Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Response to Winnipegger:

We do need a capability in the arctic to enforce our sovereignty. The north-west passage will be used more frequently as it gets warmer and becomes the ideal shipping route when compared to the Panama Canal. The Americans believe that the north-west passage does not belong to Canada and is instead international waters. There is also the belief that there exists untapped oil in the arctic as well as other resources. The Americans, Russians, and Danish will all be competing for these resources with Canada. Also submarines from a number of countries operate in our waters without authorization. None of our naval ships are capable of operating in the arctic. These are the challenges Canada faces in the arctic. The proposed deep water navy port would actually help the local community and possible add a tourist stop for cruise ships.

Transport ships – The conservatives are proposing something like the American San Antonio class (LPD) which has the ability to transport equipment and a small force of troops. Helicopters are operated as well as a hospital. It cannot carry the same amount of heavy equipment as a civilian commercial ship, but with C-17s we should be okay. Ships like these would come in handy for situations like we saw this past summer in Lebanon.

The conservatives do wish to scrap our AOR ships, and as far as I know the plan is to use them until new ones come on line or until they can no longer be used. This may mean scrapping them before new ones are operable.

It might be ideal to retire some of the Auroras to free up some money. I know the conservatives have halted the program to upgrade the remaining aircraft. Testing has been done with UAVs patrolling our coasts in joint operations with the army. I believe there is consideration to send upgraded auroras that are capable of reconnaissance to Afghanistan. This is something the Americans have done in Iraq and Afghanistan with their P-3Cs.

Our navy destroyers were launched in the early 70s. There is a difference in a ship that is made to last 50 years and a ship that can take the fight to the enemy 50 years into the future. Credible navies do not use 50 year old ships except for aircraft carriers. There are no plans to scrap our frigates immediately. The plan is to design a ship to replace the frigates in the future. There is nothing wrong with them and they are supposed to be getting the necessary upgrades. I cannot remember if the 14 ships are for the replacement of the 12 frigates alone, or all 16 ships. If it’s the latter, I agree with you it would not be wise. I believe it’s wrong to have only one class type of ship.

Our soldiers do not start wars and having a tank does not mean we will. Al Qaeda is located around the world. It’s not possible to take them out in 5 months even when only considering Afghanistan. Your philosophy is weak and I’ll tell you why. You can’t predict wars but only hope to shape it in your favour. You suggest to hit someone first if they’ve already landed a blow. That doesn’t make sense. Your “go big and get out fast” policy suggests its fair game to use a nuke in Afghanistan. When you fight a war you cannot just be concerned with the immediate present, you have to also look to the future.

From the beginning the Taliban were a concern because they would not cooperate with us. Yes we did give them a chance. We did not even directly fight the Taliban in the beginning; instead the Americans supported a local faction which ousted them from power. Your right it would’ve probably been ideal to have the Americans send 140,000 soldiers into Afghanistan and taken the charge to get Osama when they thought they had him cornered in the mountains. Instead they sent the ANA and they lost him. However, you cannot assume that this would work. Not here or in every case. NATO isn’t fighting a conventional war but a guerilla one. There are no battle lines and no assurance that the defeat of a professional army consisting of a set number of personnel will declare you victorious. This is a battle of ideals where neighbouring countries are contributing to the enemy.

Stephen Harper was not the one who decided we were targeting the Taliban. The Taliban was ousted from power but remained a threat. As I said they are an enemy for not cooperating with NATO. When NATO forces came into contact with the enemy early on in the war, it was Al Qaeda and Taliban.

What you need to accept is that even if this mission was to have gone as you said and is supposed to be peacekeeping; the reality in Afghanistan does not support such a mission. The Taliban is fighting our forces and therefore we continue to fight a war. As I said before, the traditional peacekeeping of the Cold War died in the 90s. If a peacekeeping operation calls for tanks as it did in Bosnia in the mid-90s, then tanks will be deployed. It is just that simple. The commanders on the ground know what they need. I’m not even sure why the mission would be a peacekeeping one if following your plan we won total victory and entered a rebuilding stage. Would this not be a time of peace?

   

Did you read what I wrote? You attempted to lecture me that we need arctic defence to enforce our security, but the reason you raise the issue is my argument that we need arctic defence. You mentioned an arctic deep water port, but again I'm the one who said we need a deep water port. Specifically you said we need the port for more than just defence, but I'm the one who said we need it for more than just defence. Do you understand what you read?

I see you want to argue in support of the Conservatives. I have news for you, they do want to scrap the AOR ships now. The schedule is results in a gap of 10 years from current ships decommissioned to new ships available.

