Tweet
Is this even something worth discussing? American soldeirs wouldn't be ther eif they weren't invited. It's not like we are invading Canada.....paaalease people.
-
-We have enough youth. How about a fountain of "Smart"?
-If you can read this, thank a teacher....and since it's in English, thank a soldier. -
Oh fuck, they stole everything... and handed out welfare cheques like it was let's make a deal or something. Broke the province. NDP are too socialist for me.Originally posted by BITEYOASS
What did they do in BC anyway? Steal joints?"Ya know what they say about angels... An angel is a supernatural being or spirit, usually humanoid in form, found in various religions and mythologies. Plus Roth fan boards..."- ZahZoo April 2013
Comment
-
I remember a CBC radio podcast which had a news story about Keifer Sutherland over in Regina schilling for that party. Mostly because his grandfather was the founder.Originally posted by Angel
Oh fuck, they stole everything... and handed out welfare cheques like it was let's make a deal or something. Broke the province. NDP are too socialist for me.Comment
-
I also think Canada should have at least one Naval Amphibious group which includes one of the RN's old carriers. Get a couple of Harrier squadrons while your at it and base it all in Newfoundland. Boost the economy up over there and distract the unemployed cod fisherman from clubbing baby seals. :DLast edited by BITEYOASS; 08-13-2007, 10:52 AM.Comment
-
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
I remember a CBC radio podcast which had a news story about Keifer Sutherland over in Regina schilling for that party. Mostly because his grandfather was the founder.
Yes...Tommy Douglas.
He was at the root at what everntually turned into the NDP.
The best thing he did what help introduce what became our universal healthcare.
The downside is he was a hair away from being a full blown commie...a very big supporter of the nanny state.Comment
-
Originally posted by BITEYOASS
I also think Canada should have at least one Naval Amphibious group which includes one of the RN's old carriers. Get a couple of Harrier squadrons while your at it and base it all in Newfoundland. Boost the economy up over there and distract the unemployed cod fisherman from clubbing baby seals. :D
Our Tories have a dream...but cash is short and we are playing catch up.
Their plan is at least one amphibious ship...a troop carrier with a helo deck(with dedicated chopers) to move eqiupment and troops from sea to land.
They almost got a chance at one of your Marine ships comming of the prodction line but had to scale back to replace our supply ships.
The opposition parties started screaming that the Harper government was copying Bush and that we had no need for an invasion ship as we are peacekeepers.
We actually borrowed one of your ships with it's crew to do an exercise...it went very well.
Never mind the fact that our peacekeeping missions require equipment and the ability to get there!Last edited by WACF; 08-13-2007, 12:19 PM.Comment
-
Welcome to Saskatchewan...the province of missed opportunities!Originally posted by Angel
Oh fuck, they stole everything... and handed out welfare cheques like it was let's make a deal or something. Broke the province. NDP are too socialist for me.
Luckily our NDPers have not done as bad as BC.
Non the less...if you swing by the Legislature and kick Calvert in the nuts for me that would be great!Comment
-
It's best for canada to have it's own basic infantry capabilities for Airborne and Amphibious operations. So to avoid the logistical BS of obtaining the means to do so from other countries. Especially when the Ministry of Defense rented a russian merchant vessel to transport equipment from the Bosnian peacekeeping operation several years ago and was late on it's payments. I think it wouldn't be too greedy to have at least one C-17 squadron and one amphibious group.Originally posted by WACF
Our Tories have a dream...but cash is short and we are playing catch up.
Their plan is at least one amphibious ship...a troop carrier with a helo deck(with dedicated chopers) to move eqiupment and troops from sea to land.
They almost got a chance at one of your Marine ships comming of the prodction line but had to scale back to replace our supply ships.
The opposition parties started screaming that the Harper government was copying Bush and that we had no need for an invasion ship as we are peacekeepers.
We actually borrowed one of your ships with it's crew to do an exercise...it went very well.
