|
|
Post by Toronthab on Oct 21, 2004 22:03:02 GMT -5
I think the most important single issue facing world democracies today is unchecked militant Islam. It wsn't just Ben laden or Saddam. A lot of bad guys invaded Kuwait, raped the citizens, stole anything of value and when allowed to surrender unharmed, set the oil wells on fire. There are a lot of bad guys or as "W" calls them "Evildooers". There are still a lot of bad guys running loose. They hate us. They don't build or improve, they destroy. We want to coexist but they don't. Spain, Chechnya, Russia, 9/11 and "The Satanic Verses" are a few examples. Dubya is proactive, not reactive. We tried the UN, sanctions and petitions. We waited long enough. We want peace and if we can't get our enemies to coexist then we can't allow them to exist. The next phase will be to withdraw our troops and simply level the place. We can't continue to lose our soldiers in a police action. Canada would feel differently if planes flew into the CN tower, PVM and the parlaiment buildings. I am satisfied that some of the the top soldiers of the Canadian army are in Afghanistan addressing somewhat a real terrorist issue. I do not consider myself in any way an authority on Islam, militant or otherwise. I do believe that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Hussein and Iraq were not involved with funding terrorists, Bin Laden and 9-11. Bush's financiers, the Bin Ladens and some Saudis who have a financial lock on the white house were and are. Most Al Quaida in 9-11, as we all know were Saudis. The greatest and most cowardly failure and tragedy of the last decade was our collective failure to stop the genocide of Ruwanda. We should all be profoundly ashamed of ourselves. Islam has been militant since before the crusades which popular "A&E" specials notwithstanding, were desperate defensive measures to save Christain Europe from rampaging Islam. This reality has been obfuscated beyond recognition in recent decades in the pursuit of other agendas than truth. The freelance mayhem of terrorism is something all nations must resist and root out. Muslim nations see the US as Israel's ally and Israel has a lot to answer for in the middle east as does the US for Iran, and of course their man Hussein. However, life is complicated, but the Iraq situation is not. Terrorists do not respect the rule of law. If they are fundamentalists, Islamic, Christain or dogmatic agressive agnostic materialists, they easily think that Allah, God, or the Force is with them. It is the oldest delusion of mankind. The biggest threat to world peace is you and me and our comforting, paranoid delusions. Fight terrorism by all means, but don't blow three hundred billion dollars and untold lives in the pursuit of what we now know is a lie. People tell me I'd feel differently about capital punishment if "my daughter got raped and murdered". It's just way to easy to confuse strong feelings with moral certitude. It's also subhuman. As a counter, I ask people if under the still extant MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) approach to world peace whether we should launch nuclear weapons if we learned that Russia has so done. Most thought that was pretty fair. I think that affords an opportunity for us to take a long hard look at ourselves, the good guys. JUst how many mothers, babies and children would you really want to incinerate from beyond. Ths same with the CN tower. I would feel it pretty damned hard, but New York is pretty close and my brother in law had one of the planes fly very low over him on its way to the tower. He worked beside the towers but was running behind that day. My point is that I would not lie to my nation and initiate a war against a country I didn't like. That's what terrorists do. Even when one should go to war you really, really must exhaust all peaceful means aforehand. When I say that too many Americans are unreflective it is this WWF approach that I refer to. It's not tough, it's not brave, it's not courageous, it's not leadership, it's not effective and it is not worthy of our respect. You have a very serious problem with corruption and militant fundamentalism in your whitehouse. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 22, 2004 9:47:19 GMT -5
I think the most important single issue facing world democracies today is unchecked militant Islam. It wsn't just Ben laden or Saddam. A lot of bad guys invaded Kuwait, raped the citizens, stole anything of value and when allowed to surrender unharmed, set the oil wells on fire. There are a lot of bad guys or as "W" calls them "Evildooers". There are still a lot of bad guys running loose. They hate us. They don't build or improve, they destroy. We want to coexist but they don't. Spain, Chechnya, Russia, 9/11 and "The Satanic Verses" are a few examples. Dubya is proactive, not reactive. We tried the UN, sanctions and petitions. We waited long enough. We want peace and if we can't get our enemies to coexist then we can't allow them to exist. The next phase will be to withdraw our troops and simply level the place. We can't continue to lose our soldiers in a police action. Canada would feel differently if planes flew into the CN tower, PVM and the parlaiment buildings. The sad reality though, is that the UN, sanctions, and petitions actually worked. Saddam had no air force, no navy, a peasant, ill-armed army that collapsed in just over a week, and as we now know, no weapons of mass destruction, no program to acquire or develope them, and only a vague idea to "restart them once the sanctions were lifted." "Once the sanctions were lifted." In other words, the sanctions were preventing him from getting WMD. Exactly what they were supposed to do. Quel surprise. Also, Saddam was by no means a supporter of militant Islam. In fact, he brutally oppressed it, as they were a threat to his ruler. Sadr City, in Baghdad, is named after Muqtada Al Sadr's father, who was murdered by agents of Saddam in 1999. If Saddam was such a militant Muslim, why would he have invaded Iran, and then Kuwait? Two fundamentalist Muslim states? Saddam was always much more concerned with personal power, than he was with spreading fundamentalist Islamic ideals. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Oct 22, 2004 9:53:23 GMT -5
