• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

is it just me...

litespeed

Well-Known TRIBEr
or is stephen harper turning out to be even more of an idiot then first thought?

after the conservatives came out on top in the election.. I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt.. put a little faith in our new leader... but ya...I get the feeling that he's going to be the canadian equivilant to george bush.

everytime he opens his mouth.. stupid comes out.

what a dink.
 

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
I think I know what you mean. While I admit to admiring his direct, no bullshit approach, his word is quickly becoming bullshit and his arrogance denies him the objectivity to understand Canadians as a whole.

It will be interesting to see what he means by standing by our allies against Iran.
 

Shug

TRIBE Member
It's creepy how he's clamming up his Party, keeping the blinds on us in regards to the military, shoring up power, and even doing pre-interview checks with the journalist media...

I keep getting this picture in my head of Harper in full Elmer Fudd huntsman regalia, breaking through the fourth wall to tell us,

"Shhhhhhhh! Be vewy, vewy qwuiet. We'we hunting majowity!"
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
It will be interesting to see what he means by standing by our allies against Iran.
gawd those sand spiders make me so mad.
why dont they stop the threats of with holding hot persian women from the free market!!!!


------------------------

i dont like the look of mr. harper at all, i find it hilarious that someone so socially awkward and physically unappealling could ever rise the ranks to become PM.

that being said from what ive read many people, even his opponents say he is one of the smartest political thinkers around despite the suggestion that he has some radical ideological tendencies that are kept in check simply becuase his own party would reject him if he didnt water down his vision for canada and the convervative party.

i think there was a lot of fear mongering leading up to his election, suggestions taht this nation would fall apart simply because of his leadership. its pretty obvious that he hasnt done anything radical at all, and probally wont attempt to because they are a minority and are on political probation until the next election.

him going to afghanistan was a smart move i think, one that surprised everyone.

i think he wont do much to rock the boat, our economy is hot, he can just ride the surplus wave. too many people seem bent on making any move he makes as some horrific act of radicalism when in reality hes just a creppy kind of awkward dude who is taking a middle of the road conservative approach to leadership.

as if paul martin was worth the paper he was printed on, that bucktoothed slack-jaw made me loose much faith i had in the liberal party of canada taht they woud back a guy like that. him and cretien were cheerleaders for us to go into afghanistan, yet when mr. harper calls for better miiltary equipment for those troops the same liberals and left leaning intellectuals think its a ploy to militarize the nation.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
yet when mr. harper calls for better miiltary equipment for those troops the same liberals and left leaning intellectuals think its a ploy to militarize the nation.
We just went through a big round of military spending and upgrades under the Liberals. NO military--even the US--can ever be "built up" enough in the eyes of its people and its soldiers. I think Harper has ideological reasons for wanting to beef us up evern further and have us tag along with the Americans, which I find to be insane. In a country like Canada, we should absolutely hold a referrendum before going to WAR with someone that hasn't done anything to us. We were right not to go to Iraq, and I hope that if something happens in Iran and Harper wants us to go, there is such a huge public outcry that he is forced to call an election or resign. Wars are VERY BAD.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
We just went through a big round of military spending and upgrades under the Liberals. NO military--even the US--can ever be "built up" enough in the eyes of its people and its soldiers. I think Harper has ideological reasons for wanting to beef us up evern further and have us tag along with the Americans, which I find to be insane. In a country like Canada, we should absolutely hold a referrendum before going to WAR with someone that hasn't done anything to us. We were right not to go to Iraq, and I hope that if something happens in Iran and Harper wants us to go, there is such a huge public outcry that he is forced to call an election or resign. Wars are VERY BAD.
i agree w/ a referendum and i too agree we should stay the fuck out of iran.

that being said, taking a quick look over the CF reveals that they are in no position whatsoever to contribute additional forces beyond our commitments in afghanistan and haiti. other than special forcesa deployments which we wont hear about until after wards its not even a possiblity regardless of what the PM would envision, the amount of money needed above and beyond the current amounts would probally be unpopular by most sides of the political equation non?

i think our navy should be enhanced considering its pretty lackluster and considering the massive coast lines we have, though i say that in hopes of joining the Judge Advocate General's corps (JAG) a la my favourite TV show, knowing full well navy lawyers can fly figher jets too!!!
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Even in the US... with close to half the entire world's military spending... widely acknowledged to be simply in a league of its own in terms of its troops' war-fighting capability......... people complain about lack of personal body armour (for normal foot-soldiers!), not enough armour on humvees, etc, painting the administration as not caring about "the troops"

him and cretien were cheerleaders for us to go into afghanistan, yet when mr. harper calls for better miiltary equipment for those troops the same liberals and left leaning intellectuals think its a ploy to militarize the nation.
Martin and Cretien are left-leaning intellectuals?
Or left-leaning intellectuals cheerleaded our deployment to Afghanistan?