Never mind the fact that our peacekeeping missions require equipment and the ability to get there!Comment
-
Our first C-17 starts duties in Afghanistan at the end of the month.Originally posted by BITEYOASS
It's best for canada to have it's own basic infantry capabilities for Airborne and Amphibious operations. So to avoid the logistical BS of obtaining the means to do so from other countries. Especially when the Ministry of Defense rented a russian merchant vessel to transport equipment from the Bosnian peacekeeping operation several years ago and was late on it's payments. I think it wouldn't be too greedy to have at least one C-17 squadron and one amphibious group.
Our 2nd shows up in Nov and two more in the spring.
The whole renting situation was a joke...and having our equipment held hostage till we pay the bill was an embarasment!
Our DART team would always show up late to the disasters because we had to wait for a rental...you gotta shake your head at this stuff.
We lost our Airborne Regiment due to politics(bad press from Somalia and the fact the Liberals wanted to cut defense money and paratroopers are expensive!) but each Regiment retained one airborne company.
Our new Special Operations branch is supposed to fill the Airbornes void now.
The Tories are making change but it is tough...so much money is needed to bring the military back to what it should be.
It is a hard uphill battle also with two opposition parties playing politics and lying their faces off about what our military needs...it is sad.
The Liberals worked hard to convince Canadians we do not need a strong Military...peackeeping is not any different than being a security guard at a concert in their minds...and alot of Canadians believe that crap.Comment
-
Just an example of why our Liberals need a whack to the head.
The Tories are buying I think 16 Chinooks from Boeing.
The soonest we can get them is another year...we actually cut in line to get our C-17s quicker.
The Libs are crying that we should not bother because the mission is supposed to be over in 2009.
No foresight what so ever beyond 2009 and the fact we have lost troops now because of this lack of air transport.
What about future missions?
Whether it be coveted peace keeping for just natural disasters at home or abroad.
...and of course our media lets the Libs and NDPers say their negative bit but rarely does the reporter ever question what they said.Comment
-
I hear ya... after 10 years in AB, the Crown Corp thing is a little hard to take! I'd gladly kick Calvert for you... but I'd have to line up after our CEO where I work.Originally posted by WACF
Welcome to Saskatchewan...the province of missed opportunities!
Luckily our NDPers have not done as bad as BC.
Non the less...if you swing by the Legislature and kick Calvert in the nuts for me that would be great!
She lambasted him after the budget was released. Nothing like the CEO of the regulatory body for Chartered Accountants telling them they're full of shit and that their so called "balanced budget" is anything but!"Ya know what they say about angels... An angel is a supernatural being or spirit, usually humanoid in form, found in various religions and mythologies. Plus Roth fan boards..."- ZahZoo April 2013Comment
-
So do y'all want some of these Harriers the USMC is replacing within 10 years. The Rolls-Royce powerplant is a pain in the ass to maintain, but at least the bomb racks are not as complicated as the Hornets. And why are the Liberals bitching about defense appropriations? It's not like an entire damn field army is being assembled.Originally posted by WACF
Our first C-17 starts duties in Afghanistan at the end of the month.
Our 2nd shows up in Nov and two more in the spring.
The whole renting situation was a joke...and having our equipment held hostage till we pay the bill was an embarasment!
Our DART team would always show up late to the disasters because we had to wait for a rental...you gotta shake your head at this stuff.
We lost our Airborne Regiment due to politics(bad press from Somalia and the fact the Liberals wanted to cut defense money and paratroopers are expensive!) but each Regiment retained one airborne company.
Our new Special Operations branch is supposed to fill the Airbornes void now.
The Tories are making change but it is tough...so much money is needed to bring the military back to what it should be.
It is a hard uphill battle also with two opposition parties playing politics and lying their faces off about what our military needs...it is sad.
