: Your Tax Dollars At Work: Canada's New C-17


IronMac
Sep 1st, 2007, 11:26 AM
I remember the controversy on ehMac over the purchase of the new C-17s, here it is on its first mission which was transporting humanitarian aid to Jamaica:

Osprey Media. - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA (http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=665692&catname=Local+News&classif=)

http://www.intelligencer.ca/npimages/newsphotos/file824200774828AM.jpg

Hrmm...wish I could crop out McKay. :o

ArtistSeries
Sep 2nd, 2007, 01:30 PM
By using our new C-17, Canada's new government is responding today to the humanitarian emergency in Jamaica

Just like that phrase, it's a cheap PR exercise...
BTW, was that a no-bid contract from our accountable government?

MacDoc
Sep 2nd, 2007, 02:45 PM
Still THAT's the kind of Canadian Forces equipment I'd like to see us concentrate on.

Greece was a case in point where SAR and firefighting equipment was in short supply.

As a result the EU is looking at a natural disaster force to be created and equipped.

This kind of national/international effort I'd support very strongly.

Enough with the tanks and single engine fighters etc.

The plane pictured may well have a 30 year working life and adds to Canada's wealth.

The coastal patrol vessels also should be put to the head of the line. Once more these can be up to 50 years in service and much preferred over submarines and missile frigates.

As long as we don't get the junk the US Coast Guard got handed......:eek:

The Troubled Waters Of "Deepwater", Congressman: The Country Is Less Safe Than Before $24 Billion Refurbishment - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/60minutes/main2823448.shtml)
DefenseNews.com - U.S. Coast Guard Gives Up On Troubled Patrol Boats - 04/23/07 13:54 (http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2694214&C=navwar)

That tends to be problematic when there are "no bid" contracts handed out without transparent oversight.

What happens when foxes are put in CHARGE of the henhouse
FCW.com News - Justice Department investigating Deepwater for possible fraud (http://www.fcw.com/article102499-04-18-07-Web)

IronMac
Sep 2nd, 2007, 07:03 PM
BTW, was that a no-bid contract from our accountable government?

Big deal...why should we go through a fruitless exercise since there was essentially no other viable choice for a strategic airlift vehicle?

Max
Sep 2nd, 2007, 11:50 PM
The coastal patrol vessels also should be put to the head of the line. Once more these can be up to 50 years in service and much preferred over submarines and missile frigates.

Coastal patrol vessels with neither the benefit of comprehensive air cover nor effective on-board antisubmarine measures are sitting ducks, MacDoc. You need a comprehensive shield, not merely one or two components.

If you want to keep things from going against you in waters you deem your own territory, you need both the good cop and the bad cop - when things get nasty it's imperative to have far more than a feel-good fleet tragically incapable of swiftly switching tactics and successfully protecting itself against hostile vessels. Search and rescue and disaster relief are great areas of responsibility, certainly. But a nation unwilling to get its hands dirty in the sticky business of protecting sovereignty is also a nation inviting trouble.

SINC
Sep 3rd, 2007, 12:04 AM
Enough with the tanks and single engine fighters etc.

Yeah, being wimps is a fine ideal and will benefit us immensely.

Might as well hang us the gloves and surrender to whatever terrorist of the day chooses to target us.

Good plan.

MACSPECTRUM
Sep 3rd, 2007, 12:55 AM
Yeah, being wimps is a fine ideal and will benefit us immensely.

Might as well hang us the gloves and surrender to whatever terrorist of the day chooses to target us.

Good plan.

you and your ilk bringing up the terrorist bogey man so that more of our brave men and women can go to their deaths and so that more of our tax dollars can be spent on military hardware that obviously cannot totally defend our borders in a military sense, just make me sick

why is it you are such a war monger?

do you welcome death for you and your fellow citizens so easily?

Canada CANNOT defend all of her borders against super powers like the U.S. and Russia

we can ONLY defend ourselves using diplomacy and politics

we could have the military of the U.S. and we still would not be able to defend all of our territory

we're just too god damn big of a country

jesus h. christ

I just wish you'd get off whatever horse's a$$ you road in on and look at the facts instead of wishing that all immigrants only spoke English and that everyone had a hand gun

people want peace NOT war
people want health car NOT fighter jets
people want jobs NOT tanks

I'm just done with you SINC - your just not worth talking to anymore

or in Ukrainian; "Nema zkim hovority"
:mad:

MannyP Design
Sep 3rd, 2007, 02:13 AM
It's easy for you to consider any actions unnecessary when you believe 9-11 was conducted by the US Gov't.

Je me souviens.

By the way--you've never just talked to anybody. You talk AT them. There's a difference.

Macfury
Sep 3rd, 2007, 02:19 AM
Spec's in his cups Manny.

MACSPECTRUM
Sep 3rd, 2007, 08:33 AM
It's easy for you to consider any actions unnecessary when you believe 9-11 was conducted by the US Gov't.

Je me souviens.

By the way--you've never just talked to anybody. You talk AT them. There's a difference.

easy for you to support military action from the cheap seats

MACSPECTRUM
Sep 3rd, 2007, 08:37 AM
Spec's in his cups Manny.

and the non-sequitur du jour award goes to.... MF-er....

NBiBooker
Sep 3rd, 2007, 09:52 AM
Just like that phrase, it's a cheap PR exercise...
BTW, was that a no-bid contract from our accountable government?

Bet it didn't feel like a cheap PR exercise for the people who needed that aid.

MannyP Design
Sep 3rd, 2007, 09:56 AM
easy for you to support military action from the cheap seats

:lmao:

Yes it certainly is. The exact same can be said for you... the seat part at least. That chair must be ready to buckle by now. At least I don't rely on sound-bites and actually talk to those who are in the military and are stationed in Afghanistan.

Too bad the same can't be said for you. :baby:

Have a pierogi and a smile™.

MACSPECTRUM
Sep 3rd, 2007, 10:49 AM
:lmao:

Yes it certainly is. The exact same can be said for you... the east part at least. That chair must be ready to buckle by now. At least I don't rely on sound-bites and actually talk to those who are in the military and are stationed in Afghanistan.

Too bad the same can't be said for you. :baby:

Have a pierogi and a smile™.

I don't want men and women to die in a stupid war due to stupid political decisions by our neighbour to the south, hence the "exact same cannot be said of me"

it's glorified imperialism

sadly you think the deaths of our fighting men and women to be funny

Macfury
Sep 3rd, 2007, 10:56 AM
See, Manny, if you dare to imagine that Canada is making any strides in Afghanistan, you're logically forced into the position of laughing at the deaths of Canadian military personnel. Unpleasant conclusion, but hard to argue such iron logic.

da_jonesy
Sep 3rd, 2007, 11:00 AM
Yeah, being wimps is a fine ideal and will benefit us immensely.

Might as well hang us the gloves and surrender to whatever terrorist of the day chooses to target us.

Good plan.

Sinc, how does a Tank or CF-18 protect us from a terrorist? C'mon you know better.

MacDoc
Sep 3rd, 2007, 11:36 AM
Max - long range patrol aircraft and unmanned long range long duration coverage craft are also in the works and provide the "surveillance". We don't need a single engine short duration fighter for that.

Armed coast guard for TACTICAL enforcement is one of the few areas that are appropriate for Canadian forces in patrol situations. I've consistently supported and still do Canada's role for SAR, coast guard, communications expertise and heavy lift both at home and as part of UN sanctioned missions.

I've never had an issue with that.

STRATEGIC fighter/bomber/tank is ludicrous and wasteful for us to be engaged in and is just toadying to the US fear of a man in a tent....which Sinc in his distorted world view shares all the way in the middle of the continent. Must be some hangover from childhood the bogeyman under the bed.