There's a larger issue here. The mistaken belief that everything has a short useful life, everything must be thrown away and replaced with a new thing. This is a scam perpetrated by salesmen for retail stores. Quality equipment of any sort last many years. Applying this "throw away" mentality to ships is just irresponsible. You admitted that carriers can last 50 years, but don't want to apply that to destroyers and frigates. Stop and think why; what is it that makes a destroyer wear out. The answer is nothing. These aren't like aircraft, built of thin sheet metal that accumulates microfractures after a certain number of flying hours. Ships are made of thick steel plate. A ship's hull is a ship's hull, it's a big floating hunk of steel. The engine can wear out because it has moving parts, but stop and think: which is cheaper, a new engine or a hull and a new engine? It really is that simple. A ship is good until it's hull design is obsolete, but ships aren't changing rapidly, they're a mature technology. "Refitting" means replacing weapons, computers, telephones, and other equipment. That's the part that changes rapidly, and replacing that is all you need. The Iroquois class destroyers have a hull that's fine, and they've been refitted a couple times already. Throwing away a perfectly good hull just to build a new one exactly the same is just a waste of money.

By the way, the announcement was the 14 new ships are to replace all 16 of our current ships.

As for the Taliban, you're wrong. We're the ones invading their country. Don't be surprised when they fight back. Their issue has been with superpowers using military force, either overt or covert, to control their country. They want all foreigners out. That's reasonable. The problem is and always was Al Qaeda. National militaries has been built to fight the military of another nation. They're not trained or equiped to take out a non-national organization like Al Qaeda, that's police work. The US military has targetted the Taliban because it's easy, they're a scape goat. Canada sent it's military to take out Al Qaeda, then clean up the mess. Unfortunately the US military continued to stir up trouble. Unfortunately Stephen Harper has repeated the order to target the Taliban. Yes, sending soldiers to shoot members of an organization you don't have a quarrel with does start a war.

Oh, "go big and get out fast" does not justify nukes. It also does not justify chemical, biological, or radiological weapons. To does mean dropping tonnes of explosive on fortified enemy positions, using aircraft and attack helicopters to blow away enemy tanks or other armoured fighting vehicles, and generally just overwhelm the enemy. The total number of casualties is actually reduced this way because the conflict is not prolonged.

   

I was agreeing with you and this isn't even your idea. The is part of the conservatives Canada first initiative, and Granatstein has also argued these same points.



I'm not saying I support this, only what the conservatives argue is the need for these as well as some filler information. I didn't say they want to scrap them now. You said a gap of 10 years right? I took this to mean you thought they were retiring them in the near future as the purchase of AORs will be relatively soon.



Thirty years is a short life? Don't blame this on capitalism. Aircraft carriers are intended to last 50 years, however that doesn't necessarily mean they will be used in year 50. The JFK was recently retired last month after 39 years. They also require refits that can last as long as 3 years to extend there life so that they can be operated if need be in year 50. This is the case with the Enterprise as it is projected to be replaced in its 52nd year after undergoing many refits including 4 refuelings. The USN does not want to operate a 50 year old aircraft carrier, it has to in some cases because of money and the projected time frame of newer carriers entering the fleet. 50 years is half a century and a lot changes in that time. Newer ships today have newer designs. They do not share the same hull technology. Compare the new San Antonio LPDs to older LPDs and tell me that they are the same. If you look at the 10 nimitz class carriers, you will see differences. The overall profile of newer ships are different. And the engine is not the only thing that ages in a ship. The whole ship does.




When did I say that I was surprised that the Taliban was fighting us? Not trained for Al Qaeda...really? What do you think specials forces are trained for? They train in unconventional warfare and counter terrorism. As the AOA changes, they train to fight and face these new challenges and conditions. The US military is in a process of transformation as are other military's like ours to combat these new challenges. For example, the US now has organized into Brigade Combat Teams and is continually working on more advanced technology for the war on terrorism.



Look you said to get it over with quickly and use whatever force is necessary to achieve this. Now I don't support the use of nukes and I don't think you do either, but an argument as yours could justify there use. Now your saying that we need to use tons of explosives, aircraft and attack helicopters to overwhelm an enemy. I thought you said we only needed LAVs and armored vests in Afghanistan. Which is it? You also can't assume that the casualties are reduced.

   

You do realize a majority of Taliban fighters are Pakistani, don't you?

And it's not their country even if they were all Afghani. It's their country as much as it is some random warlords country. The country belongs to the people. The current government belongs to the people a hell of a lot more than the Taliban or a warlord does.

The people only liked the Taliban better than the warlords because it meant way less infighting and secure economic routes for trade and infrastructure ... What was allowed into the country anyways.

