[EyeBrock]

kenmore kenmore:

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

All talk and no action like always.

I find it highly ironic that the article shows exactly what Arctic capability Canada has. Harper's been in office for four years and despite all his promises and tough talk, he still hasn't gotten around to improving our capabilities in the North.

That Liberal war in Afghanistan cost a lot of money.

harper could have pulled out along time ago.

Parliament extended the mission ken. On a vote. It's a minority government. The rest of the House could have voted against the mission but didn't.

[RUEZ]

kenmore kenmore:

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

All talk and no action like always.

I find it highly ironic that the article shows exactly what Arctic capability Canada has. Harper's been in office for four years and despite all his promises and tough talk, he still hasn't gotten around to improving our capabilities in the North.

That Liberal war in Afghanistan cost a lot of money.

harper could have pulled out along time ago.

Are you sure about that?

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I suppose paying for the war in Afghanistan might have meant that there was no cash for other things AM.

Or should we raise taxes and propely fund our defence? That's the choices.

Or cut excess spending and put it towards defense. Yeah, will never happen, but I can dream

[Dragom]

Afghan isn't a Liberal or Conservative war. It's a Canadians helping out the US in sympathy for the 9/11 attacks war. Neither Party or Prime Minister has a choice on the matter.

[herbie]

Harper makes a stupid meaningless statement yet his drones find meaning in nothing.
Was the idiot going to say he's willing to negotiate our territory away? Would anyone?

[Arctic_Menace]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I suppose paying for the war in Afghanistan might have meant that there was no cash for other things AM.

Or should we raise taxes and propely fund our defence? That's the choices.

I'd be all for raising my taxes if it meant having a better military. As for the lack of cash, I find that hard to believe with all the purchases Harper has made/continues to make and somehow we found $1 Billion for the G8/G20 in Toronto...

[RUEZ]

herbie herbie:

Harper makes a stupid meaningless statement yet his drones find meaning in nothing.
Was the idiot going to say he's willing to negotiate our territory away? Would anyone?

Meh.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Nice trolling...

Trolling? Give me a break. Ships aren't free. As you said he's been in power four years. How long did it take Chretien to replace our helicopters? Ya that's right.

Ironically, Chretien cancelled the CH-101 contract to help fund the F-35 program.

[bootlegga]

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Nice trolling...

Trolling? Give me a break. Ships aren't free. As you said he's been in power four years. How long did it take Chretien to replace our helicopters? Ya that's right.

Nope, textbook trolling...

$1:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

Or another more popular definition;

$1:

Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone.

or

$1:

Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards.

Yeah, those descriptions pretty much sum up most of your 'contributions' to the forums here Ruez. Carry on troll...

[RUEZ]

Pfft, I'll take criticism from you when you dish it out to Kenmore. Until then get stuffed. My comments were right on, we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, and until then or unless you want to pay significantly more taxes we can't afford everything he's promised. Sometimes I wish the Liberals would win the next election just so I can see what kind of criticism they would get when they do the same thing.

[bootlegga]

putz putz:

You mean the C-17 that are also being used in Canada right now to run supplies up to Alert taking three to four times the amount in one trip that it takes the Herc's in one.... The Herc's aren't a priority because of the C-17's? Ever had to spend an extra 5 days waiting to leave the arctic because your Herc was busted/broken and another was not available? I have not fun.

So how many subs can that C-17 detect? How many Halifax frigates can it escort through an ice-filled NW passage? NONE to both.

The C-17 may be a great transport, but it wasn't bought to help in the Arctic. It was bought supposedly so we could transport supplies to Afghanistan and deploy the DART faster that had been possible in the past (because they used rented AN-124s). Personally, I also think that Dubya twisted Harper's arm because wanted the production lines in a factory in his home state (Texas) to stay open just a while longer, but who knows what really happened behind the scenes.