Anyway... this is just out of curiosity: what exactly did Harper "call for better equipment"?
I mean I know the armed ice-breakers....... apparently they abandoned their earlier call for helecopter-carriers (from the last election I believe).....
....anyway what better equipment? If there are public details..


i think our navy should be enhanced considering its pretty lackluster and considering the massive coast lines we have
"pretty lackluster"? How so? Its not enormous, but I am under the impression its widely considered "high-end"
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
Even in the US... with close to half the entire world's military spending... widely acknowledged to be simply in a league of its own in terms of its troops' war-fighting capability......... people complain about lack of personal body armour (for normal foot-soldiers!), not enough armour on humvees, etc, painting the administration as not caring about "the troops"

Martin and Cretien are left-leaning intellectuals?
Or left-leaning intellectuals cheerleaded our deployment to Afghanistan?

Anyway... this is just out of curiosity: what exactly did Harper "call for better equipment"?
I mean I know the armed ice-breakers....... apparently they abandoned their earlier call for helecopter-carriers (from the last election I believe).....
....anyway what better equipment? If there are public details..


"pretty lackluster"? How so? Its not enormous, but I am under the impression its widely considered "high-end"
no im calling out hte latte-liberals, and hte lefties who are generally against any sort of military expenses or expansion labelling it "militarizing the nation" and other such fear mongering.
not to say that it would never happen under a plan to expand our military but a pretty simple overview of the actual scope of our CF would reveal tht the billions recently spent under the liberal plans arent exactly revolutionizing and expanding the forces in any considerable way non?


true enough, many troops and high ranking officials have pleaded for better body armour and basic protection for troops on the ground who suffer teh greatest casualty rates in the armed forces. not sure what you are arguring here, the situation for the CF is the same, just because american troops complain of the same thing and they spend lots of money, doesnt mean the reality of the troops concerns on teh ground is being addressed.

i dont have a link but i specifically recall Harper calling for better equipment for the Afganistand deployment, pre-post election when we were being rotated through to khandahar.

though youre right about the armed ice breakers, that was an odd one considering the submarine accident that had happened at the time- you would think the focus would have been on that.

"widely considered high end"? not sure what this means, our navy used to be one of the largest in the world after WW2, it has been consistantly scaled down, i wont even bring up the sea king fiasco, im not much of a navy man but ill venture a geuss and say our navy is not high end by virtue of its small size, lack of modern submarine and tactical pursuit craft and the poor amount of actual naval personell and patrols compared to total coast line.

im sure the troops themselves are good, but thats not really what we are debating.

i dont like harper but i havent found much reality in the fear mongering by many pre-post election as indicated in the post that started this thread.
 
Last edited:
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
no im calling out hte latte-liberals,
Oh, those assholes...
and hte lefties who are generally against any sort of military expenses or expansion labelling it "militarizing the nation" and other such fear mongering.
right.. the "same ones" who presumably also opposed it when chretien/martin did it... but, I think I understand this is your poitn now, often with different rhetoric, less fear-mongering about a police state and so on. However, the dedicated left sources that pay considerable attention to the military Im familiar with usually made a point of highlighting of militarism in contrast with the whole national dellusion about being 'The World's Peacekeeper', not much concern over which party is doing it this time
not to say that it would never happen under a plan to expand our military but a pretty simple overview of the actual scope of our CF would reveal tht the billions recently spent under the liberal plans arent exactly revolutionizing and expanding the forces in any considerable way non?
Non... revolutionizing, no, but considerable changes, yes...
funding is already reaching Cold War peaks, and is set to increase in the area of 25% in the next several years
The JSS program will produce ships with amphibious and sea-lift capability for hte army, and serve as major logistical and command & control ships, transporting troops and equipment to some land, then serving as an operational 'HQ'
So, that would be new and a "considerable" expansion of capability
So would gaining 'strategic' airlift capacity, which looks increasingly likely

true enough, many troops and high ranking officials have pleaded for better body armour and basic protection for troops on the ground who suffer teh greatest casualty rates in the armed forces. not sure what you are arguring here, the situation for the CF is the same, just because american troops complain of the same thing and they spend lots of money, doesnt mean the reality of the troops concerns on teh ground is being addressed.
my point was in reference to SellyCat's about militaries' never being satisfied. Given the nature of their work, there will always be grounds to appeal for more even more war materiel, even for the best equiped and most powerful soldiers in the world (as presently in the US)

"widely considered high end"? not sure what this means, our navy used to be one of the largest in the world after WW2, it has been consistantly scaled down, i wont even bring up the sea king fiasco, im not much of a navy man but ill venture a geuss and say our navy is not high end by virtue of its small size, lack of modern submarine and tactical pursuit craft and the poor amount of actual naval personell and patrols compared to total coast line.

im sure the troops themselves are good, but thats not really what we are debating.
'high end' usually refers to quality not quantity... ie if you have a high-end mixer, it doesn't mean you have a storage room full of dozens of mixers
[edit: okay more fair analogy: it doesn't mean you have a 128 channel mixer :)]
WWII was total war.. we had a command economy! rationing, zero unemployment, etc....
it is not realistic to expect anything near the military created by those means to last long in "peacetime"