   

The Taliban should have handed over Osama and gave them access to the
Al Qaeda training camps to NATO.

Canada sent over its military to rebuild and provide security for Afghanistan. The Taliban are a threat to Afghanistans security.

   

You are right on some points. I would like to see no use of military at all. Military means killing people, which is very bad; but they have some really fun toys. I have a design for a new Canadian aircraft carrier, with a displacement as large as the Charles de Gaulle of France it would be classified as a full carrier, but not a supercarrier. However, it carries as many aircraft as a Nimitz class supercarrier. With a heavy icebreaker hull capable of travelling to the point of the north pole, but also able to handle high seas such as the middle of the ocean in a heavy storm. That means it could be used in the arctic or middle east. I could argue how we can add hinges to fold the wings of our CF-18 fighters, making them carrier based aircraft. Remember we have 33 in storage. It's really, really good; but the nagging question is what would we use it for? Missile destroyers are better at naval combat, and once you have control of a country you can base airforce aircraft from an airport within that country. You only need a carrier to mount an initial invasion. I also have plans to convert a carrier of the same class as our HMCS Bonaventure to support current aircraft; it can be done though it requires a significant amount of work. There is one aircraft of that class remaining and it is available. It's a light carrier, half the displacement of the full carrier I designed, but could be used as a light strike carrier, ASW, or an assault carrier. Reconfiguration simply by changing the aircraft complement. Again, designing this stuff is really fun, but it's used to drop bombs on people.

Some of your specific points: JTF2 is trained for anti-terrorism. The regular army is not, and America has almost no forces trained for it. Delta Force is not as good as JTF2, but they are the US military unit for anti-terrorism. JTF2 was the first in to Afghanistan. Yup, we went after Al Qaeda before anyone else. Take out those who attacked our ally. But now the US military is focusing on Taliban, and the Canadian military has been re-directed to that goal as well.

A nagging point for me is the question of why are we there. War is evil. What is the difference between guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and mass murder? Really. You have to defend yourself when an organized military attacks, but other than direct defence war cannot be justified. War is murder on a mass scale. "Pre-emptive" military action of any sort cannot be justified; "pre-emptive" means you are the aggressor. Attempting to dictate to another country at the point of a gun is extortion, racketeerism, and if you follow through it's murder. So we have no business dictating to Afghanistan how they run their country. We have no business judging the Taliban, no matter how bad they are by our values. We can judge Al Qaeda and have a responsibility to defend our ally against Al Qaeda, but that justification ends with Al Qaeda. So you see I have a real problem with an escalation of operations in Afghanistan as long as we're targeting the Taliban. They aren't our opponent, Al Qaeda is. Rooting out Al Qaeda, separating Al Qaeda members from other Afghani citizens, is a police job, not military.

So this comes back to tanks. Why do we need tanks for a police operation? Tanks further escalate the conflict into military opposition of the previous legitimate government of Afghanistan, and military support for the current political party in power in Afghanistan. Why would we want to use our military for that? We need more APCs, perhaps with better armour, better able to cross ditches (such as tracks instead of tires), and most importantly with a lower center of gravity so it doesn't tip over. We don't need tanks; tanks carry a huge gun turret with a driver, gunner, and commander, not infantry. Again, we don't need tanks.

Oh, by the way, the AC-130 gunship also shot a village with civilians. All of the Al Qaeda leaders they claimed to target got away, dozens of civilians were killed. That's what happens when you send a long-range gunship to do a police job instead of ground forces. The gunship can't discriminate.

So, shall we move the discussion to a nice fantasy of aircraft carriers and high-tech weaponry? The hawks seem to like that fantasy and I find the hardware fun. We have to ensure we don't deploy hardware like tanks were people get killed.

   

The role Canada has in theater is offensive. If you want to put out a fire before it rages out of control do you use half measures? Afghanistan is not secure, Kabul is barely stable but at least it is not a civil war like in Iraq. Lets not give it the chance to get that far out of hand by uprooting every last single refuge of the enemy. If that means civilians will get killed so be it but that happens even in peacetime so let's not kid ourselves. Afghanistan is not post war Germany and even then it took decades to rebuild and that's without an insurgency.

I find it incredulous that you so readily take the side of the Taliban whenever someone dies. You do realize we are at WAR not a police action right?

   

I'm not justifying the gunship attack but this just shows me how much you have to learn about the mission and how things operate. You're trying to draw up plans for a military to use and yet you have no idea how things actually work on the ground. I think you're aiming at becoming a politician. Atleast you fit the bill.

It can take a LONG time to get ground forces assembled and in place for a quick grab. It's very very very obvious where you're heading and what you're most likely going to be doing. There are only so many roads and they know as soon as you leave base that you've left.