The Liberals worked hard to convince Canadians we do not need a strong Military...peackeeping is not any different than being a security guard at a concert in their minds...and alot of Canadians believe that crap.Comment
-
They will not even think of Harriers.Originally posted by BITEYOASS
So do y'all want some of these Harriers the USMC is replacing within 10 years. The Rolls-Royce powerplant is a pain in the ass to maintain, but at least the bomb racks are not as complicated as the Hornets. And why are the Liberals bitching about defense appropriations? It's not like an entire damn field army is being assembled.
If they ever get the ship they want they will have to stock it with helicopters...and God forbid...perhaps gunships for escort!
The Military wish list is for some gunships to escort our Chinooks when they enter service...this is something the Tories can not address yet...too many other things on the table.
The problem with the Liberals in Canada is at times they lean heavy to the left(Trudeau really gutted the forces)...so the Military is bad because it costs money.Comment
-
The summit is finally making the news.
No mention of US military...makes me think the original story is sensationalism.
Bush needs Three Amigos summit to cement presidential legacy
Norma Greenaway
CanWest News Service
Friday, August 17, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Weighed down by an unpopular war in Iraq and declining political clout at home, U.S. President George W. Bush arrives at the Three Amigos summit in Canada on Monday with a slim agenda and little wind in his sails.
Still, U.S. analysts say, the two-day get-together with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts in the Quebec resort town of Montebello offers Bush a chance to show his presidency has not stalled, and that he is committed to enhancing trade and security in North America.
They also say Bush wants to be constructive, and will try not to do or say anything that could backfire on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his minority government.
"President Bush is trying to demonstrate that he is engaged with allies, and engaged in international affairs and foreign policy outside of the prism of Iraq," said Scotty Greenwood, executive director of the Washington-based Canadian American Business Council. "He's trying to demonstrate that he's committed to getting it right in the neighbourhood."
Bush meets Monday and Tuesday with Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who, unlike Bush, will stay on for an extra day to spend private time with Harper at the prime minister's Harrington Lake retreat in Quebec's Gatineau Hills.
The summit agenda is loose, and holds the prospect of discussion on everything from the war in Afghanistan and upheaval in the Middle East to climate change and controversial new passport requirements for anyone travelling into the United States from Canada and elsewhere.
A major topic will be how to make the continent "safer and more prosperous," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where Bush was relaxing before travelling to Canada.
He was referring to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, launched two years ago in 2005 in Waco, Texas. It involves negotiations among officials from the three countries on a package of regulatory reforms designed to improve the North American business climate and minimize border disruptions in the post-9-11 world.
Officials also are working on a continent-wide approach to managing flu pandemics and a co-ordinated emergency planning system, two issues about which the leaders could announce agreements at the summit.
The process, however, has been decried as overly secretive by critics in all three countries. And, after two years, it has little to show in terms of concrete results.
Chris Sands, a specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Bush, eyeing the history books, wants the three leaders to inject new life into the SPP process.
"For a lot of other people, it is just an acronym," Sands said, "but for him, he's invested time in this. It stands out as potentially the most significant new initiative of Bush's second term and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere."
Bush and Harper, who will have a private session Monday, also will talk about the state of affairs in Afghanistan, where both countries have combat troops on the ground.
Harper has already said the current Canadian mission will not be extended beyond February 2009 without parliamentary consensus.
The view from Washington is that Bush, who would undoubtedly prefer that Canada stay the course beyond 2009, will be extremely careful not to stir up trouble on the subject.
"The president's people are well aware of the difficulties Harper has on this," said David Biette, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Canada Institute in Washington. "I don't think he'd want to weigh in on that."
Sands agreed. "Obviously, Bush is not the most popular salesman in Canada," and he will be careful about anything he says about the wars in either Afghanistan or Iraq, he said.
"You hear this a lot from the Bush people and the White House," he said. "They want to support Harper. They know that he's got an election coming up sometime soon."
Sands said Bush, who leaves office in 17 months, wants to push the SPP forward because he is starting to think about his legacy, and would like something on foreign policy beyond his response to the 9-11 terror attacks and his execution of the war in Iraq.