Regardless, in terms of quality/power, the navy is indeed 'high end'... something like 3 destroyers, 3 submarines, and 12 frigates, 12 patrol/mine-coutnermeasures ships....

the destroyers are old and on the verge of retirement... though even being 'obsolete', they operate in the context of the world's best navies (e.g., they were refitted as 'area air defence' destroyers in the 90s, equiped with the anti-air missiles used on America's big cruisers and destroyers - their Aiegis ships, regarded as simply the most powerful warships on earth (without the rest of their systems of course) - more advanced than on US frigates)

The subs were built in the late 80s, early 90s by Britian's nuclear submarine builder. They were based on the UK's latest nuclear sub designs and technologies (which in turn, it should be noted, benefited from a privileged relationship w/ the US in sub technology), but with diesel-electric instead of nuclear power plants
In the UK its considered a scandal that they gave up the promising Upholder class when they had just started entering service.. they planned to build a considerable number of them, they were to be a major class
They were also designed from the very beginning specifically to deliver special forces in covert ops

The frigates, Canada's 'workhorses' were built in the 90s and are well known to be among the most advanced in the world, and they're well-armed.. they regularly integrate in American carrier battle groups, at the level of taking over a spot from a US ship that leaves the group, and in combat operations not just exercises
And they're being kept up-do-date, for example currently being outfitted with the latest version of their anti-air (now with enhanced anti-missile capacity) missiles that is also currently being adopted by US and closely allied navies...

If you compare the figates to America's its clear they're in many respects a generation ahead and clearly superior, and those US frigates are in turn used by several other navies

The navy is probably the world's most integrated and interoperable with the US

Even a US Naval War College Review article about how very very shameful and pathetic the CF, a really strong bias about how disgraceful they are, are shows grudging respect for the Navy
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Winter/art3-w03.htm


its funny how extreme myths about the CF are
Im not saying you were saying this, but people make the most dramatic, outlandish claims about obviously omg we're SO FUCKING PATHETIC and so on.... get a grip.... does it make sense that the armed forces most integrated w/ the US would be so EXTREMELY unequivocally horrible?
In respect to the navy, its just relfected in the general assumption that it must be 'woefully under-equiped', because its Canadian *sheds a tear*


and yeah I agree we're not talking about personnel's training, just equipment
 
Last edited:

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
Oh, those assholes...right.. the "same ones" who presumably also opposed it when chretien/martin did it... but, I think I understand this is your poitn now, often with different rhetoric, less fear-mongering about a police state and so on. However, the dedicated left sources that pay considerable attention to the military Im familiar with usually made a point of highlighting of militarism in contrast with the whole national dellusion about being 'The World's Peacekeeper', not much concern over which party is doing it this time
Non... revolutionizing, no, but considerable changes, yes...
funding is already reaching Cold War peaks, and is set to increase in the area of 25% in the next several years
The JSS program will produce ships with amphibious and sea-lift capability for hte army, and serve as major logistical and command & control ships, transporting troops and equipment to some land, then serving as an operational 'HQ'
So, that would be new and a "considerable" expansion of capability
So would gaining 'strategic' airlift capacity, which looks increasingly likely

my point was in reference to SellyCat's about militaries' never being satisfied. Given the nature of their work, there will always be grounds to appeal for more even more war materiel, even for the best equiped and most powerful soldiers in the world (as presently in the US)

'high end' usually refers to quality not quantity... ie if you have a high-end mixer, it doesn't mean you have a storage room full of dozens of mixers
[edit: okay more fair analogy: it doesn't mean you have a 128 channel mixer :)]
WWII was total war.. we had a command economy! rationing, zero unemployment, etc....
it is not realistic to expect anything near the military created by those means to last long in "peacetime"

Regardless, in terms of quality/power, the navy is indeed 'high end'... something like 3 destroyers, 3 submarines, and 12 frigates, 12 patrol/mine-coutnermeasures ships....

the destroyers are old and on the verge of retirement... though even being 'obsolete', they operate in the context of the world's best navies (e.g., they were refitted as 'area air defence' destroyers in the 90s, equiped with the anti-air missiles used on America's big cruisers and destroyers - their Aiegis ships, regarded as simply the most powerful warships on earth (without the rest of their systems of course) - more advanced than on US frigates)

The subs were built in the late 80s, early 90s by Britian's nuclear submarine builder. They were based on the UK's latest nuclear sub designs and technologies (which in turn, it should be noted, benefited from a privileged relationship w/ the US in sub technology), but with diesel-electric instead of nuclear power plants
In the UK its considered a scandal that they gave up the promising Upholder class when they had just started entering service.. they planned to build a considerable number of them, they were to be a major class
They were also designed from the very beginning specifically to deliver special forces in covert ops

The frigates, Canada's 'workhorses' were built in the 90s and are well known to be among the most advanced in the world, and they're well-armed.. they regularly integrate in American carrier battle groups, at the level of taking over a spot from a US ship that leaves the group, and in combat operations not just exercises
And they're being kept up-do-date, for example currently being outfitted with the latest version of their anti-air (now with enhanced anti-missile capacity) missiles that is also currently being adopted by US and closely allied navies...