How would your police force hold up in a valley 50 KM from base under attack from RPGs and sustained fire? You think the casualties are bad now...

   

It's not up to us to "put out a fire", we aren't there to control Afghanistan. No country is qualified to dictate to another country how they run their internal affairs. Taliban is not the enemy. I said before the US went into Afghanistan that they were not justified to do so, that Al Qaeda is the enemy, no one else. Al Qaeda attacked the US on their soil, they're our ally, therefore we're there to take out Al Qaeda. The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, they offered to hand over Al Qaeda. George W. badly mishandled that, now we have been pushed into a war with group whom we have no quarrel.

Also be careful of words like "insurgency". One man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter. I'm sure they see themselves as freedom fighters, fighting a foreign invader.

   

Actually, that statement makes me think you have a lot to learn about how things operate. The gunship attack was not in Iraq or Afghanistan, it was not in an active combat zone against another national military. Actually the battle in those countries isn't either. The gunship attack was into Somalia, a nation with it's own problems but the US was not engaged in war against the government of Somalia. The stated target was a few Al Qaeda members, a terrorist organization. Terrorist, read criminal. They aren't military, they're criminal. The result is exactly what you would expect, innocent civilians got killed and all their targets got away. That's exactly why you send police, not a gunship. A mission like this requires a SWAT team. Are infantry trained to make arrests, not kill? I don't think so. A specially trained anti-terrorism unit might be able to handle it, but again that means sending ground troops, not a gunship.

As for other military hardware, the concerns you raise have been addressed but the way you say it makes me think I shouldn't post on a public forum. No, it's not a cop-out, I really think it may be prudent not to discuss them in public. Then again, no one is listening to me anyway; at least not yet.

   

You know, I have a few confessions to make. One is that I don't know anything about Somalia. The other is that I couldn't read your mind to determine that you were talking about Somalia.

You'd be one of those people who would quote Hitler and not let the audience know who you were quoting waiting for them to clap so as to label them all and to prove some kind of striking point.

We were talking about Canada in Afghanistan.

If it makes you feel better (I doubt it). We were trained to take prisoners and not kill if we have to. I can remember many a time when I (as an infanteer) in Afghanistan (as a gunner for a LAV3) did NOT fire my weapon on people I suspected of being the "bad guy." Why? Sometimes because I wasn't sure but most times because they hadn't proven themselves to be the enemy yet. The infantry doesn't close their eyes and blindly fire as some like to believe. And that's as close as i'll get to talking about ROEs.

   

The Taliban is using violence against the government of Afghanistan. Frankly, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... it's a duck. The Taliban could follow the path of Seinn Feinn by abandoning the ways of violence and commit toward meaningful political change in their country but they are not doing so. That is their choice they have abdicated any legitimate stake they may have had in the creation of a civil authority. If they choose to act like animals then they deserve to be put down like wild dogs.

   

Well said. You've said it a few times better than I could have or did.

   

OK, I'm jumping into this tread !

So we were not qualified to run the internal affairs of Germany after WWII







Al Qaeda is islamists.

Taliban are islamists.

Jamaat Al Fuqra is islamist (and has it's roots in North America)

Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamaat Ud Dawa are islamists.

Hamas/Fatah/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad are islamists.

Muslim Brotherhood is islamist.

GSPC (Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat) is islamist.

Islamic Army of Iraq is islamist.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards are islamists.

Islamic Tribunals are islamists.

Janjaweeds are islamists.

CAIR is islamist.

Racailles are islamist.

They are all the same, with minor differences, like Shia/Sunni. But they all share the same goal : conquest of the world and establishment of a giant islamic state.

Their way to do so may differ... most groups have short-term objectives (destruction of Israel, establishement of Islamic states in the Philipenes/North-West China/Nigeria/Kosovo/etc. while Al Qaeda wants to re-establish the Caliphate right away, but they all have the same long-term objective : submit all other religions to Islam.





Yes, especialy that MANY of the "insurgents" making trouble in A-stan or Iraq are actually strangers (OUTsurgents ) that pour into these countries to kill infidels.



Nah, it's more along the line "Allah fighter" fighting "Crusader invaders".

   

I'd agree. This is playing politics with our peoples lives and I still don't see where Winnipegger has a leg to stand on.
The troops on the ground are going to be the ones who know best what they need, not some NDP Defence critic Dawn Black or any politico who's never got his shoes dirty. If they want tanks and we can afford them, then they get them.
Debating the mission or the purpose of the forces every time they want something is how the Liberals put them in the dumper in the first place.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next