U.S. Marine Corp and U.S. Army Stryker Brigade. In the fall of 2006 France intends to purchase 300 Coyotes after seeing them in action in Afghanistan. As for our rifle, you claim Colt makes it, you're wrong. The C-7, C-7A1, C-7A2, and C8 are all made by Diemaco Canada. They are based on the U.S. M-16A2 and U.S. M-4 Carbine, however are very different in both how they are gas operated and magazine fed. Our barrel on the C-7 is shorter, and we have an entirely different trigger mechanism to improve accuracy. Our weapons in terms of small arms are great. You can take a C-7, bury it in sand (which i've practically done), and it'll fire fine. The U.S. M-16A2 doesn't fire well in cold weather due to how its gas cycle works. We took that flaw and improved it on our C-7s, which fire fine in temperatures up to -50. Lastly we have exported C-7's and C-8's Word wide. In fact the Dutch Army has bought 50,000 C-7s and the Danish Marines use the C-7 due to how well it performs when wet. Also Belgium, France, and Spain have bought C-7's. I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this issue Pete, or at least try not to argue it with a soldier. Whatever suits you best.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Do you support Canadian Troops?

General Hillier has never been the defence minister of Canada, what the hell are you talking about?

This guy maybe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hellyer

 

[Mogz]

Oh god that idiot. The moron who's brain-child was military unification. Every time I see a member of the "purple trades" I want to egg his house. That issue makes me angry, it ranks right up there with peaceniks. Ugh.

 

[snoop]

Canada has been known as a "negotiator country" however I think it is always right to have military forces. For example in Mexico (which everyone knows is a peacefull country) we use our military forces to help in emergency situation such as hurricans, earthquakes, etc.
However, if the question is regarding Afghanistan, then I would say not. Everyone knows this war has hidden (or should I say buried -like oil-) reasons.

 

[PoisonPete2]

Re: RE: Do you support Canadian Troops?

First of pete, learn to quote.

RESPONSE: my form of quote was correct

(quote)
A lot more than that actually Pete. I served in Bosnia, did that have any economic impact on Canada?

RESPONSE: The discussion was about support in Afghanistan. If you bring in other theatres of conflict, the dynamic changes.

Uh, the Arrow got more expensive per week due to design flaws. They had to utterly redesign the wings to fit the iroquois engines, something that cost tons of money that late in the game.

RESPONSE: yes, and the money was spent, and the changes made (as I indicated). All the investment was lost when the project was mothballed following completion.

(quote)
With regard to the Arrow being a counter for the U2, that makes no sense. The Arrow was an all weather interceptor that was simply much faster than anything at that point in history. Why would the U2 shut down the best thing for the defence of North America just so that their BEST ally wouldn't have a potent aircraft, and as such deny themselves the same fighter? Lastly the U2 is still used today and aircraft can easily tackle them now, so why doesn't the U.S. place this moratorium on all super-sonic aircraft? Oh right, because the whole concept is intellectually bankrupt.

RESPONSE: you are either blowing smoke or you do not have an idea of what you are saying. The Arro was the only interceptor capable of the steep climb and rate and accuracy needed to target the U2, which flew at 70thousand feet. The industry objection was that the Arro may fall into the wrong hands. The U2 was made by Lockheed, an American company that did not want Canadian competition. And if the Arro "was simply much faster than anything at that point in history" do you not think it would have gone into production after all that money was spent? Did you not know that today most intelligence surveillence is done from satalite, not from airplanes. So the arguement is intellectually bankrupt. The U2 was used in the Gulf War but there was a 'clear sky' condition (read no enemy in the air). It is now used for research and surveillence over South America.

as defence minister he demoralized the military. I quess you're too young to know that, but it still echoes in some parts.

General Hillier has never been the defence minister of Canada, what the hell are you talking about?

RESPONSE: I do regret the repeated mispelling of the name Hellier. Not even sure that is the proper spelling. I don't sit here with books. First name Paul. Now head of a political party.

 

[PoisonPete2]

Diemaco Canada makes weapons under liscence to Colt. Are you familiar with the history of Colt? the many soldiers maimed by the breach blow-outs due to the known ammunition design flaws.

 

[Jersay]

Hey Sassy, what are you saying about Quebec people.

I'm from Quebec and I want to go on any overseas deployment that I can. However I have to meet all my qualifications first.

 

[Mogz]

The discussion was about support in Afghanistan. If you bring in other theatres of conflict, the dynamic changes.