If you compare the figates to America's its clear they're in many respects a generation ahead and clearly superior, and those US frigates are in turn used by several other navies

The navy is probably the world's most integrated and interoperable with the US

Even a US Naval War College Review article about how very very shameful and pathetic the CF, a really strong bias about how disgraceful they are, are shows grudging respect for the Navy
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Winter/art3-w03.htm


its funny how extreme myths about the CF are
Im not saying you were saying this, but people make the most dramatic, outlandish claims about obviously omg we're SO FUCKING PATHETIC and so on.... get a grip.... does it make sense that the armed forces most integrated w/ the US would be so EXTREMELY unequivocally horrible?
In respect to the navy, its just relfected in the general assumption that it must be 'woefully under-equiped', because its Canadian *sheds a tear*


and yeah I agree we're not talking about personnel's training, just equipment

awesome, i love a good military discussion,

nice article from your link, heres the salient points:

"These initiatives aside, inadequate equipment, uncertain strategic goals, and near-constant manpower reductions have produced a service in crisis, as many have observed.89 For example, in 1999 the Conference of Defence Associations, a pro-DND lobby group, stated that “the Canadian Forces, especially the army, are on the verge of collapse.”90 As noted, the army itself has been surprisingly candid, accepting that it is in a “fragile” state, with erosion beginning to set in.91 In short, the prognosis for the army is bleak. The emphasis on peacekeeping has resulted in a force that can take part in only low-level combat, quite a contrast to the role the Canadian army played in the last century’s two global conflicts."


a bit extreme saying collapse but telling nonetheless about the state of land forces.

airforce:

"
The air force, then, is facing a difficult period. Its sole combat plane is verging on obsolescence, it has no strategic lift capability to speak of, and its transport aircraft are ageing and increasingly error prone. All this will seriously impede the efforts of the Canadian air force to become functionally interoperable with the U.S. Air Force. There is little question that in the opening stages of future conflicts (as in the Persian Gulf, Kosovo, and Afghanistan) the United States will look to utilize its airpower, a capability that no prospective enemy can match. Indeed, it has been recently observed that “across the spectrum of conflict, air supremacy is now the sine qua non of U.S. military activity, the arm of choice and the enabler and protector of all other arms.”119 Thus Canada’s air weakness may effectively negate its ability to participate in U.S.-led military operations.
"


accept the writer goes on to quesiton if we should bother trying to amass an air force "the question needs to be asked: do allies of the United States need to operate advanced combat aircraft? It is highly unlikely that any Western country would feel obliged to go it alone against a prospective foe; fielding and maintaining advanced combat aircraft in order to do so are now very demanding and expensive tasks. In any case, the choice will be difficult for Canada, a country with a long and proud record of aerial service."

and yeah the navy comments are much healthier;
"Among their naval allies, the Americans consider the Canadian navy “high end.”131 (but adds:))

In the area of maritime aviation, however, the navy is badly in need of modernization; these needs point to the advantages that naval prioritization would offer. The navy’s maritime helicopter, the Sea King, is completely obsolete; it poses a danger to both its crew and nearby ships virtually every time it flies... this is an embarrassment not only to the crews who are forced to keep these antiques in the air but more broadly to all Canadians, who are apparently content to ask CF naval aviators to fly aircraft that are poorly equipped, occasionally unstable, and incapable of operating in most combat environments.137

(this last part kind of confirms what we are both saying):

Any decision to prioritize the navy would have an immediately beneficial impact, as badly needed modernization programs could then be undertaken quickly
"

i think the conclusion here summs it up w/ respect to the funding issue of what i was saying before:

"The decline of Canadian military capabilities has occurred with the apparent approval of much of the Canadian public. Defense commentators and what remains of the Progressive Conservative and Alliance parties have strongly criticized the Liberal government for its defense cuts.143 Nevertheless, the reality is that, as Canadians have repeatedly demonstrated, when it comes to proposed government spending increases, defense simply does not fare very well in comparison to programs like health care or education."
 
Last edited:

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
another thing the subs and frigates, besides their technological 'advancedness', are both also characteristic of 'blue water', major navies... because Canada does its fighting abroad, working w/ the major powers across the world, and has to cross the two major oceans to do so
Thats different from many even wealthy nations' navies which might instead limit their main capabilities to their own local waters (eg w/ advanced but small and short-range fast attack craft, or short range patrol frigates), their ships not really meant for sustained operations on the other side of the globe...
which reflects on how much of a "defence" role our forces play!
globalsecurity.org even characterizes China's navy as barely capable outside of its coastal waters

about 'tiers' in NATO, the 1st is the US, all on its own, 2nd is occupied by the major European powers, UK France German Italy,... so that includes three of the world's major nuclear powers so far
The third tier are the rest, the small countries... Canada is usually at the top of that category in its military spending
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
about 'tiers' in NATO, the 1st is the US, all on its own, 2nd is occupied by the major European powers, UK France German Italy,... so that includes three of the world's major nuclear powers so far
The third tier are the rest, the small countries... Canada is usually at the top of that category in its military spending

w/ respect to NATO i actually will take that furtehr and say we provide more than our fair share to NATO, considering our contingent in the Afghan mission and our CF/RCMP contributions in haiti. (JTF ops excluded because im sure those spooks are all over the map and we wont know till after the fact)

in being so generous though we have to prevent over-extending ourselves.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
and yeah the navy comments are much healthier;
"Among their naval allies, the Americans consider the Canadian navy “high end.”131 (but adds:))

