Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:30 am    Post subject: Canadian Tanks to Afghanistan! Reply with quote

Unbelievably good news, the DOD has decided to send Leopard tanks to Afghanistan. Great morale boost for our troops. Here's the story.

Last edited by fhilliard on Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total
McGuire





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 369
Reputation: 20.2Reputation: 20.2
Location: Soviet Pictouwestistan

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given the Afghan terrain, I wonder how effective they could be?
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:35 am    Post subject: Renting bulldozers to Fight a War Reply with quote

McGuire wrote:
Given the Afghan terrain, I wonder how effective they could be?


All the current battles in Panjwai are on the flat in the river valley. Should be no problem. I just hope we get the Americans to lift them by air. I think the C-17 Globemaster can carry one per trip.

The Globe & Mail had some more info buried in its story today:
Quote:
The tanks will be welcomed by the soldiers who say the heavy machines can plow through the mud walls and deep irrigation ditches of Panjwai. At the moment they're relying on a bulldozer they borrowed from the local authorities. Two years ago, General Rick Hillier, who is now Chief of the Defence Staff, declared the Leopards “useless” because they were too large to negotiate the narrow streets of Kabul.

But the nature of the mission has changed and so have the tools. The decision to send the new equipment has been in the works for some time and is not related to any of the recent casualties, officials said.


We've been renting bulldozers to fight a war!! Oh, baby!
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Unbelievably good news".... Please explain how this is "unbelievably good news." Looks to me like five years after we invaded the country we are meeting with greater resistance. If that's unbelievably good news, what is bad news?
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:40 pm    Post subject: Explaining 'good news' Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
"Unbelievably good news".... Please explain how this is "unbelievably good news." Looks to me like five years after we invaded the country we are meeting with greater resistance. If that's unbelievably good news, what is bad news?


Bad news would be Canadians confined to their Kandahar base because they were unable to take on the Taliban. But there's more to your comment than a rhetorical question; the statement that 'we invaded the country.' No. The Government of Afghanistan invited us to help it assume control over the country, which had been run by the Taliban and assorted war lords. So let's get the history straight.

My relief and pleasure at the imminent arrival of the Leopards will, I'm sure, be mirrored in the faces of our troops on the ground. When you're in a fight with an entrenched enemy, who has spent months (years?) building bunkers and other fighting complexes, the support of tanks is very, very welcome.

American soldiers in Fallujah found that working with tanks was the only way to make any headway in an urban environment. The Panjwai district, as we saw recently from a front page map in the Globe & Mail is a valley floor with hundreds of small towns and settlements surrounded by mud and stone walls. This means that warfare here is much more 'urban' than anyone expected; thus the need for tanks.

Finally, let me say that I'm also pleased that we can finally put the 'peacekeeper' image of Canadian soldiers to bed. The LAV's we have were never meant to be the forward offensive arm they've been turned into. Slapping a chain gun and a turret on them was cheap and dirty politics on the part of the Liberal government. Now we're going to give our troops what troops need in a big fight; armoured power.

So yes, this is good news. I feel a great sense of relief, not just for our troops, but for Canada.
Albertan Technophile





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Reputation: 14.2
Location: guess :)

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The LAV's we have were never meant to be the forward offensive arm they've been turned into. Slapping a chain gun and a turret on them was cheap and dirty politics on the part of the Liberal government. Now we're going to give our troops what troops need in a big fight; armoured power.


Actually the 20mm cannon on the LAV's are bloody nasty against infantry, and thier armor is proving to be impervious to the RPG7s the Taliban bounce off of em. I've even seen footage of IEDs flipping a LAV on its side, only to have the LAV drive away after being pushed back upright. I think buying the LAVs was an accidental sucess on the part of the Libs.

But our troops definately could use the firepower of a tank to pound bunkers and penetrate obsticals like walls and ditches. Not to mention nothing scares infantry like a tank.
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How do they want to get them there?

But well, it is about time to support our troops more than they deserve
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:18 pm    Post subject: More on cannons Reply with quote

Quote:

Actually the 20mm cannon on the LAV's are bloody nasty against infantry, and thier armor is proving to be impervious to the RPG7s the Taliban bounce off of em. I've even seen footage of IEDs flipping a LAV on its side, only to have the LAV drive away after being pushed back upright. I think buying the LAVs was an accidental sucess on the part of the Libs.
.


Actually it's a 25 mm stabilized cannon, or what the Americans call a 'chain gun'. And yes, it's been an "accidental success" in protecting our troops. However, there's no comparison between the cannon on a LAV and the 105mm cannon on a Leopard.

My point really was that the Liberals were trying to add an offensive capability on a defensive piece of equipment (hey, two for the price of one! And it doesn't even LOOK offensive! Perfect!). Typical duplicity, typical cheap way to go.
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:26 pm    Post subject: Fly 'em in Reply with quote

Winston2004 wrote:
How do they want to get them there?


