Originally posted by Pongo
Cant say its inappropriate, just stupid and about a totaly different issue.
[/b]
You forgot "inconvenient". Comparisons that parallel your little hissy-fit about the US leadership/military procurement and make Canada's leadership/military procurement look similarly incompetent are "inconvenient" when you are in mid "anti-Bush diatribe".
Canada buys 4 subs at a bargain and has lots of trouble with them.
You'd think it'd be stupid in hind sight, stupid in forsight, present sight and any sight at all to buy those mothballed subs thinking they could be made ocean-ready for that amount of money. Wonder why the Brits retired them. Duh!
Then to put the oldest and roughest of them through the same repair process that resulted in HMCS Victoria experiencing motor failures, hydraulic and electronic problems on its maiden voyage (and the other two as well apparently having serious problems) and expect Chicoutimi not to have serious problems. Wow. What governmental/military incompetence.
But at the very same time dumb old canada has equiped its forces(for 20 years) with vehicles that are perfect for Iraq or any other low intensity low troop density confict.
Wow. What insight. Let's see.... with a military the size of yours and a defense budget the size of yours..... what other type of conflict could you possibly prepare to fight?
The Canadian Air Force has 118 F-16's; just what major conflict were you planning to win with that as your air element?
Canada has assumed a "National Guard" role in the world, not a primary war-fighting role.
I wonder if that had any influence on the equipment procured by Canada versus the equipment procured by the USA? Ya think?
smart old toad.
I take no credit for the structure/equipment of the armed forces of the USA. OTOH, I'm am smart enough to realize that the difference in global committment between Canada and the US would result in vastly different procurement.
All those trillions are spent to try to avoid ever haveing to fight a war like they are fighting in Iraq. All the force multiplying, air superiority, Fire and forget, Stealth, C3, MIRV dollars are spent so that the US wont have to get into a situation where they are exchanging hang grenades with tribesmen or doing house to house fighting through citys that predate Christ.
Wow, another great insight! No kidding? Let's see... given our role in NATO and the Far East, is it possible that we prepared/procured to fight a different war than we're fighting now?
Pongo, how would we have done if we'd equipped EXACTLY like Canada and had a showdown at Fulda with the Russians back in the day? What would you be slamming us about then?
Can't have it both ways, buddy.
Yet Bush and Ruhmsfeld just marched the most advanced military the world has known into a slogging match with a country full of the best armed rabid tribesmen in the world. Exposing the soft logistical core of the US Army(and any army) to the enemy.
You forget the war-fighting part; the most advanced military in the world rolled up the opposition in about three weeks with minimal casualties.
Now, was that advanced military designed for extended occupation duties against folks whose primary.... nearly only... weapons are the IED and the suicide bomber?
Nope. However, what you will see is that the advanced military will adapt. It won't be cost free. The School of Hard Knocks is the best teacher but not the most inexpensive. What will emerge from this, however, is an even more advanced military that maintains it's capability to roll up an enemy in short order AND a military that IS prepared for extended occupation duty if necessary.
Clearly, they weren't ready for the IED/suicide bomber tactics during this occupation. Just like they weren't ready for Pearl Harbor or WW2 even though the handwriting had been on the wall for two year prior. However, we have a history of overcoming and we'll overcome this.
On the otherside of this painful lesson, there will be an even better overall advanced military.
I think that must be what really bothers you.