I think the most important single issue facing world democracies today is unchecked militant Islam. It wsn't just Ben laden or Saddam. A lot of bad guys invaded Kuwait, raped the citizens, stole anything of value and when allowed to surrender unharmed, set the oil wells on fire. There are a lot of bad guys or as "W" calls them "Evildooers". There are still a lot of bad guys running loose. They hate us. They don't build or improve, they destroy. We want to coexist but they don't. Well, there was the first Gulf War, which Canada participated in - this stopped the illegal annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. As for not wanting to coexist, this is probably true of at least a couple of dozen different nations. None of which had anything to do with Iraq, unless you have better information than the CIA. So instead of getting proper authorization the United States decided to unilaterally act in defiance of international norms, the very same damned norms the United States aided creating specifically to prevent rogue nation-states from acting impulsively; thus increasing the likelihood of general war. Just because the United States is one of the foremost democracies on the planet does not excuse it from bending or breaking the rules of conduct - in fact, it's even worse when a supposed "role model" for the world's emerging democracies boldly flaunts international conventions whenever it feels like it. Would you stand for the mayor of your city blowing up a suspected mafia hangout using his own little gang of toughs just because he was seen as a fine, upstanding member of his community? Would you feel alright that he had exercised that judgement himself, without recourse to the courts of law? What if he killed some innocent people while executing his vendetta? Would that be acceptable to you because the "greater good" had been served? The ends do not justify the means, unless you're desperate. And as much as the Bush propaganda machine wishes to instill a sense of desperation in it's citizenry - the United States sufferred one horrific terrorist attack, but I don't think that should make it's people feel desperate. Desperation is what you feel when you have no hope, and I think that the blatant toying of the American people's feeling of security is one of the worst crimes committed by this administration. If my town suffers an awful triple-murder, I want my town to find out who did it and bring them to justice. I don't want my town to use it as an excuse to go around kicking in doors without subpoenas and shooting at people stealing milk. To me, that is the kind of overreaction we've seen with this administration in it's foreign policy. It's very telling that Vladimir Putin would feel more secure with Bush in office - of course he would! His generals are already making noise about crushing terrorism anywhere in the world. Will having Russian, American, British and other troops being deployed around the world to hit at specific targets without regard to the United Nations make the world safer? What if the Russians decide that Georgia is a terrorist state and use that reasoning to usurp and re-annex Georgia? How does the United States condemn that action, when the United States itself has opened the Pandora's Box of Unilateral Action? Welcome to the Twenty-First Century. When we went through our (admittedly) smaller terrorist troubles during the 60s, the worst that happened was our temporary suspension of civil liberties (which was very questionable) - and this caused anguish in both English and French Canada once the country had a chance to reflect upon that suspension. What angers the entire world is the fact that it appears the general population of the United States has no inclination towards self-examination; obviously an attitude they have been encouraged to have thanks to their current President. A great power that does not ever question itself is a dangerous beast, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 22, 2004 10:50:21 GMT -5
The sad reality though, is that the UN, sanctions, and petitions actually worked. Saddam had no air force, no navy, a peasant, ill-armed army that collapsed in just over a week, and as we now know, no weapons of mass destruction, no program to acquire or develope them, and only a vague idea to "restart them once the sanctions were lifted." "Once the sanctions were lifted." In other words, the sanctions were preventing him from getting WMD. Exactly what they were supposed to do. Quel surprise. Also, Saddam was by no means a supporter of militant Islam. In fact, he brutally oppressed it, as they were a threat to his ruler. Sadr City, in Baghdad, is named after Muqtada Al Sadr's father, who was murdered by agents of Saddam in 1999. If Saddam was such a militant Muslim, why would he have invaded Iran, and then Kuwait? Two fundamentalist Muslim states? Saddam was always much more concerned with personal power, than he was with spreading fundamentalist Islamic ideals. Indeed: Saddam's (the Al-Baath Party's) secular tyranny was in fact anathema to Bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda, who see their jihad as righteous action in support of the "true faith". |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 22, 2004 11:08:32 GMT -5
We respectfully agree to disagree.
1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam didn't overtly conspire with Al-Kaida, but he supported and gave safe haven to the enemies of the US. It doesn't matter. There are enough people in Iraq willing to die to destroy the US, democracy and anyone who supports freedon, womens rights, education etc.....
2) The situation in many African countries, genocide, starvation, AIDS is terrible, but it does not represent an immediate security concern to the US. There are a lot of problems in the world and priorities must be assigned.
3) We are facing an enemy that for religeous reasons is willing to blow themselves up to kill a few of our soldiers, Iraqi police, innocent bystanders, nuns, children, UN relief workers and humanitarians. There is no negotiation or sanction that will work. Once we have accepted that all negotiation is futile we must act and be decisive.
4) This is worldwide! Spain, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, Palestine. There is no place to hide.
5) Who are the real "Evildooers". Is it really George Bush trying to make the world a safe place, or is it the fanatics who blow up schoolchildren in Russia, commuters in Spain, Kurds in Iraq, innocents in Kuwait and vacationers in Bali. The US leads the world in Nobel Prizes, literature, Science, health research, medicine. Our enemies can's create so they destroy what others have built.
6) Can we negotiate with desparate idealogues who hold hostages and behead them for driving trucks with food and medical supplies or work to repair the power grid and infrastructure in Iraq.
7) In WW II Germany bombed innocent civilians in London and the US bombed civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US has gone out of it's way to spare as many lives as possible in the current conflict. The civilians cheered when US soldiers bodies were mutilated. We can not continue to offer our soldiers lives as cannon fodder.
8) Mistakes are made and Saperlipopette happens. War is terrible, but it is better than sticking our heads in the ground and ignoring the attacks and the reality of this century. Unfortunately lives have been lost and many more will be lost too before this is over. I trust the US soldiers much more than the radicals and assasins we are fighting.
We may never convince eachother of the correctness of our position and I respect those who seek peace at all costs. I too seek peace and a better life for my children. I think there is a better way to get there, a more difficult road that must be followed.
I apologize for not addressing each response individually because I don't think that you can convince me or I can convince you of the correctness of our respective convictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Oct 22, 2004 12:05:33 GMT -5
I apologize for not addressing each response individually because I don't think that you can convince me or I can convince you of the correctness of our respective convictions. No apology necessary. I think you're right in that we're going to agree to disagree on this issue. I respect your right to your opinion, and appreciate your respect for mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Oct 23, 2004 2:21:52 GMT -5
We respectfully agree to disagree. 1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam didn't overtly conspire with Al-Kaida, but he supported and gave safe haven to the enemies of the US. It doesn't matter. There are enough people in Iraq willing to die to destroy the US, democracy and anyone who supports freedon, womens rights, education etc..... 2) The situation in many African countries, genocide, starvation, AIDS is terrible, but it does not represent an immediate security concern to the US. There are a lot of problems in the world and priorities must be assigned. 3) We are facing an enemy that for religeous reasons is willing to blow themselves up to kill a few of our soldiers, Iraqi police, innocent bystanders, nuns, children, UN relief workers and humanitarians. There is no negotiation or sanction that will work. Once we have accepted that all negotiation is futile we must act and be decisive. 4) This is worldwide! Spain, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, Palestine. There is no place to hide. 5) Who are the real "Evildooers". Is it really George Bush trying to make the world a safe place, or is it the fanatics who blow up schoolchildren in Russia, commuters in Spain, Kurds in Iraq, innocents in Kuwait and vacationers in Bali. The US leads the world in Nobel Prizes, literature, Science, health research, medicine. Our enemies can's create so they destroy what others have built. 6) Can we negotiate with desparate idealogues who hold hostages and behead them for driving trucks with food and medical supplies or work to repair the power grid and infrastructure in Iraq. 7) In WW II Germany bombed innocent civilians in London and the US bombed civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US has gone out of it's way to spare as many lives as possible in the current conflict. The civilians cheered when US soldiers bodies were mutilated. We can not continue to offer our soldiers lives as cannon fodder. 8) Mistakes are made and Saperlipopette happens. War is terrible, but it is better than sticking our heads in the ground and ignoring the attacks and the reality of this century. Unfortunately lives have been lost and many more will be lost too before this is over. I trust the US soldiers much more than the radicals and assasins we are fighting. We may never convince eachother of the correctness of our position and I respect those who seek peace at all costs. I too seek peace and a better life for my children. I think there is a better way to get there, a more difficult road that must be followed. I apologize for not addressing each response individually because I don't think that you can convince me or I can convince you of the correctness of our respective convictions. You are manifesting the culture of fear that perpetrates, not acts of legitimate self defence, but blind irrational acts. Rogue acts. Canadian troops are in Afghanistan. I'm glad they are. they should be. The hundreds of billions being blown in Iraq by this moron should be spent where it counts. Terrorists and George Bush have a more than a little in common. Neither has much respect for the rule of law. Law is, ideally, the fruit of right reasoning. Kicking the dog when you're angry or afraid may give momentary emotional release, but nuch more is lost. This has a lot more to do with Halliburton than Bin Laden. Your fear is palpable. No one is against fighting terrorism. We are for fighting terrorism. Bush chose to lie to and dupe his nation and start an unjust war with Iraq instead of fighting terrorism. Integrity demands that this be resisted. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 23, 2004 12:40:14 GMT -5
1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam didn't overtly conspire with Al-Kaida, but he supported and gave safe haven to the enemies of the US. It doesn't matter. There are enough people in Iraq willing to die to destroy the US, democracy and anyone who supports freedon, womens rights, education etc..... Actually, most of the American-haters aren't against the basics of American society, they're against the Americanization of the world - the fact that Americans are imposing their view of heartless capitalism all over the world. Even moderately socialist governments the world over run into problems with the US (see Chile, or more recently, Haiti) I agree here, but it also means that choices need some justification. Non-intervention can be justified, but intervening when it suits ones own purpose and wearing the cloak of "world good" is hypocritical at best. Well, would you negotiate with an invader who took over your country in a bloody invasion and tore the country apart ? I know I wouldn't. Spain was being punished for it's decision to go into Irak despite the fact that the people didn't want to go, Russia has its own repression going on in Chechnya, the Palestinian situation comes mostly from the fact that Israel is doing it's very best to form the most hated government in the Middle East. How is Bush making the world a better place, by invading a country which was well under control while letting actual terrorists in Afghanistan go free ? Maybe the enemies simply want to build their own society, which would simply be structured differently ? Not everyone wishes to have their land taken over by American corporate interests, and have high gun-related death tolls, and massive amounts of poverty, like they do in the US ? It's possible to want things differently. Not everyone wants a Starbucks and a Walmart. Maybe it's better to try to talk before invading and raping their homeland ? Huh ? American military strategy is based around the idea of massive firepower to minimise losses; I'm all for it in most situations, but in Irak it's leading to massive amounts of Iraqi dead. Huh ? Attacks, which attacks ? The ones on WTC ? Those guys came from Saoudi Arabia and were based in Afghanistan. I too trust American soldiers more than any terrorist, but I'm pretty much torn when it's between US soldiers and Iraqis who simply want to resist the invader. And that's what the US is here, a invader, of a country which, for all its faults, didn't do anything to provoke or justify this attack. I can hardly blame the invaded for resisting. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 23, 2004 14:50:33 GMT -5
Ah yes, The US and the Saudis, and Israel, and oil. A paradigm shift is required for any positive change to occur in the region. Likely not in our lifetimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 25, 2004 11:46:17 GMT -5
I've read the thread guys and have to put my two cents in here.