In the area of maritime aviation, however,
...
Yeah he doesnt talk much about the Auroras though, which are used in the Gulf and I think the Balkans as well


Also, he talks about individual bits of kit compromising performance, as if they were constantly on the edge of complete obscelesence... but nonetheless, in the Kosovo, the CF18s were very active and took on a major share of the combat missions, I dont remember the numbers at the moment but they played a major role


My point is kind of that all this talk about 'One penny less and they'll fall right out of the sky!!! on the very of "extinction"!(theres actually a study that claims this explicitly, 'disintegration', etc.... its all in context of working very closely with what is regarded as without a doubt the most advanced and powerful armed forces in teh world, Americas
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
(he does mentino the aurora's and slams them.)

but back to hipster douche-bag latte sipping organic meat buying- its the beach-not the beaches liberals,

are they the gheyest or wha?

check out www.sfu.ca/casr, a good canadian military website (you can find my first published piece on our Mission to Afghanistan there from 2003 wink wink!!) they do a good analysis of the LAV's in use by the CF in Khandahar.

a few other pieces give a good breakdown of the some of the issues facing the forces.

i think many people made asking for military funding unpopular in canada for along time, as the article you noted pointed it out, many mnay people on this board to subscribed to the notion of less military-more health care and other such fashionable phrases.

dam those douchebags get me so heated, im gonna go down tot eh gladstone and bust somes skulls!!!! :p
 

soulbrother 10

TRIBE Member
Harper's flagwaving, Bush-mimicking rhetoric about not 'cutting and running' and his photo-op visit to Afganistan are a part of a calculated political strategy designed to achieve the following:

1. Wrap himself in the Canadian flag to portray himself and his party as patriotic Canadians, and thereby mobilize support for the Conservatives through U.S. style jingoistic patriotism.

2. Signal the Bush administration that Canada is back on the team.

3. Generate propaganda to convince a skeptical Canadian public to support a mission that is not traditional Canadian peace-keeping but a more aggressive policy of Taliban hunting under American leadership.

4. Show Canadians a macho, take-charge Stephen Harper.

5. Divert attention from his government's weak domestic agenda.

6. Most importantly, to help set the stage for a Harper majority government.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
soulbrother 10 said:
Harper's flagwaving, Bush-mimicking rhetoric about not 'cutting and running' and his photo-op visit to Afganistan are a part of a calculated political strategy designed to achieve the following:

1. Wrap himself in the Canadian flag to portray himself and his party as patriotic Canadians, and thereby mobilize support for the Conservatives through U.S. style jingoistic patriotism.

2. Signal the Bush administration that Canada is back on the team.

3. Generate propaganda to convince a skeptical Canadian public to support a mission that is not traditional Canadian peace-keeping but a more aggressive policy of Taliban hunting under American leadership.

4. Show Canadians a macho, take-charge Stephen Harper.

5. Divert attention from his government's weak domestic agenda.

6. Most importantly, to help set the stage for a Harper majority government.
1. every political party by virtue of running for public office must portray itself as "canadain", unless you are the bloc. in fact it was paul martin who during the run up to the campaign declared "i love canada, why wont mr. harper say declare it as loudly as me" same shit different pile.

2. i think the last 2 rounds of liberal rule did more to pander to US interests and used its stance against the iraq war as its mantle peice of independance while they did evrything thing else ot continue allowing US interests to dominate our corporate and policy actions. the hardwood lumber dispute was never resolved and no punitive action was ever taken becuase they were to chicken shit, i suspect mr. harper will be no different.
same shit different pile.

3. the plans for our more "agressive" intervention in Afghanistan were laid out in our initial comitment to go there, stay there and ante up any help needed in the face of NATO's reluctance to take a bigger role, hence the reason our contingent there has grown. the liberal government heavily supported both the new tone of our current mission which is no so much peacekeeping but nation building (our special forces have been taliban hunting from the start of the mission)

what has mr. harpers actions done to heighten our current commitment in afghanistan designed and carried out by the liberals other than the fact that he has supported our place there. the hard job is that now he must answer tothe increased casualties that are resulting from the liberal goverments decision to go to kandahar (3 or 4 CF men killed this morning as noted on CBC) of course he has to bolster support, i havent seen it done in any subversive or increased way from the last regime,

same shit different pile.

