[DerbyX]

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

In addition, they might also mention that by the time Harper got into office they had actually developed equipment specifically designed to fight specific tactics which he was able to buy.

Such as?

Vehicles designed to withstand IEDs for instance. It took years of losing troops as they developed better vehicles not to mention refining tactics and such.

The US spent the first 4 years of the Iraq war suffering loads of casualties learning the lessons and developing the equipment that Harper is so readily given credit for.

[bootlegga]

Tricks Tricks:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Too bad G-Wagons those were bought in 2005, BEFORE your buddy got into office. You should have posted a pic of the $3 billion buses (CC-17) he bought instead...

Doesn't the air force love the C-17s?

I don't doubt they do. I was pointing out that AR should have posted a pic of something Harper bought, not Martin.

[Tricks]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Tricks Tricks:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Too bad G-Wagons those were bought in 2005, BEFORE your buddy got into office. You should have posted a pic of the $3 billion buses (CC-17) he bought instead...

Doesn't the air force love the C-17s?

I don't doubt they do. I was pointing out that AR should have posted a pic of something Harper bought, not Martin.

I think he was point out that it was a martin purchase and that it sucked. Perhaps go back and read what he wrote?

[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Vehicles designed to withstand IEDs for instance. It took years of losing troops as they developed better vehicles not to mention refining tactics and such.

The US spent the first 4 years of the Iraq war suffering loads of casualties learning the lessons and developing the equipment that Harper is so readily given credit for.

Oh sorry, I thought you were saying they had this and he didn't buy it, not that he did.


So is there a negative here, obviously other than the casualties that had to be suffered before someone jumps on me about that.

[roger-roger]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

In addition, they might also mention that by the time Harper got into office they had actually developed equipment specifically designed to fight specific tactics which he was able to buy.

Such as?

Vehicles designed to withstand IEDs for instance. It took years of losing troops as they developed better vehicles not to mention refining tactics and such.

The US spent the first 4 years of the Iraq war suffering loads of casualties learning the lessons and developing the equipment that Harper is so readily given credit for.

From my understanding the R&D for the equipment was done by a third party with information given to them by the Americans and NATO.

[bootlegga]

Tricks Tricks:

I think he was point out that it was a martin purchase and that it sucked. Perhaps go back and read what he wrote?

I wouldn't say they suck. I would say that they are a vast improvement over the Itlis, which they replaced. Are they as good as a tank, no, but there isn't anything anywhere that is totally proof against IEDs.

I also recall that the CF sure seemed happy when the purchase order for G-Wagens was made too (just like the C-17).

[2Cdo]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I wouldn't say they suck. I would say that they are a vast improvement over the Itlis, which they replaced. Are they as good as a tank, no, but there isn't anything anywhere that is totally proof against IEDs.

The high-lighted portion should be required reading for all the morons who bemoan vehicles being destroyed by IED's. To destroy ANY vehicle, all that is required is the proper amount of explosives placed in the proper spot and detonated at the proper time.

Nothing is IED proof.

[roger-roger]

They were just happy to have something replace the Iltis and LS, they still use the LS. Originally the CF was going to try and get a variant of the Hummer, but there were disputes over the production so it was dropped. The GWagon is a good piece of kit for training, but cant carry shit and the cage severely limits access to the back. Most are till under the Mercedes warranty as well, so when that runs out I could see the cost of upkeep skyrocket.

[roger-roger]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

In addition, they might also mention that by the time Harper got into office they had actually developed equipment specifically designed to fight specific tactics which he was able to buy.

Such as?

Vehicles designed to withstand IEDs for instance. It took years of losing troops as they developed better vehicles not to mention refining tactics and such.

The US spent the first 4 years of the Iraq war suffering loads of casualties learning the lessons and developing the equipment that Harper is so readily given credit for.

Just did a quick check at work, they come from South Africa and were thought up by the Brits, so giving the credit to the Americans wrong.

[DerbyX]

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Vehicles designed to withstand IEDs for instance. It took years of losing troops as they developed better vehicles not to mention refining tactics and such.

The US spent the first 4 years of the Iraq war suffering loads of casualties learning the lessons and developing the equipment that Harper is so readily given credit for.

Oh sorry, I thought you were saying they had this and he didn't buy it, not that he did.


So is there a negative here, obviously other than the casualties that had to be suffered before someone jumps on me about that.

Yes. It was meant as a respone to Alta_Rednecks post comparing the merits and effectiveness between kit bought by Harper and Martin. I get sick of hearing about how everything the Liberals bought was crap (except when its good and they receive no credit) and Harper being lauded for having guru like vision for the things he bought.

Take the Iltis jeeps. Mulroney bought yet Chretien was vilified for sending troops into combat with them instead of reaching into the future and purchasing Nylas when the dollar was at parity.

Everytime military purchases come up the Liberals are blamed for bad equipment or equipment that doesn't work up to scratch and when its good then "they had to buy it anyway". Then along comes Harper and suddenly its the suppliers fault when the Libs can't be blamed (C-17 woes) and the Libs fault when they can (cyclone problems).

[DerbyX]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Just did a quick check at work, they come from South Africa, so giving the credit to the Americans wrong.

I'm sure that the hard lessons of IED warfare in both wars provided the necessary information vehicles designers used.

[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Vehicles designed to withstand IEDs for instance. It took years of losing troops as they developed better vehicles not to mention refining tactics and such.

The US spent the first 4 years of the Iraq war suffering loads of casualties learning the lessons and developing the equipment that Harper is so readily given credit for.

Oh sorry, I thought you were saying they had this and he didn't buy it, not that he did.


So is there a negative here, obviously other than the casualties that had to be suffered before someone jumps on me about that.

Yes. It was meant as a respone to Alta_Rednecks post comparing the merits and effectiveness between kit bought by Harper and Martin. I get sick of hearing about how everything the Liberals bought was crap (except when its good and they receive no credit) and Harper being lauded for having guru like vision for the things he bought.

Take the Iltis jeeps. Mulroney bought yet Chretien was vilified for sending troops into combat with them instead of reaching into the future and purchasing Nylas when the dollar was at parity.

Everytime military purchases come up the Liberals are blamed for bad equipment or equipment that doesn't work up to scratch and when its good then "they had to buy it anyway". Then along comes Harper and suddenly its the suppliers fault when the Libs can't be blamed (C-17 woes) and the Libs fault when they can (cyclone problems).

I don't disagree with you on the partisan ramblings of people. Both governments have bought things for the military, that's undeniable. Is it not fair, however, to say that Harper as put much needed money into the military (albeit because of the surplus the Liberals handed him)?.

[Tricks]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Tricks Tricks:

I think he was point out that it was a martin purchase and that it sucked. Perhaps go back and read what he wrote?

I wouldn't say they suck. I would say that they are a vast improvement over the Itlis, which they replaced. Are they as good as a tank, no, but there isn't anything anywhere that is totally proof against IEDs.

I also recall that the CF sure seemed happy when the purchase order for G-Wagens was made too (just like the C-17).

Maybe sucked was the wrong word, but not as good as we could have had.

[Robair]

So, back to the topic of Conservative fiscal policies... why reduce the GST while the country is at war? Are wars not expensive?

[bootlegga]

Yes they are, and that surplus would have allowed us to better weather the current crisis. We weren't hurt as badly when the market flucuated after the Asian banking crisis or 9/11, because we had a surplus to invest in our economy.

Like Martin said on TV, you can't expect the markets to rise forever. While you can't expect what will happen in the future, having a few bucks set aside gives you a cushion to deal with those unexpected crises that seem to occur every few years.