If the C-17s are everything you and all their supporters are cracked up to be (capable of carrying three-four times as much cargo), then why did we also need to immediately order new C-130s? Couldn't we have ordered a year or two from now, given that Air Transport capabilities surged with their purchase? Or even slowed delivery of the new Hercs? If one C-17 is as good as three or four Hercs, then theoretically, they should be the equivalent to 12-16 Hercs. Now obviously they can't be in 12-16 places at once, but they should be able to do the lifting of 12-16. Therefore, they shouldn't have been as high a priority IMHO.

And I'm sure that waiting in Alert or Resolute sucks big time, but them's the breaks. Sometimes, they also serve who only stand and wait...

putz putz:

I've been in the Arctic in the Winter doing a SOVOP. Almost 200 of us for almost a month an it was in the news here, because back in February 2006 it wasn't all that big of a deal. We have be doing year round SOVOP's for years. BEFORE you start criticizing start basing your info on more then just base media reports.

I'm not impressed...when I was a kid, we had an Arctic Warfare training centre at Frobisher Bay (AKA Iqaluit I believe), as well as a pair of new heavy icebreakers that could operate 24/7/365 in the Arctic.

Today, thanks to Harper's love for the Arctic, we're replacing those two heavy icebreakers with ONE, and our Arctic warfare capabilities area shadow of what they were during the Cold War.

I'll be impressed when Canada has year round capability in the Arctic. It's a joke when countries like Denmark and Norway have better Arctic capabilities than we do. Holding an exercise in August doesn't impress me all that much. When the CF pulls off something like Op Nanook in the dead of winter I'll be impressed. Our Arctic capabilities are a joke and haven't improved any more under Harper than they did under Chretien.

[EyeBrock]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I suppose paying for the war in Afghanistan might have meant that there was no cash for other things AM.

Or should we raise taxes and propely fund our defence? That's the choices.

I'd be all for raising my taxes if it meant having a better military. As for the lack of cash, I find that hard to believe with all the purchases Harper has made/continues to make and somehow we found $1 Billion for the G8/G20 in Toronto...

Ah that old chestnut. Maybe we shouldn't be in the big boys club eh?

What about the billions we spend on the 30,000 refugees that we accept each year, many of a dubious and doubtful refugee claim?

We somehow find the money for their welfare, healthcare, language training etc...

Imagine all the icebreakers we could pay for if we weren't paying for Tamils?

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

putz putz:

You mean the C-17 that are also being used in Canada right now to run supplies up to Alert taking three to four times the amount in one trip that it takes the Herc's in one.... The Herc's aren't a priority because of the C-17's? Ever had to spend an extra 5 days waiting to leave the arctic because your Herc was busted/broken and another was not available? I have not fun.

So how many subs can that C-17 detect? How many Halifax frigates can it escort through an ice-filled NW passage? NONE to both.

The C-17 may be a great transport, but it wasn't bought to help in the Arctic. It was bought supposedly so we could transport supplies to Afghanistan and deploy the DART faster that had been possible in the past (because they used rented AN-124s). Personally, I also think that Dubya twisted Harper's arm because wanted the production lines in a factory in his home state (Texas) to stay open just a while longer, but who knows what really happened behind the scenes.

If the C-17s are everything you and all their supporters are cracked up to be (capable of carrying three-four times as much cargo), then why did we also need to immediately order new C-130s? Couldn't we have ordered a year or two from now, given that Air Transport capabilities surged with their purchase? Or even slowed delivery of the new Hercs? If one C-17 is as good as three or four Hercs, then theoretically, they should be the equivalent to 12-16 Hercs. Now obviously they can't be in 12-16 places at once, but they should be able to do the lifting of 12-16. Therefore, they shouldn't have been as high a priority IMHO.

And I'm sure that waiting in Alert or Resolute sucks big time, but them's the breaks. Sometimes, they also serve who only stand and wait...

putz putz:

I've been in the Arctic in the Winter doing a SOVOP. Almost 200 of us for almost a month an it was in the news here, because back in February 2006 it wasn't all that big of a deal. We have be doing year round SOVOP's for years. BEFORE you start criticizing start basing your info on more then just base media reports.