4. agreed on the image building, he is terrible awkward and not even an episode of extreme makeover could change that.

5. diverting? some say he is using domestic issues to divert attention from their weak plans for the afghan mission and trade disputes with the US. not sure on that

6. what government doesnt strive for a majority goverment? same shit differnt pile.

whats next:

"mr. harper is shady because he is hoping that by reducing unemployment people will be so busy working and paying off debt they wont focus on his weak policy stance towards Kyoto?"

ha!!!:D
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
(he does mentino the aurora's and slams them.)
"slams them" is kind of an exageration imo, considering his characterization of other weapons systems...
he simply says they're nearing the end of their life span and need to be refurbished

I picked that article because it is so disparaging of the CF (equipment-wise), in the classic ways, and yet still acknowledges the Navy to be, well, the opposite of "lacklustre"

There are other authoritative sources far less disparaging:
The Kosovo war, however, encompassed the exact opposite state of affairs [than Canada's pathetic 'weak' contribution to the Gulf War]. Canadian air and ground forces fulfilled every principle of saliency: the air component was relevant and it was used vigorously. On the ground, no other nation had a capability like the Coyote vehicle. The British lacked utility transport helicopters, and the Griffon unit, which also had a “hip pocket” surveillance capability, provided unique capabilities to the KFOR effort.
In Afghanistan, the pressing need for always-scarce special operations forces meant that JTF-2’s contribution was salient, while the Coyotes in the 3 PPCLI battalion group once again provided a capability that no one else possessed. The infantry unit, already trained and equipped for light operations, back-filled stretched American resources and was employed in ways that highlighted Canadian capabilities. The Canadian electronic warfare unit even wound up running the coalition EW effort in the Kandahar region because its equipment was superior to the American equipment.
by "the Strategic Studies Advisor to the Canadian Defence Academy and teaches in the War Studies Program at the Royal Military College. He served in Germany as the historian for the Canadian Army’s NATO forces and ... has conducted extensive field research on Canadian and coalition military operations throughout the Balkans, the Middle East and Southwest Asia."
In his paper about why we could have and should have contributed militarily (more than we did, which he isn't concerned with of course) to the second Iraq war... dont have the URL but its an IRPP paper by "Maloney"
check out www.sfu.ca/casr, a good canadian military website (you can find my first published piece on our Mission to Afghanistan there from 2003 wink wink!!) they do a good analysis of the LAV's in use by the CF in Khandahar.
Yeah Ive spent some time there :)
Informative... apparently the work of dedicated war nerds, lots of interesting discussion.... but, I find, deeply permeated with the 'we MUST have more and better weaponry!!' mentality. Thats like the prime imperative, almost the constant main consideration on every page... so its very militaristic, and correspondingly jingoistic (b/c this has to be justified somehow)
for example (of jingoism not militarism), a recent item:

New Page (March 06) – Women in Canada ask why the CF is in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.
A website maintained by Afghan women reminds us what life was like under the Taliban extremists.
[FONT=Verdana, sanserif]CF in Southern Afghanistan – Afghan Women – March 2006[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sanserif]Wondering why Canadian Forces are in Kandahar Province?
Afghan Women tell us what life was like under the Taliban.
[/FONT]
[Ed: If it were not for the presence of our Canadian Forces, along with other troops deployed by both NATO and non-NATO countries, the Taliban would return. They continue to be backed by powerful factions within the Pakistani government, their Army and the Intelligence Service. If the Taliban were allowed to once again take over power in Afghanistan, their extreme restrictions on the lives of ordinary people – especially on the lives of women – would be re-instated.]

These excerpts are taken from a website maintained by activist Afghan women.
Followed by a list of horrible things copied from RAWA's website (which is a pretty famous organization, strange that its kept anonymous)

Okay so its explicitly, upfront, about justifying "why" we're in Afghanistan (lol and in particular, its for "Women in Canada [who] ask why"), and the justification consists of listing horrible things under the Taliban, who we have deposed, and the assumption that "If it were not for the presence of our Canadian forces, ...the Taliban would return." and if we "allowed
" that to happen, "their extreme restrictions on the lives of ordinary people – especially on the lives of women – would be re-instated."

Okay first of all this is obviously not "Why we're in afghanistan" but more like "Why you should not question why we're in Afghanistan" (especially given the site is full of all this knowledgable talk about why we need this or that weapons system and why this or that is embarassingly inadequate for our military to do its vital work and so on, this is just plain jingoism)

But more specifically

. . . what else does it say on the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan's website?
Well this happens to be the most recent article, top of the front page:
When Abdul Rahman, an Afghan Christian convert was arrested in Kabul, the U.S. and many other governments in the West seemed to wake up! ...

American troops fought in Tora Bora and other areas to remove the Taliban from power but unfortunately this did not bring freedom and democracy for the people of Afghanistan. This is because the American government allowed the Taliban to be replaced with many Islamic fundamentalists from the Northern Alliance (“NA”) who are as bad or worse than the Taliban.
...
Before “9/11” we were suffering under the Taliban and since then we have had the immoral fetters of the Northern Alliance clamped on us. ...