Funny, here's what you said:

What the hell do you think a military does in a democracy?? It serves to protect the economic interests of its controllers

You never specified Afghanistan there chief. You used a general term. I proved you wrong.

yes, and the money was spent, and the changes made (as I indicated). All the investment was lost when the project was mothballed following completion.

Nice back track. That stance is nothing like how your stance started out. Yes the investment was lost, I never said I agreed the arrow should have been axed, i'm merely educating you as to the REAL reason the project was squashed.

you are either blowing smoke or you do not have an idea of what you are saying. The Arro was the only interceptor capable of the steep climb and rate and accuracy needed to target the U2, which flew at 70thousand feet. The industry objection was that the Arro may fall into the wrong hands. The U2 was made by Lockheed, an American company that did not want Canadian competition. And if the Arro "was simply much faster than anything at that point in history" do you not think it would have gone into production after all that money was spent? Did you not know that today most intelligence surveillence is done from satalite, not from airplanes. So the arguement is intellectually bankrupt. The U2 was used in the Gulf War but there was a 'clear sky' condition (read no enemy in the air). It is now used for research and surveillence over South America.

How does an aircraft fall in to the wrong hands? You don't just park your airplane in a bad neighbourhood, wake up one morning, and realize "oh damn, someone planejacked me". That is the dumbest thing i've ever heard, that's tantamount to saying a B2 Spirit might fall in to Iranian hands and therefore shouldn't have ever been constructed. Or better yet, the Joint Strike Fighter might be stolen by Al-qaeda, quick, stop production. With regard to the Arrow itself, I fully understand what it was capable of, but with that said I fail to see how the U.S. could deem an allied aircraft a threat. It's in the same ballpark as the U.S. deeming British control of nuclear warheads a threat, it's just sheer folly. Couple that with the fact that the U.S. had, as I said earlier, planned to intially buy hundreds of the aircraft and your whole argument doesn't make any sense. Laslty about South America, explain that U2 that thundered in near Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates last year? That's kind of off course from South America no?

Diemaco Canada makes weapons under liscence to Colt. Are you familiar with the history of Colt? the many soldiers maimed by the breach blow-outs due to the known ammunition design flaws.

The rifle may be "licence built", but that's becasue the C series weapons are BASED on Colt design. The same goes for the U.S. Stryker IFV. It is built BASED on Canadian design, and therefore subject to licence by GMCD. With regard to the breach blow-outs, I honestly didn't know that, but as I said above, the C series weapons are BASED on Colt design, they're not replicas. Also, some general FYI, Canada makes its own ammo .

 

[Sassylassie]

I'm not picking on Quebec, it was an example. Viva La Quebec, merci. Jersey I hope you get your wish to go over seas.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: Do you support Canadian Troops?

Although, Canada has never been seen as a military superpower

In World War II we were deemed the most effective ground forces in the World. Our Navy was deemed the best sub-hunters, and our Air Force pilots had the best kill ratio out of all the Allies. We were once a military super power, but those days are gone.

those days are gone----- GOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mogz]

those days are gone

Actually we are still deemed one of the most effective ground forces on the planet in terms of our soldiers. Our light infantry battalions are pretty much unmatched on the World scene, except perhaps by the British Royal Marines or maybe troops from the U.S. 10th Mountain Division.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Do you support Canadi

Lets not forget our elite armoured anti taxi flotilla.

 

[cortez]

Re: RE: Do you support Canadian Troops?

those days are gone

Actually we are still deemed one of the most effective ground forces on the planet in terms of our soldiers. Our light infantry battalions are pretty much unmatched on the World scene, except perhaps by the British Royal Marines or maybe troops from the U.S. 10th Mountain Division.

you have a serious problem

canada is ranked like 50th in the world -- militarily

and thats too good

i would like to see us a nuclear power with full nuclear deterent capability -- in case the yanks or pasty-faced brits wanna -- liberate us---then we can
dispense with the likes of you and your gi joe doll playing woosies
so that you can get a real job
maybe as a --- personal aide to the guy on the red green show!

you are the funniest poster ever!!!

thanks mogz!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mogz]

RE: Do you support Canadi

Persona non grata

 

[cortez]

yawn..

 

[Jersay]

Persona non grata

 

[cortez]

dont put yerself down like that.........