I'm not impressed...when I was a kid, we had an Arctic Warfare training centre at Frobisher Bay (AKA Iqaluit I believe), as well as a pair of new heavy icebreakers that could operate 24/7/365 in the Arctic.

Today, thanks to Harper's love for the Arctic, we're replacing those two heavy icebreakers with ONE, and our Arctic warfare capabilities area shadow of what they were during the Cold War.

I'll be impressed when Canada has year round capability in the Arctic. It's a joke when countries like Denmark and Norway have better Arctic capabilities than we do. Holding an exercise in August doesn't impress me all that much. When the CF pulls off something like Op Nanook in the dead of winter I'll be impressed. Our Arctic capabilities are a joke and haven't improved any more under Harper than they did under Chretien.

Boots,

The C17 is a strategic transport, the C130 is a tactical transport. Two very different aircraft. 1 can carry 18 aircraft pallets or an MBT and the other can carry 5 pallets.

The C130 has been performing strategic re-supply missions because the Polaris (the Airbus) hasn't the capacity to undertake strat-airlift. The C17 has changed all that.

Without strategic and tactical airlift, we would be renting Antonovs for deployments.

Airlift is key to enabling our very small combat forces the flexibility they need to rapidly deploy.

Having 3 regiments of combat troops without airlift is futile, and that means C17s AND C130s.

I'll have to sit down with you and have a chat about air power sometime!

[PimpBrewski123]

Have to say that I support the CPC on this issue.

They need to keep their commitment and that also includes increased military funding as per their other announcements.

[bootlegga]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Pfft, I'll take criticism from you when you dish it out to Kenmore. Until then get stuffed. My comments were right on, we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, and until then or unless you want to pay significantly more taxes we can't afford everything he's promised. Sometimes I wish the Liberals would win the next election just so I can see what kind of criticism they would get when they do the same thing.

Had Kenmore responded with a similar comment, I would have responded to him exactly the same. However, given that you offered up the old Ridenrain bait and switch (yeah but the Liberals...), you should have expected it.

Your comment on the Liberal war in Afghanistan was nothing more than a bait and switch, and you know it. Was it expensive? Sure? Did we need to spend every single defence dollar over there? No, and we didn't. The point is, if a party is going to be so bold as to develop a "Canada First" plan, then they have to poney up the dough for it. They had ample opportunity too. They inherited a huge surplus from those awful Liberals, which went to tax breaks for the welathiest members of society and a ill-thought out GST cut. They just spent BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars on a stimulus package (far more than they've ever spent on defence) and how much went to domestic defence manufacturers? ZERO! They could have done something to develop icebreakers (build them here - now, not in 2017), buy new SAR planes made in Canada, not ones made in Italy (which is where they are leaning), or even buy more LAV IIIs to replace those lost in Afghanistan (made in London, ON).

But did they take any of those opportunities? No. Instead they funnelled as much of it as possible into Conservative held ridings. Political pork ala Trudeau. So much for the party of accountability...

Ahh, the Liberals. They've royally sucked on the defence portfolio since the days of St. Laurent and Pearson, basically spending just enough not to have our allies kick us out of NATO and showing up for a mission here or there in a desperate attempt to keep our nation relevant. Of course, none of our allies buy it, which makes their efforts look even worse. Honestly, I had hoped that Iggy would be as cold-hearted a bastard as Liberal leader as he was when he was living in the US for the past decade or so. Had he been, he would have gotten my vote (as would have Harper had he kept even a handful of his defence promises). Sadly, Iggy's not been able to eliminate the influence of the Trudeau/Chretien peaceniks who run the party from behind the scenes. And Harper has shown his true colours in the past four years...he's just another slimy politician who wants power (despite his promises of accountability and being different).

And comparing yourself to Kenmore, are you? It's funny, many Conservative supporters here bash him mercilessly for being a partisan hack/troll, but none of you see the similarity of your own actions to his. There's a word for that...hypocrite.

I'd say set the bar higher and actually contribute something more than snide one line comments, but everyone here knows you won't.

Whatever floats your boat troll...