...Given the current situation, we feel our nation has been pulled out of the flames only to be thrown into the fire.

...
We are sure Abdullah Rahman will soon be released unharmed. However this “thaw” will never make a summer. Such facades of the US and its Afghan puppets will be repeated again and again while the sufferings of our people will go on and on…

And this is in "RAWA's Standpoints" (of which "On Women's Rights" is the first)
On women's rights
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,sans serif]As Afghanistan finds itself strangled within the grip of religious fundamentalism of all shades, human rights across the nation are being grossly violated. In fact, the present conditions are even worse than those of the Soviet occupation period. The nature and range of crimes perpetrated against Afghan women by fundamentalists has no precedence in modern history. Afghan fundamentalists and particularly Taliban treat women as degraded souls whose only function is to satiate men's lusts and reproduce! Had we women been facing civilized opponents, we might have convinced them of our rights through logic and words of reason. But as fundamentalists continue to rampage in Afghanistan, RAWA holds that our women can never achieve their rights through the 'kindness' of the fundamentalists. To attain meaningful freedom, our women must continue their hard, long struggle against fanaticism and carry it through to the end. We are of the opinion that any collaboration with the fundamentalists will only lead to further ravaging of Afghanistan by these bandits.
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,sans serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,sans serif]...
On resolving the Afghan crisis
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,sans serif]RAWA sees the presence and activities of armed fundamentalist bands as the root cause of the current disaster in Afghanistan. Therefore, we believe that the only way to restore stability and find a solution to the Afghan crisis is by fully disarming all the armed groups and their accomplices. This is possible only by a peace-keeping force not including troops from countries that have involved themselves in the Afghan infighting and that might support any bandit groups. ... [/FONT]
And its well known the US (which means + friends including us) cooperated w/ various warlords

But we clearly need superior weaponry to do this vital 'work'!

I just noticed there is a "Policy Piece" section on
www.sfu.ca/casr...
[FONT=Verdana, sanserif] Afghan Women Vote – CF PRT Protects their Rights – September 2005 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sanserif] For the First Time Afghan Women Participate in Elections: Militants cannot overrule the Basic Rights of the Citizen[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sanserif] Report by LH Fincher, Voice of America (VOA) – US State Department[/FONT]
Voice of America! Great source for a news story of "militants cannot overrule the basic rights of the citizen" that the CF are bringing to the Afghans :)

Dont mean to put the site down.... it does have lots of informative interesting discussion on weapons systems, and much info you cant really find elsewhere, especially on land forces, and obscure pictures (seriously, that shits rare)

So hope you dont mind if I just air my critique on here... the 'we're so pathetic' thing does appear to interfere though, IMO, even if you restrict the context strictly to evaluating weapons systems.. for example in the page about the Victoria-class subs, which supposedly "
[SIZE=-1]had an indifferent career with the Royal Navy." Lots of emphasis (but few details) on how "[/SIZE]almost everything that could go wrong has gone awry with infamously tragic results". It says the RN stopped using them after a year and had all these technical problems, then [SIZE=-1]was desperate to get rid of them, was selling them really really cheap, then: "[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]As might be expected, the performance of the Victoria class closely matches that of the Oberon class boats they were designed to replace.[3]" ...
[/SIZE]
[3] Victoria class subs are heavier, more powerful, and can stay submerged longer. They are 20m shorter than Oberons but broader in the beam. Offensive armament remains the same but, of course, most onboard systems are a generation apart. The two classes differ most in hull design – Oberons had a flattened cross-section , Victorias feature the ‘tear-drop’ hull usually associated with nuclear submarines.

I mean thats is just incorrect and/or uninformed, both in the details of the subs and the lack of strategic context concerning development in submarines, and context of Britain's development and use of these particular subs ( - judging by what Ive read by a variety of sources, unlike the no source cited for these assertions)
but also, the point is, it seems guided by the 'If its Canadian it must SUCK' rule.

a few other pieces give a good breakdown of the some of the issues f
acing the forces.

i think many people made asking for military funding unpopular in canada for along time, as the article you noted pointed it out, many mnay people on this board to subscribed to the notion of less military-more health care and other such fashionable phrases.

dam those douchebags get me so heated, im gonna go down tot eh gladstone and bust somes skulls!!!! :p
I dont know how "fashionable" such phrases are compared to denigrating our supposedly pathic military that, conveniently, is so weak as to render notions that our country has used it to carry out the various crimes of the past decade implausible, simply because it is by definition unusable at all, - except in gentle, warm n fuzzy peacekeeping work, which nicely compliments the belief that Canada is a peacekeeper not warfighter


the liberal government heavily supported both the new tone of our current mission which is no so much peacekeeping but nation building
Im amazed by the number of ways ways military action abroad is described as inherently beneficient... 'peacekeeping, peace-building, nation-building, peace-enforcement, police-actions, humanitarian intervention' etc.... especially in cases that even many Canadian 'military supporters' admit are integrated into a world order that is hardly so