"He would like to show he accomplished something in North America," Sands said.
Biette said progress hinges on making the SPP process more transparent.
"There is a part of the Canadian population that is suspicious of Harper and, of course, ever suspicious of President Bush, so that anything connected with the two of them must be evil. And Calderon is new."
Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News ServiceComment
-
PREMEDITATED MERGER
Congress tells Bush: Back off SPP agenda
Lawmakers' letter warns 'stealth' effort to 'harmonize' could undermine security
Posted: August 17, 2007
5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Twenty-two members of the U.S. House of Representatives – 21 Republicans and a Democrat – are urging President Bush to back off his North American integration efforts when he attends the third summit meeting on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America next week in Montebello, Quebec.
They make it clear that continuing any such agenda at this point would be disregarding growing apprehension in Congress about the plans.
"As you travel to Montebello, Canada later this month for a summit with your Canadian and Mexican counterparts, we want you to be aware of serious and growing concerns in the U.S. Congress about the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) you launched with these nations in 2005," the letter said.
While the letter authors express their support for the president's "desire to promote good relations with our neighbors to the north and south," they are worried about the secretive manner in which SPP is being conducted and concerned it "may actually undermine our security and sovereignty."
"For instance," the letter said, "measures that would make it easier to move goods and people across borders could have the effect of further weakening this country's ability to secure its frontiers and prevent illegal immigration."
The letter also cited documents obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act Request that suggest, "Such secretiveness seems not to be accidental."
WND was among the first news organizations to obtain and publish the agenda and the list of attendees for a secret North American Forum meeting held at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Canada, from September 12-14, 2006. The meeting was closed to the press and the documents obtained by WND were marked "Internal Document, Not for Public Release."
President Bush with then-Mexico President Vicente Fox, left, and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in March 2005 at the inaugural summit of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (White House photo)
Judicial Watch also used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a set of notes from the Pentagon attendees at the secret Banff meeting.
One particularly disturbing comment was noted in the official conference record of the speeches given, as recorded in the "Rapporteur Notes" obtained by the Judicial Watch FOIA request. In Section VI of the conference, entitled "Border Infrastructure and Continental Prosperity," the reporter summarized as follows:
To what degree does the concept of North America help/hinder solving problems between the three countries?
* Vision is helpful
* A secure perimeter would bring enormous benefit
* While a vision is appealing working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board ("evolution by stealth")
Reflecting on those perceptions, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, "It is not encouraging to see the phrase 'evolution by stealth' in reference to important policy debates such as North American integration and cooperation. These documents provide more information to Americans concerned about the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The more transparency the better."
The members also noted in their letter the amendment added by Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., to the transportation funding bill.
As WND reported, Hunter successfully offered an amendment to H.R.3074, the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, prohibiting the use of federal funds to participate in SPP-related working group meetings in the future.
The members noted in their letter that, "This vote is an indication of the serious concerns felt by those of us in Congress and by our constituents about this initiative – concerns that will only be intensified if pursuit of the SPP continues out of public view and without congressional oversight or approval."
The last paragraph of the letter called upon the president "not to pledge or agree to any further movement in connection with the SPP at the upcoming North American summit."
The letter concluded that, "in the interest of transparency and accountability, we urge you to bring to the Congress whatever provisions have already been agreed upon and those now being pursued or contemplated as part of this initiative, for the purpose of obtaining authorization through the normal legislative process."
Signatories to the letter included the following members of the House of Representatives:
* Rep. Terry Everett, R-Alabama
* Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California
* Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado
* Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas
* Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kansas
* Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina
* Rep. David Davis, R-Tenn.
* Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia
* Rep. John Boozman, R-Arkansas
* Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn.
* Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Virginia
* Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia
* Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Florida
* Rep. Sue Myrick, R-North Carolina
* Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Alabama
* Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif.
* Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa
* Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon
* Rep. Michael Rogers, R-Alabama
* Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan
* Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama
* Rep. Todd Akin, R-MissouriComment
Comment