The problem may be an underfunded military budget, but even with this shortfall those doing the purchasing of military equipment just arent' getting the best bang for the buck.
The submarines are only one example of poorly spent monies. I believe these boats were originally offered to several other countries first, before Canada scooped them up at a "bargin price". I talked to several naval officers about the new acquisitions and they liked the purchase. First, these are probably one of the best diesel submarines in service and when on battery power, are quiter than their nuclear counterparts. I asked them about the age concerns and they didn't seem to be bothered by it. "What happens when you take a car out of the garage after a number of years? It's the same with the subs."
However, what I heard were a few naval officers conveying confidence in their new boats. And, that's what most servicepersons do. No need to gripe about it ... get it working and get on with it. God love 'em!
It's the same with army and their LSVW vehicles. Originally built for the Italian army, all but a few were turned down by the Italians because they weren't up to their standards. Then the problem became Canada's. What to do with these vehicles and what to do about a Canadian company that will no doubt go bankrupt because of the loss of the sale? The answer; lower the specification standards of the Canadian military so the government can purchase them for their own military and save a Canadian company in the process. I'd like to think that the fact the company was in the riding of then-prime minister, Kim Campell, had nothing to do with the decision ... but that might be a tad naive, no?
Fast forward to the armoured corps. "Tankdriver" could shed much more light on this than I can but from what I understand the Canadian government made the decision to mothball our main battle tanks (MBTs), the Leopard I in favour of the more nimble variant of the LAV III, the eight-wheel-drive Mobile Gun System (MGS). While the MGS would be a formidable recce vehicle and would fit inside of a Canadian CC-130 transport aircraft, I have to scratch my head at Denmark's newest acquisition; the Leopard II MBT. It is one of the best MBTs in the world today and I can't help but think how Canadian crews, again some of the very best in the world, would have faired if they had the chance in these puppies.
(I'll qualify this last statement. I was a signaller in the command post (CP) in the Canadian Army Trophy (CAT) competition in Graffenwier, Germany (sp?) back in '88. One Canadian crew in their Leopard I finished fourth overall. That's quite the accomplishment when you figure the three crews who beat them drove Abrahams (2 by the USA) and one Leopard II (German crew). In fact they beat out several of these MBTs and their crews).
Not to leave aircraft out of it, Canada had a chance to purchase a number of Blackhawk attack helicopters not too long ago. The asking price was $1 million USD per aircraft. However, someone made the decision that Canada didn't need attack helicopters and they went elsewhere. What confuses me is that the same government officials who volunteer our troops for missions in Afghanistan are the same officials who turned down this opportunity. Moreover, the replacement aircraft for the Sea Kings, the Commorant, has now been grounded due to cracks in the fuselage. Amazing.
Coming full circle on you guys, there is some very good equipment out there. The Air Defense Anti Tank (ADATS) system is an excellent ground-to-air, anti-tank system, and it's in use by Canadian troops in Afghanistan now. And, we've already mentioned the LAV III. It's so much the envy of other nations that we are now negotiating for production in other countries. However, the problem is actual money spent and where it's going. We can increase the defense budget all we want, but unless it's spent wisely and properly accounted for, it will mean nothing at all. If you want another example of poor spending, please research the Iltis jeep and you'll know exactly what I mean.