Honestly I hate the fashionable liberals as well (I mean, that aspect of them)
But I think aversion to military actions and spending is not so unreasonable
Every rememberence day we remember how war is the worst thing ever in the universe and how we mustn't let this happen again, and many veterans say flat out (to young men or boys): 'DONT join the military. Who cares how honourable and glorious it is, war is the worst thing ever, you dont want to experience it, trust me its not worth it!' etc etc.. though then tend to get less attention than they deserve IMO
We're supposed to be trying to have less war not get better and more capable at it
Thats why anti-militarism doesnt bother me so much
The fashionable liberals are assholes because they're self-rightous, arrogant hypocrites
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
too late to edit:
about the RAWA piece... Im not just saying that because I obviously disagree about "why" we're in Afghanistan, hold a different political view

The point is more 'objective'.... the piece consists entirely of quotes directly from a group of Afghan women revolutionaries, preceded by an editors note cooly explaining as simple fact why this information justifies CF deployment to Afghanistan and its being maintained... in frankly disrespectful disregard for the women the editor is quoting and claiming we're helping... since the piece is really blatantly misleading, manipulating RAWA's info to be used inaccurately and contradicting their purpose, on top of that

And this is very plain jingoism.... we're so glorious, vanquishing the horrible Taliban
This is for when "Women in Canada ask why" our military is in Afghanistan
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
As for the state of women in Afghanistan, that is propaganda as well.

The new government and power structure in Afghanistan is virtually the same as the Taliban. The Norther Alliance didn't differ ideologically from the Taliban. They just wanted to bei n power; they are THE SAME KIND of insane, Islamic fundamentalists as the Taliban--why would we assume they were any different. Because it's convenient and self-serving, that's why.

This new supposedly free government just tried to sentence somenoe to DEATH for converting to Christianity. So obviously they are not the white knights we want them to...they want to MURDER people for the way they thinkg--classic Talibanism.

Furthermore, they are fucking warlords that have a lot of independence. Afghanistan has like 30,000,000 people, and EVERYTHING we see on TV shows little tiny villages...it's sooo stupid. We don't have A CLUE what the condition of 99.999999% of the population is like. And that's very deliberate...because they live under the same conditions as they did under the Taliban. Kabul and Kandahar are NOT the rest of Afghanistan.,

So we should all think a little harder about why it is that our troops are there in the first place, and why they need more and better weapons all the time..

The real answer is "Stability". Democracy is in no way a precondition for statbility, nor is it the goal...Stability is the goal. As long as Afghanistan is stable, everything else is irrelavent. Furthermore we assume that democracy is something these people value. The fact is that it isn't. This is a DEEPLY tribal society which means the desires and preferences of their local communities trump absolutely every other consideration. That's why Osama Bin Laden STILL lives safely in the same fucking part of the world that they've been trying to find him in for five fucking years. People simply don't want to give him up, period. It was the decision of their local leaders not to do so. They don't give a shit about a "central government". Tribal deals are BY DEFINITION the nature of Afghani politics.

The Norther Alliance commanders who were supposed to go snatch him in Tora Bora CUT A DEAL WITH HIM for a huge sum of money. That's how business is done in Afghanistan. When they told the Americans "Don't worry, we cut a deal," the local commander lost his shit, and ordered a B-52 to write a message in the sky cancelling the deal. That's how shit goes down in Afghanistan.

We are fighting to keep the population under the control of one kind of backwards, tyrannical, religious extremist, violent terrorist group instead of another. And yes, the norther Alliance is full of the same kind of Jihadists--AND YES THEY'RE FUCKING CALLED JIHADISTS--as Al Quaeda and the Taliban.

Go Canada!
 

docta seuss

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
as if paul martin was worth the paper he was printed on, that bucktoothed slack-jaw made me loose much faith i had in the liberal party of canada taht they woud back a guy like that.
whether you like him or not, that 'bucktoothed slack-jaw' did a lot for your country.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
docta seuss said:
whether you like him or not, that 'bucktoothed slack-jaw' did a lot for your country.
yeah but it feels so good calling him that !!!:D


as finance minister thats fine,
as PM. no, i utterly disagree as i consider the bulk of fiscal surpluses enjoyed the last 2 years to be due in large part to high energy and commodity prices and probally to the massive off loading of services by the feds onto the provences and municipalities, (though that is also the cretein legacy) i think the feds made them selves fiscally look quite astute while many provences and cities took on more debt and saw things like tuition and health care costs increase. leaving them to squabble and essentially beg the feds for cash.

but thats another story, wheres the doucebag latte lefty liberal thread?
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
As for the state of women in Afghanistan, that is propaganda as well.
The state of women seems to be a rallying call in both societies. Here the media cries it's horible they cover women up. There the media cries it's a nation full of loose values and trampy women.

Reminds me of my favorite Orwell quote:
"One of the most horrible featuers of war is that all the war-propoganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top