 

[Mogz]

RE: Do you support Canadi

I would like to take the time now to respond properly to this post by cortez. At the time he was acting like an ass and I really didn't feel inclined to respond when someone is acting like a tool. I post this now in an attempt to educate those who were mislead by cortez:

you have a serious problem

canada is ranked like 50th in the world -- militarily

and thats too good

i would like to see us a nuclear power with full nuclear deterent capability -- in case the yanks or pasty-faced brits wanna -- liberate us---then we can
dispense with the likes of you and your gi joe doll playing woosies
so that you can get a real job
maybe as a --- personal aide to the guy on the red green show!

you are the funniest poster ever!!!

thanks mogz!!!!!!!!!!!!

Canada is indeed ranked in the 50's (57th actually) militarily. What cortez fails to point out, either through attempted deception or sheer ignorance (most likely the latter), is that ranking is based on population of the military. With a collective military strength (regular force and reserves class A, B, and C) of around 103,000, Canada does indeed rank low in terms of manpower. My post before said that we were still deemed one of the most effective ground forces on the planet, and we are. Our light infantry is utterly unmatched. We have some of the hardest soldiers in our light battalions, and our training in the dismounted role puts Americans to shame. What people fail to realize about the Canadian Army is that we don't specialize our soldiers like the Americans do. In Canada a soldier learns a robust set of tradecraft skills. For example, an infanteer, learns a whole spectrum of weapons in addition to specialty skills, as well as his general fieldcraft. In the U.S. Army, a soldier is specialized. A machine gunner, a rifleman, a moratarman, there is very little lateral training, and that is one of their major downfalls. While on the subject of light infantry, i'd like to point out that the new face of warfare, the three block war, relies less and less on armored vehicle, and more and more on dismounted soldiers. Since the First World War Canada has maintained a highly trained light infantry capability, comprised of soldiers who do not rely on vehicles or heavy support to get their job done. Each Canadian Army Brigade has a light infantry batallion in it, and these batallions carry everything they need to fight on their backs. The U.S. Army does not have any units that go to this extreme. Their 10th Mountain Division is a light Division, but still relies heavily on vehicles and heavy support weapons to get their job done. Their 6th (light) Infantry Division was completely retooled in 1994, and while it retains the honorific title of "light infantry" it is in actual fact a mechanized division. With regard to Canadian infantry, the people on these forums have no concept of how difficult it is to act as a light infantry soldier. While not an infanteer myself, I luckily do not have to undergo this type of lifestyle on a regular basis, however I have done a dismounted reconnaissance course in Gagetown Newbrunswick, where I spent 2 weeks enduring the light infantry role. Pushing a fully loaded military tobogan through feet of snow with a 100lb rucksack on your back is no easy chore. The men that do this as their primary career are some of the most effective combat soldiers this planet has. We've been seeing this since we entered Afghanistan and even now in 2006. The 3rd Batallion Princess Patricia's Canadian LIGHT Infantry are part of our combat brigade in theatre and they do the bulk of the long range patroling outside of Camp Nathan Smith and Firebase Gombash. As I write this, some 600 members of 3 VP are deployed on Operation Peacemaker (I posted the news article a week ago), high in the mountains of Kandahar Province hunting Taliban strongholds. These men don't have vehicles, they are humping everything they need to fight on their person. Say what you will about the Canadian Forces, I frankly don't care cortez, but words won't change the fact that our ground forces are some of the best in the World.

An American Infantryman receives medical aid for exhaustion as members of the 3rd Batallion Princess Patricias Canadian Light Infantry trudge by.
The Battle of Shah-e-Kot; March 2002

 

[Finder]

I support the Canadian Armed forces... Though I learned from being a member of the armed forces, the extreme right wing is enbedded inside of it in the NCO ranks.

However disagreeing with war is not one in hand in being against the Canadian Armed Forces. No I support the mostly good work they have done in the past with a few exceptions, but it is the policy makers at home. Afcanistan is different from Iraq, with a UN support mission there. However I do think our troops should be wearing the blue helmets as it is a sign of peace keeping. Also UN white should be used as well. We look more like an occupation force right now rather then that of a peace keeping, which leads me to believe the NATO lead mission was not in accroance to UN resolutions. I think further UN envolvment is needed in Afcan.

I do however think there is always room for debate when it comes to our roll in any conflic.


Edit: I didn't make a polling answer since the question wasn't clear enough for me.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Occupation. That is the latest catch phrase used by killers to paint themselves as bictims. Canada no more occupies Afghanistan than Switzerlandland occupies Quebec.

Such nonsense.