Canada relies on support from the world community, it's border isolation and participation in world bodies like the UN, WTO, World Court etc. just as we all rely on Canadian institutions for our personal safety......despite a few cowboys' druthers. :rolleyes:

SINC
Sep 3rd, 2007, 12:30 PM
you and your ilk bringing up the terrorist bogey man so that more of our brave men and women can go to their deaths and so that more of our tax dollars can be spent on military hardware that obviously cannot totally defend our borders in a military sense, just make me sick

why is it you are such a war monger?

do you welcome death for you and your fellow citizens so easily?

Canada CANNOT defend all of her borders against super powers like the U.S. and Russia

we can ONLY defend ourselves using diplomacy and politics

we could have the military of the U.S. and we still would not be able to defend all of our territory

we're just too god damn big of a country

jesus h. christ

I just wish you'd get off whatever horse's a$$ you road in on and look at the facts instead of wishing that all immigrants only spoke English and that everyone had a hand gun

people want peace NOT war
people want health car NOT fighter jets
people want jobs NOT tanks

I'm just done with you SINC - your just not worth talking to anymore

or in Ukrainian; "Nema zkim hovority"
:mad:
Well thank goodness for that.

But remember one thing. When a horrific event takes place in Canada (and it surely will one day in the future) that requires the military being called out, people of your persuasion will likely be the first in line hollering "save me".

And when our troops show up with pea shooters, sling shots, diplomacy and kid gloves, people like me will die laughing. ;)

MannyP Design
Sep 3rd, 2007, 12:32 PM
I don't want men and women to die in a stupid war due to stupid political decisions by our neighbour to the south, hence the "exact same cannot be said of me"

it's glorified imperialism

sadly you think the deaths of our fighting men and women to be funny

Learn to read. :lmao:

Only a [email protected] such as yourself would say actually believe and say such a thing.

Now, care to share the names of the women who died serving the CF in Afghanistan? As far as I know, there has been only one. Please do share with us the name of the others. I'll be waiting.

Max
Sep 3rd, 2007, 03:51 PM
Max - long range patrol aircraft and unmanned long range long duration coverage craft are also in the works and provide the "surveillance". We don't need a single engine short duration fighter for that.

No fighters to engage a hostile fighter, MacDoc? What, we run to the Americans for that contingency? I would have thought you would prefer less reliance on our neighhbours to the south.

STRATEGIC fighter/bomber/tank is ludicrous and wasteful for us to be engaged in and is just toadying to the US fear of a man in a tent....which Sinc in his distorted world view shares all the way in the middle of the continent. Must be some hangover from childhood the bogeyman under the bed.

Aside from taking cruel swipes at Sinc, I am curious why you think strategic fighters are ludicrous or wasteful... and I don't understand the significance of the man in a tent remark.

Canada relies on support from the world community, it's border isolation and participation in world bodies like the UN, WTO, World Court etc. just as we all rely on Canadian institutions for our personal safety......despite a few cowboys' druthers.

Canada does not so much rely on 'support' from the world community as it exists in a complacent vacuum where international disinterest is the order of the day. As for the world bodies supposedly existing to run to our aid when need be, we both know how corrupted these bodies tend to be. I don't see how it is of benefit to our concepts of border security to be dependent on governing bodies so riddled by bureaucracy and hide-bound politics and ancient nitpicking that it's become a tired farce.

Gotta go though - time to cycle out to the spit, grab a beer at the very end of it and catch the air show.

MacDoc
Sep 3rd, 2007, 04:00 PM
What hostile fighters would those be Max?? - still reliving Battle of Britain??
Cold War?? :rolleyes:

How about we spend scarce resources on things like, ice breakers, coastal patrol, fishing/pollution control enforcement, SAR, fire fighting, humanitarian aid delivery etc instead.

Max
Sep 3rd, 2007, 08:47 PM
The view of the GTA from the end of the Leslie Street Spit was fine. Saw those daredevil pilots doing their thing for the airshow. It was fantastic. But all good things must pass. So here we are.