We can fly them in with rented Antonov's, or ask the Americans, nicely, to do it with their heavy lift.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canada has tanks?

PS. How old are Canada's Leopards?


Last edited by kwlafayette on Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
fhilliard





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 39
Reputation: 14.5
Location: Grand Forks, BC

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:24 pm    Post subject: Wonderdog takes me to task Reply with quote

Quote:
I worked for GM Defence (as it was then) on the development of the LAV III. Furthermore, I'm a former armoured corps soldier. And your post is, frankly, adrift without a fact to cling to.

The LAV III is the best in its class in the world. That is why the US Army has also adopted it. It is a progressive development of the LAV-25, adopted by the US Marine Corps, and it features the same armament with improved armoured protection and mobility. The LAV-25 has been in service since the mid 80s.

The LAV III is, to my knowledge, the only wheeled armoured vehicle in the world that carries both a full infantry section and a weapon capable of defeating other armoured vehicles. Up until the time of its introduction, vehicles in that class were all tracked and were usually called Infantry Fighting Vehicles rather than APCs. These are not defensive weapons.

The purpose of an IFV or APC is to protect troops from small arms fire and artillery while they close with and destroy the enemy. The Leopard cannot do this; its role is to provide fire support to the infantry, not to carry troops from place to place. It cannot carry infantry.

The suggestion that the LAV-III was offered as an alternative to the Leopard is simply ignorant. It was, in fact, a replacement for the Grizzly APC, armed with one .50 and one .303 machinegun, and is vastly superior to that vehicle.

The reason Leopards are being sent to Afghanistan is not that the LAV III is a poor vehicle for its role. The Leopards are required because heavy direct fire support is needed, which was evidently not anticipated. The LAV III is not intended to perform that role; no vehicle in an infantry regiment provides heavy direct fire support. That is the role of the armoured corps.

I hate to burst your partisan bubble, but the LAV III is one of a number of excellent pieces of equipment that came into service during the Chretien years to replace obsolete kit. Troops received new uniforms, new body armour, new web gear, new rifles, new machineguns, new radios, new helmets, and new vehicles. The rust-out of the CF is not universal, and the infantry are mostly equipped with new kit.

And lest you think that's partisan commentary, I also have to point out that many of those new equipment programs, particularly the small arms replacement program, actually originated in the Mulroney years.


The above quote is from wonderdog over at my blog at my blog at mesopotamia west

I think you've mistaken what I said which was that the LAV III was upgunned because the then Liberal government didn't have the nerve to order the tanks the armoured corps actually needed. I agree the LAV III is a great APC, no question. That does not make it a great fire support platform.

I lived in London, Ontario too and am quite familiar with GM Diesel (as it was). My comment was not a criticism of the LAV III as such, but rather the attempt by the Chretien government to slide on by the hard realities of modern warfare.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
"Unbelievably good news".... Please explain how this is "unbelievably good news." Looks to me like five years after we invaded the country we are meeting with greater resistance. If that's unbelievably good news, what is bad news?


Here are some of the ways women were oppressed by the Taliban...

* Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals.
* Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband)
* Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers
* Ban on women being treated by male doctors (remember that there are VERY few female doctors - guess what that means)
* Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution
* Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage
* Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males
* Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice)
* Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club
* Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes

We should have allowed this to continue? We should pullout now and allow it to continue? I have to wonder what the world would be like under your rule if oppressors had the security of knowing they will never be confronted for the evil that they do. But I suppose we could pretend that yet another UN resolution might persuade them to be nicer.

Quote:
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm really not sure how people can go through life beating up strawmen and feeling good about it.
Quote:
I have to wonder what the world would be like under your rule if oppressors had the security of knowing they will never be confronted for the evil that they do.
No, I want to systematically destroy all sources of oppression and hierarchy. I want a policy that does this with the most efficiency and humility possible for the scale of the task. I want to encourage the sorts of actions that scares rulers the most: Destroying social and economic hierarchies from below. And I want this sort of logic applied to our own communities and the reactionary hierarchies we support. But this puts things too much in the negative: What I sincerely want is to create free egalitarian communities where people have participatory control over their economies and determine their own free work.

Anyways, it is absurd to quote Einstein, a pacifist and socialist, to justify war.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Anyways, it is absurd to quote Einstein, a pacifist and socialist, to justify war.


Ummm. What exactly do you think he meant by the statement??? I would like an explanation so that I know exactly how absurd I was.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
No, I want to systematically destroy all sources of oppression and hierarchy. I want a policy that does this with the most efficiency and humility possible for the scale of the task. I want to encourage the sorts of actions that scares rulers the most: Destroying social and economic hierarchies from below.


I'm a realist. Don't you think if this sort of utopian methodology had a hope in hell of working that it would have been done by now. All I hear is a bunch of platitudes with no concrete direction or specific policy ideas. Your soft approach would have zero impact on Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other force of evil.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Canadian Tanks to Afghanistan!

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB