|
quote:http://ipolitics.ca/2016/06/08/scud-stud-arthur-kent-wins-defamation-suit-against-postmedia/ Better hurry collecting that judgement before he becomes another name in a long list of creditors.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
jm20 posted:Better hurry collecting that judgement before he becomes another name in a long list of creditors. As much as I hate the Post I have trouble celebrating a story about a journalist getting in trouble just because they published unflattering quotes and descriptions of a politician.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
jm20 posted:You're delusional to think we will have a dedicated and operational S&R force. We will not be defending our country from China/Russia/US in any capacity so what will the point of the submarine force be exactly? Will we be torpedoing illegal fishing boats in our exclusive economic zone near Newfoundland? Help me understand The only reason for any military equipment is to kill brown people in their mud huts The world will never have a ground war again where we need all this poo poo. We sell all of our natural resources at bargain bin prices, no need to go to war and steal it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Freeze posted:Could you provide some of this evidence? MK 48 torpedos are in plentiful supply (so plentiful that even we have them) and they'll wreck the majority of surface ships with a single hit. If you want to do S&R in the arctic, you need ships that can handle the cold weather for long periods of time. If you want self-defence, you need subs. If you want both, you'll need a bit of both. The fact that American carrier groups operate with near impunity is the big one. Anti-submarine capability is a thing, and incidentally our likely opponent in this arena is far more experienced at it than us anyway. But who exactly do you think we're going to get into a shooting war in the Arctic with, where self defence is the actual objective? How do you think submarines will meaningfully contribute in that conflict? The question of Arctic Sovereignty is much more likely to be solved at the ICJ than in a hot war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:44
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
 what does this mean
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
'Just' 'a hole' 'water' Juste un trou d'eau Just a water hole, its a pun. Didn't you learn french at all 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Trou d'eau is sinkhole
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:Trou d'eau is sinkhole That is one translation
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
"Juste un trou d'eau" means "just a water hole" and it is pronounced similarly to "Justin Trudeau".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Lame, I thought it would be some sick burn
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
I guess it doesn't matter though, we're all going to be consumed by the giant maw opening up under our city
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Funkdreamer posted:Lame, I thought it would be some sick burn Sweet French puns have nothing on CBC commentator sick burns like Justine Turdeau
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:Guys I'm posting from the bottom of The Ottawa Sinkhole On Rideau™ I'm jealous, how much are you paying? That place is huge!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
They should move Ribfest to the sinkhole so we don't have to go to Sparks Street ever again
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Was that by the McDonald's? It looks like it
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The fact that American carrier groups operate with near impunity is the big one. Anti-submarine capability is a thing, and incidentally our likely opponent in this arena is far more experienced at it than us anyway. Yeah. Canada needs poo poo like coast guards. There's going to be cruise ships filled with dumb tourists, people dumping their poo poo into the water, hunters and poachers, and any fool that gets themselves caught in the ice (which will happen a lot). I really don't see a need for military capability here. At most you need a gun if you're going to try and arrest someone belligerent. Subs are dumb and not needed. Like fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Was that by the McDonald's? It looks like it Near but not right next to it. Although I'm sure some new "customers" will crawl up out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The fact that American carrier groups operate with near impunity is the big one. Anti-submarine capability is a thing, and incidentally our likely opponent in this arena is far more experienced at it than us anyway. American carrier groups are designed around defense against subs (primarily) and aircraft (secondarily) , so that's not a great piece of evidence. I can go into more detail if you want, but you guys hate "Clancy chat." I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my rear end, dealing with naval weaponry and how they are deployed is actually my job. Subs are near impossible to detect, including ours (when they are functioning). I don't think we'll have a shootout in the Arctic. You (or someone else) said they wanted a self defence force, for which subs are definitively the best option. The real answer, as i said in my first post, is that we need some sort of armed forces to pay our dues to the Americans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Sack the navy, air force, reserve force, and 90% of NDHQ. Keep sending out CANSOFCOM (the only thing we're actually really good at on a global level, minus the manpower) out to do our little-brother contributions. Keep the land force to do stuff domestically and help out with humanitarian crises globally. Maybe throw in some decent helicopters somewhere. Spend the rest on free post-secondary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Freeze posted:American carrier groups are designed around defense against subs (primarily) and aircraft (secondarily) , so that's not a great piece of evidence. I can go into more detail if you want, but you guys hate "Clancy chat." I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my rear end, dealing with naval weaponry and how they are deployed is actually my job. Subs are near impossible to detect, including ours (when they are functioning). I really wish there was a national debate about the Canadian Forces. It's a topic of of great personal interest and of tremendous importance, but I don't really see anyone asking the fundamental questions about it that, in my view, need to be answered before Canada can have a cogent defence policy. In my view, this would start with: "What are the Canadian Forces for?" and proceed from there. Now that the Cold War is largely over and the future of warfare between great powers is a question mark at best, this debate is long past due. acumen posted:Sack the navy, air force, reserve force, and 90% of NDHQ. Keep sending out CANSOFCOM (the only thing we're actually really good at on a global level, minus the manpower) out to do our little-brother contributions. Keep the land force to do stuff domestically and help out with humanitarian crises globally. Maybe throw in some decent helicopters somewhere. Spend the rest on free post-secondary. I'm hardly an expert on the topic, but wouldn't you need at least a decently-large regular force to find the manpower and expertise necessary to field truly excellent special forces? It's always been my impression that you can't exactly recruit JTF2-quality personnel off the street. David Corbett fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:I really wish there was a national debate about the Canadian Forces. It's a topic of of great personal interest and of tremendous importance, but I don't really see anyone asking the fundamental questions about it that, in my view, need to be answered before Canada can have a cogent defence policy. In my view, this would start with: "What are the Canadian Forces for?" and proceed from there. It's a difficult question to really nail down, but I think the CAF's role is primarily to integrate with the US/NATO/UN on operations as needed. Arguably, we do minimally fulfill that role right now. You're right that nukes are going to keep the big powers from fighting it out, but there is still plenty of opportunity for proxy wars and nonsense of that nature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:I'm hardly an expert on the topic, but wouldn't you need at least a decently-large regular force to find the manpower and expertise necessary to field truly excellent special forces? It's always been my impression that you can't exactly recruit JTF2-quality personnel off the street. They're predominantly drawn from the infantry and almost exclusively drawn from land force troops (which is why I said keep 'em).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Freeze posted:It's a difficult question to really nail down, but I think the CAF's role is primarily to integrate with the US/NATO/UN on operations as needed. Arguably, we do minimally fulfill that role right now. You're right that nukes are going to keep the big powers from fighting it out, but there is still plenty of opportunity for proxy wars and nonsense of that nature. It would be much better to design the CF specifically so that they can't integrate with US forces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:Near but not right next to it. Honestly, C.H.U.D.s would improve the clientele of the Rideau Street McDonald's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Do we have people deployed to Iraq now? Did I miss something in the news? Speaking with my mom last night, she told me that my uncle (Canadian Army engineer) is over there now. She did say that she was reading between the lines, and that he would only say he was somewhere hot and sandy. Did she pull this out of thin air?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:Do we have people deployed to Iraq now? Did I miss something in the news? Speaking with my mom last night, she told me that my uncle (Canadian Army engineer) is over there now. She did say that she was reading between the lines, and that he would only say he was somewhere hot and sandy. Did she pull this out of thin air? How many hot and sandy places are there
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Canada definitely has people working with the Kurds in the north. We know this because one was killed a few months ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Man is she going to be pissed when his Bahamas vacation shows up on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:Do we have people deployed to Iraq now? Did I miss something in the news? Speaking with my mom last night, she told me that my uncle (Canadian Army engineer) is over there now. She did say that she was reading between the lines, and that he would only say he was somewhere hot and sandy. Did she pull this out of thin air? Is it too soon for a Fort Mac joke?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Is it too soon for a Fort Mac joke? *checks thread title* No.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
There is a trend on facebook of photoshoping movie monsters into the shot of the sinkhole from the top of the chateaux Laurier. It's quite entertaining so far
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:Canada definitely has people working with the Kurds in the north. Furnaceface posted:Is it too soon for a Fort Mac joke? Kafka Esq. posted:Man is she going to be pissed when his Bahamas vacation shows up on Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
acumen posted:Sack the navy, air force, reserve force, and 90% of NDHQ. Keep sending out CANSOFCOM (the only thing we're actually really good at on a global level, minus the manpower) out to do our little-brother contributions. Keep the land force to do stuff domestically and help out with humanitarian crises globally. Maybe throw in some decent helicopters somewhere. Spend the rest on free post-secondary. Eh, the opposite of what you're suggesting would probably be better. Sack the Regular Force, since when there's no actual deployments all they do is sit around and mop floors or go workout at the gym. A Reserve force is cheaper to maintain and then can be spooled up for actual deployments. Maybe keep Regular force in some kind of cadre system. Sadly all the rednecks in the Patricias will have to save up for their lift-kits with some other line of work where it's acceptable to act like douchebags and assholes around everyone you interact with
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Hey look at that, the Senate did it's job!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Hey look at that, the Senate did it's job! And Andrew Coyne is Very Mad About It http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-new-senate-activism-undermines-the-very-principle-of-democracy It goes without saying dont read the comments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Ambrose isn't thrilled about it either, and she managed to take another dig at those dastardly "unelected judges" for being the sorts of people to overturn the will of Parliament (imposed by a man she's publicly denounced) just because they decided to do pass unconstitutional laws. Far be it from me to tell an MP how government works, but isn't this a sign that the system's doing exactly what it ought to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Ambrose isn't thrilled about it either, and she managed to take another dig at those dastardly "unelected judges" for being the sorts of people to overturn the will of Parliament (imposed by a man she's publicly denounced) just because they decided to do pass unconstitutional laws. The Senate is still a corrupt institution desperately in need of reform, but this is a textbook example of why a bicameral legislature is a Good Thing. If the Senate's amendendments to make this bill actually Supreme Court compliant stick, the Senate probably just saved the Canadian taxpayer more money in constitutional challenge expenses than all the Duffies in the world can waste this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Can anyone shed light on to this? Conservative poo poo rag rebel medias' video showed up on my Facebook post. It's all about how Fort McMurray reconstruction constructs are being awarded to out of province contractors rather than residential ones. I'd rather not link that rats nest here but I can only seem to find one other article on it that actually supports what they are saying. Does anyone have more information about this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
The Alberta NDPs response to everyone losing their jobs in Alberta was, why don't you just move lol. So maybe they're just being good team players and awarding contracts to former residents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Furnaceface posted:It goes without saying dont read the comments. Lol the top rated one contained the line "Harper was right." That's got a real nice ring to it... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:34
|
|