Liberalllllllllllls.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 26, 2004 2:06:52 GMT -5
I've read the thread guys and have to put my two cents in here. The problem may be an underfunded military budget, but even with this shortfall those doing the purchasing of military equipment just arent' getting the best bang for the buck. The submarines are only one example of poorly spent monies. I believe these boats were originally offered to several other countries first, before Canada scooped them up at a "bargin price". I talked to several naval officers about the new acquisitions and they liked the purchase. First, these are probably one of the best diesel submarines in service and when on battery power, are quiter than their nuclear counterparts. I asked them about the age concerns and they didn't seem to be bothered by it. "What happens when you take a car out of the garage after a number of years? It's the same with the subs." However, what I heard were a few naval officers conveying confidence in their new boats. And, that's what most servicepersons do. No need to gripe about it ... get it working and get on with it. God love 'em! It's the same with army and their LSVW vehicles. Originally built for the Italian army, all but a few were turned down by the Italians because they weren't up to their standards. Then the problem became Canada's. What to do with these vehicles and what to do about a Canadian company that will no doubt go bankrupt because of the loss of the sale? The answer; lower the specification standards of the Canadian military so the government can purchase them for their own military and save a Canadian company in the process. I'd like to think that the fact the company was in the riding of then-prime minister, Kim Campell, had nothing to do with the decision ... but that might be a tad naive, no? Fast forward to the armoured corps. "Tankdriver" could shed much more light on this than I can but from what I understand the Canadian government made the decision to mothball our main battle tanks (MBTs), the Leopard I in favour of the more nimble variant of the LAV III, the eight-wheel-drive Mobile Gun System (MGS). While the MGS would be a formidable recce vehicle and would fit inside of a Canadian CC-130 transport aircraft, I have to scratch my head at Denmark's newest acquisition; the Leopard II MBT. It is one of the best MBTs in the world today and I can't help but think how Canadian crews, again some of the very best in the world, would have faired if they had the chance in these puppies. (I'll qualify this last statement. I was a signaller in the command post (CP) in the Canadian Army Trophy (CAT) competition in Graffenwier, Germany (sp?) back in '88. One Canadian crew in their Leopard I finished fourth overall. That's quite the accomplishment when you figure the three crews who beat them drove Abrahams (2 by the USA) and one Leopard II (German crew). In fact they beat out several of these MBTs and their crews). Not to leave aircraft out of it, Canada had a chance to purchase a number of Blackhawk attack helicopters not too long ago. The asking price was $1 million USD per aircraft. However, someone made the decision that Canada didn't need attack helicopters and they went elsewhere. What confuses me is that the same government officials who volunteer our troops for missions in Afghanistan are the same officials who turned down this opportunity. Moreover, the replacement aircraft for the Sea Kings, the Commorant, has now been grounded due to cracks in the fuselage. Amazing. Coming full circle on you guys, there is some very good equipment out there. The Air Defense Anti Tank (ADATS) system is an excellent ground-to-air, anti-tank system, and it's in use by Canadian troops in Afghanistan now. And, we've already mentioned the LAV III. It's so much the envy of other nations that we are now negotiating for production in other countries. However, the problem is actual money spent and where it's going. We can increase the defense budget all we want, but unless it's spent wisely and properly accounted for, it will mean nothing at all. If you want another example of poor spending, please research the Iltis jeep and you'll know exactly what I mean. Liberalllllllllllls. Cheers. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the design and quality of submarines; but whan you have an old car, you don't take it on long trips or rely on it for daily commerce. Old Mercedes break down more often than new Mustangs even though they may have originally been better cars. An automobile breakdown on Metropolitain Blvd. is very different than a submarine breaking down in the North Atlantic. If a used car broke down coming home from the dealer, I wouldn't want to rely on if while battling an enemy battleship. Submarines are not for training missions. They are for the defense of Canada's soverignty in the face of hostility. Don't send our young troops out to face the enemy in a gunfight with outdated discount bullets and rusty army surplus Enfield rifles to save a buck. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 26, 2004 20:15:50 GMT -5
I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the design and quality of submarines; but whan you have an old car, you don't take it on long trips or rely on it for daily commerce. Old Mercedes break down more often than new Mustangs even though they may have originally been better cars. An automobile breakdown on Metropolitain Blvd. is very different than a submarine breaking down in the North Atlantic. If a used car broke down coming home from the dealer, I wouldn't want to rely on if while battling an enemy battleship. Submarines are not for training missions. They are for the defense of Canada's soverignty in the face of hostility. Don't send our young troops out to face the enemy in a gunfight with outdated discount bullets and rusty army surplus Enfield rifles to save a buck. Nicely put, HFLA. The thing about these boats is that had they been maintained they would be an excellent purchase. As I was saying, they're quiter than the nuclear boats when running on batteries. However, they are proving now to be a major rip off. Just bringing the electronics suites up to snuff has cost the navy a small fortune. I simply can't believe that proper inspections weren't done on these boats prior to their purchase. And if inspections were carried out how in the hell could they substantiate the purchase? Here's another tid bit. I was working in the National Defense Headquarters (NDHQ AKA Fort Fumble) at the time, when I had an opportunity to talk to a Lt-Commander (Major in the army). I asked him what he thought about the purchase of the new subs. He said to me, "... oh, you mean the boats we bought about eight months ago and the press is only finding out about now?" And again, you won't hear any of the sailors make a complaint. Though that may change soon. There simply has to be some sort of accountability. Right now a decision has been made to upgrade the insulation in the hull?!?! Lip service! If a proper inspection was completed then why are they only making that decision now? Pure and simple lip service! Sadly, it still won't bring back Lt. Chris Saunders. (heavy) Sigh! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 27, 2004 9:19:19 GMT -5
Nicely put, HFLA. The thing about these boats is that had they been maintained they would be an excellent purchase. As I was saying, they're quiter than the nuclear boats when running on batteries. However, they are proving now to be a major rip off. Just bringing the electronics suites up to snuff has cost the navy a small fortune. I simply can't believe that proper inspections weren't done on these boats prior to their purchase. And if inspections were carried out how in the hell could they substantiate the purchase? Here's another tid bit. I was working in the National Defense Headquarters (NDHQ AKA Fort Fumble) at the time, when I had an opportunity to talk to a Lt-Commander (Major in the army). I asked him what he thought about the purchase of the new subs. He said to me, "... oh, you mean the boats we bought about eight months ago and the press is only finding out about now?" And again, you won't hear any of the sailors make a complaint. Though that may change soon. There simply has to be some sort of accountability. Right now a decision has been made to upgrade the insulation in the hull?!?! Lip service! If a proper inspection was completed then why are they only making that decision now? Pure and simple lip service! Sadly, it still won't bring back Lt. Chris Saunders. (heavy) Sigh! It's only taxpayers dollars, why worry about how much it cost? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 27, 2004 18:53:55 GMT -5
It's only taxpayers dollars, why worry about how much it cost? Right you are M. Trudeau   |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 30, 2004 12:00:44 GMT -5
Interesting development here. How will the Minister of National Defense handle this one? I'm hoping "quite diplomacy" doesn't come into the picture.
BTW, the original deal was Canada would get the subs for an exchange training facilities out west. They would house and feed the British soldiers training there until the bill was paid up. A sweet deal for the Brits needless to say. However, it was recently reported that Canada ripped up the papers to the agreement some time ago and opted to pay for the subs outright.
British navy knew of sub electrical faults: report
Last Updated Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:18:30 EDT
TORONTO - Britain's navy knew a decade ago about problems with electrical insulation on the submarines Canada later bought, a published report says.
An electrical fire crippled one of the four refitted subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, last month, killing Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, and injuring nine others.
The Globe and Mail says the British didn't upgrade insulation on all four subs, never explicitly told Canada's navy about it, and never fully documented repairs it did make.
The newspaper quotes Commodore Roger Westwood, a senior Canadian naval engineer.
The story says both navies later upgraded insulation in one place on the subs, but did not order improvements to the wiring where the fire broke out on the Chicoutimi.
It's believed that arcing along high-voltage lines underneath the captain's cabin caused the Oct. 5 fire.
Since the fatal fire, upgrades have been ordered for the main power line connections under the captain's cabin in Canada's three other subs.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 30, 2004 19:11:03 GMT -5
If it wasn't so serious and sad we could do a remake of McHales Navy with Ensign Parker putting out the fires.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 17, 2004 18:23:40 GMT -5
The problem may be an underfunded military budget, but even with this shortfall those doing the purchasing of military equipment just arent' getting the best bang for the buck. Cheers. ? |
|