MacDoc, I do believe you haven't met an emoticon you didn't like. Keep relying on those marvelous emoticrutches, man. They help you. They really do. It seems you favour them about as much as you do rosy arguments for docile appeasement and bold inaction - all in the face of an utter failure of imagination that things could ever be anything than they are right now. Indeed, you are the Pangloss of our board. When you're not railing on that all hell is breaking loose, that is. But that's you, isn't it? - playing all sides at once, not caring if the signals get a little fuzzy in the process.

You bring up the Battle of Britain, and the Cold War, no doubt thinking yourself clever. Oh, you are, you are! I enjoyed your glib retort immensely... pure tabloid, it was. Yet in terms of the history of human conflict, both events you cite were but an eye-blink ago. Alas, I gather you think we've already evolved past such nastiness. It astounds me that you should think that the enemy, if he can't be seen, surely does not exist.

You are only too happy to talk about environmental degradation around the world and the race for energy... yet you are curiously unable to link such rising tensions with the potential for conflict - you know, those same hostile fighters which seem to elude your rosy scenarios for peaceful coastal patrol and happy ice breakers breaking ice all the live long day. One day we may be going to war for things like water... arable land... space that isn't irrevocably debauched by the workings of mankind. Or do you think that's simply a fairytale?

Hmmm... maybe it's better at the end of the spit... certainly the air is more bracing.

MACSPECTRUM
Sep 3rd, 2007, 09:29 PM
Well thank goodness for that.

But remember one thing. When a horrific event takes place in Canada (and it surely will one day in the future) that requires the military being called out, people of your persuasion will likely be the first in line hollering "save me".

And when our troops show up with pea shooters, sling shots, diplomacy and kid gloves, people like me will die laughing. ;)

that's a good neo con
always hope for an attack and war
never hope for peace
I wonder if that's what Jesus would do?

I want to be "saved" from Stephen Harper's neo con agenda - Here me hollering

MacDoc
Sep 3rd, 2007, 10:08 PM
Yes Max you clearly need that bracing air to clear your mind.....overdue. :D

WHAT attacking fighters would those be Max?......simple question.

Tell you what - when we have all the helicopters, coast guard, SAR, fire fighting equipment and heavy lifters appropriate to our nation, and the infrastructure many parts of the nation so direly needs overhauled is complete, we'll let you have a fighter or two for your enjoyment at the air show.

Lead soldiers just not cutting it these days......??

SINC
Sep 3rd, 2007, 10:09 PM
I'm just done with you SINC - your just not worth talking to anymore

or in Ukrainian; "Nema zkim hovority"
:mad:

Aw no, there you go and spoil it all:

that's a good neo con
always hope for an attack and war
never hope for peace
I wonder if that's what Jesus would do?

I want to be "saved" from Stephen Harper's neo con agenda - Here me hollering

Too bad. ;)

And by the way, it's "hear" me hollering. :D

Max
Sep 3rd, 2007, 11:24 PM
[Ducking as a sputtering MacDoc desperately flings yet another token bilious emoticrutch]

Oh dear, MacDoc - you are asking me to step in and assist you in lieu of a most barren situation - I refer here to your appalling lack of imagination, natch. Alas, I fear it is perhaps time for you to think for yourself, grasshopper. Are you ready? Of course you are. There, there - please, don't think of those hostile planes... I know it upsets you so. It isn't worth it for my sake! You can answer your own question another time. When you feel stronger, certainly!

At this late hour (late, in so many ways, it would seem) I can only say that I am thankful that you didn't aspire to be a military commander, Macdoc - but saw fit, instead, to rise to the level of computer salesman (not to mention ultra-super-busy quasi-official fix-recommender of all things needing fixing). Not that I don't enjoy the oblique flavourings of your random nostrums and florid prescriptions for world peace and happiness, though - and it's always wonderful of you to try!

Goodnight, MacDoc... catch you on the flipside.

SINC
Sep 4th, 2007, 12:00 AM
Nice to see a pair of intellectuals pair off.

Not often that happens here.

I'll be sitting quietly on the sidelines cheering on the debate. beejacon

Max
Sep 4th, 2007, 07:29 AM
LOL

Seems I had better watch my step Sinc... lest I be, as they say in the theatre world, "sooo not asked back."

MACSPECTRUM
Sep 4th, 2007, 08:47 AM
Aw no, there you go and spoil it all:



Too bad. ;)

And by the way, it's "hear" me hollering. :D

you know us immigrant types; "no speaka da english two good"

if only my parents only taught and spoke the Queen's English too me and not expose me to multiple languages, I wouldn't make the odd typo

I'd better start ONLY speaking English with my friends, because the sun never sets on the Empire

Fink-Nottle
Sep 4th, 2007, 11:13 AM
Here are a few points based on things I've read in this thread:

1. Advocating a respectable armed forces does not make you a warmonger.
-No one is saying we should be invading countries. However, having a better military makes countries less likely to mess with us. For a concrete example, a couple of frigates in the Grand Banks would deter other countries from darting into our waters.

2. Our armed forces do not need to match those of a superpower to be useful.
-In fact recent experience shows that the military might of the superpowers hasn't been as effective as billed. In any case, as long as we can deter aggression and promise any aggressor a fight and some losses, that's enough.

3. A stronger armed forces makes us more independent from the US... not less.
-Right now we mostly rely on the US to defend this continent. Stronger forces under Canadian control is good for our sovereignty. It also allows us to perform other duties (such as this humanitarian mission to the Caribbean) without having to piggyback on the vehicles of other nations.

Having a military is expensive and during peaceful times there is always a temptation to cut funding and let it wither in favour of other priorities. However, maintaining a respectable armed forces is insurance against the unexpected and history shows that countries who neglect their military often pay a high price later. After a decade of neglect it will take time to restore our forces; I'm glad we are now moving in the right direction.

SINC
Sep 4th, 2007, 11:17 AM
Here are a few points based on things I've read in this thread:

1. Advocating a respectable armed forces does not make you a warmonger.
-No one is saying we should be invading countries. However, having a better military makes countries less likely to mess with us. For a concrete example, a couple of frigates in the Grand Banks would deter other countries from darting into our waters.

2. Our armed forces do not need to match those of a superpower to be useful.
-In fact recent experience shows that the military might of the superpowers hasn't been as effective as billed. In any case, as long as we can deter aggression and promise any aggressor a fight and some losses, that's enough.

3. A stronger armed forces makes us more independent from the US... not less.
-Right now we mostly rely on the US to defend this continent. Stronger forces under Canadian control is good for our sovereignty. It also allows us to perform other duties (such as this humanitarian mission to the Caribbean) without having to piggyback on the vehicles of other nations.

Having a military is expensive and during peaceful times there is always a temptation to cut funding and let it wither in favour of other priorities. However, maintaining a respectable armed forces is insurance against the unexpected and history shows that countries who neglect their military often pay a high price later. After a decade of neglect it will take time to restore our forces; I'm glad we are now moving in the right direction.

That's the best post in the thread F-N.

Thanks for putting it so well. :clap:

Max
Sep 4th, 2007, 11:48 AM
Agreed... a nice summation.

MACSPECTRUM
Sep 4th, 2007, 12:19 PM
Here are a few points based on things I've read in this thread:

1. Advocating a respectable armed forces does not make you a warmonger.
-No one is saying we should be invading countries. However, having a better military makes countries less likely to mess with us. For a concrete example, a couple of frigates in the Grand Banks would deter other countries from darting into our waters.

2. Our armed forces do not need to match those of a superpower to be useful.
-In fact recent experience shows that the military might of the superpowers hasn't been as effective as billed. In any case, as long as we can deter aggression and promise any aggressor a fight and some losses, that's enough.

3. A stronger armed forces makes us more independent from the US... not less.
-Right now we mostly rely on the US to defend this continent. Stronger forces under Canadian control is good for our sovereignty. It also allows us to perform other duties (such as this humanitarian mission to the Caribbean) without having to piggyback on the vehicles of other nations.

Having a military is expensive and during peaceful times there is always a temptation to cut funding and let it wither in favour of other priorities. However, maintaining a respectable armed forces is insurance against the unexpected and history shows that countries who neglect their military often pay a high price later. After a decade of neglect it will take time to restore our forces; I'm glad we are now moving in the right direction.


1. hmmm, tell that to the dead civilians of Afghanistan

2. the U.S. views the, soon to be year round open, northwest passage as international waters - how you gonna fight them off?
also, U.S. and Soviet/Russian subs have been running (and continue to do so) under our polar ice cap without any apology
how you gonna deal with that?
fire on their subs?

3. and just from whom are we going to buy our military hardware? recently leased German tanks excluded

every attempt should be made to integrate SAR equipment with our military and Coast Guard equipment
our country is huge and we have a relatively low population

our military should be more of a combined "national service"
forest fires, floods, search and rescue should all be handled by the military which should include the coast guard and border patrol

all those personnel should have military level training
they all have/want guns and should be subject to the same training and hopefully same psychological profiling and responsibility

i know it's not as "cool" as invading Afghanistan, but it much better serves the interests of Canadians

eg. fighter jets, missiles and tanks should be a low priority
helicopters and transport planes to move troops and search large areas should be priority

Fink-Nottle
Sep 4th, 2007, 01:49 PM
MACSPECTRUM wrote: 1. hmmm, tell that to the dead civilians of AfghanistanAn irrelevant response. Having a military is one government policy, what we do with it in Afghanistan or anywhere is a different policy.

MACSPECTRUM wrote: 2. the U.S. views the, soon to be year round open, northwest passage as international waters - how you gonna fight them off? also, U.S. and Soviet/Russian subs have been running (and continue to do so) under our polar ice cap without any apologyhow you gonna deal with that? fire on their subs?The same as you probably... diplomatically. However, my diplomacy would be more effective because there'd be power behind it. I wouldn't even need to mention I have subs patrolling up there... their presence adds weight to my claims. Without them we can claim what we want and jump through whatever diplomatic hoops we want and no one will listen or care.

MACSPECTRUM wrote:
3. and just from whom are we going to buy our military hardware? recently leased German tanks excludedWhoever gives us the best value. Some of it may well be American but we'll put it to good use... in much the same way that you put your American Macintosh to use on this website.

Having a military isn't about being cool... it's about being sensible and realistic about the world.

da_jonesy
Sep 4th, 2007, 02:03 PM
it's about being sensible and realistic about the world.

If that were true we wouldn't be in Afghanistan...

MannyP Design
Sep 4th, 2007, 03:46 PM
We wouldn't be in Afghanistan if the WTC hadn't been attacked.

ArtistSeries
Sep 4th, 2007, 04:09 PM
We wouldn't be in Afghanistan if the WTC hadn't been attacked.

And the WTC would not of been attacked if U.S. foreign policy made more sense....

Max
Sep 4th, 2007, 04:14 PM
And the WTC would not of been attacked if U.S. foreign policy made more sense....
That's a highly speculative statement, AS... sort of putting the cart before the horse, it seems to me. We can indulge in the fun of alternate histories all we want but....

MannyP Design
Sep 4th, 2007, 04:20 PM
And the WTC would not of been attacked if U.S. foreign policy made more sense....

Just the foreign policy? Are you sure about that?

ArtistSeries
Sep 4th, 2007, 04:51 PM
That's a highly speculative statement, AS... sort of putting the cart before the horse, it seems to me. We can indulge in the fun of alternate histories all we want but....
I was going to agree with you at first but since the attackers have stated their reasons....

Max
Sep 4th, 2007, 04:53 PM
And you take their word at face value? Pshaw... these guys are managing the media, AS, just as we in the West do. Propaganda is propaganda. Come on!