Another Journalist professing to have some kind of sophisticated understanding of stuff.
Sigh.
He doesn't really know our fighter-plane history that well, for starters.
Yes, we used to have F-5 Freedom Fighters, but he's calling them "F-16 Freedom Fighters". Sheesh. Strike one!
He looks at what we've recently seen vis-a-vis air striking and combat in CF-18s. AS if that's a predictor of the future. NOT! Strike two!
He assumes that the United States will necessarily provide us with superior American hardware if we can't do our job. Strike three!
He's OUT!
Only FOOLS assume that another nation will necessarily pull their weight on our behalf if we don't pull ours.
Further, look at Obama. Who in their right mind believes that Obama would necessarily come to the aid of the Free World? Obama's an Axis-friendly guy who's always dumping on America. If Obama is hellbent on bringing America to her knees by decimating her military, then can we honestly, sanely expect that, as a matter of course, America will bail our lazy Canuck asses out?
What a narrow-worldview guy, that Worthington. He assumes that the likes of Red China, now a dangerous military superpower the likes of which we haven't seen since the Third Reich and the USSR, doesn't have a desire to take over the world, or at least America (and would later annex Canada if successful).
And if he thinks Russia's not violently imperialist, he need only look at their recent annexation of South Ossetia from Georgia, by massively-slaughterous force. Shades of the Nazis in Czechoslovakia... THAT should've been the world's clue as to Hitler's real agenda for the world. But who used their brain, except, of course, for Winston Churchill?
Those who don't learn the lessons of history...
As for China's not-so-hidden agenda, the truth is horrifying.
Sigh.
He doesn't really know our fighter-plane history that well, for starters.
Yes, we used to have F-5 Freedom Fighters, but he's calling them "F-16 Freedom Fighters". Sheesh. Strike one!
He looks at what we've recently seen vis-a-vis air striking and combat in CF-18s. AS if that's a predictor of the future. NOT! Strike two!
He assumes that the United States will necessarily provide us with superior American hardware if we can't do our job. Strike three!
He's OUT!
Only FOOLS assume that another nation will necessarily pull their weight on our behalf if we don't pull ours.
Further, look at Obama. Who in their right mind believes that Obama would necessarily come to the aid of the Free World? Obama's an Axis-friendly guy who's always dumping on America. If Obama is hellbent on bringing America to her knees by decimating her military, then can we honestly, sanely expect that, as a matter of course, America will bail our lazy Canuck asses out?
What a narrow-worldview guy, that Worthington. He assumes that the likes of Red China, now a dangerous military superpower the likes of which we haven't seen since the Third Reich and the USSR, doesn't have a desire to take over the world, or at least America (and would later annex Canada if successful).
And if he thinks Russia's not violently imperialist, he need only look at their recent annexation of South Ossetia from Georgia, by massively-slaughterous force. Shades of the Nazis in Czechoslovakia... THAT should've been the world's clue as to Hitler's real agenda for the world. But who used their brain, except, of course, for Winston Churchill?
Those who don't learn the lessons of history...
As for China's not-so-hidden agenda, the truth is horrifying.
If we don't rebuild our national security capabilities with plenty of state-of-the-art technology and equipment, including air superiority, we're sending the message to the contemporary Axis: "Come and get us; we cannot resist your overwhelming military superiority."
The way things are going, it'd be better if Canada were to be the new Free World superpower. America may well one day need US to bail them out... if the Obamacrat Reich makes good on Obama's promise to disarm America.
Already, our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has been declared the Leader of the Free World by a prominent American. Therefore, Canada, the new Leader of the Free World, has a new, serious responsibility, a moral duty we cannot refuse. Therefore it's time to become an economic and military superpower.
Walk softly and carry a big stick.
And make that stick bigger than the bad guys' stick.
Russia's Vladimir Putin with fellow Axis madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Russia's Vladimir Putin with Chinese Communist General Chi Haotian, who wants to slaughter millions of Americans
The way things are going, it'd be better if Canada were to be the new Free World superpower. America may well one day need US to bail them out... if the Obamacrat Reich makes good on Obama's promise to disarm America.
Already, our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has been declared the Leader of the Free World by a prominent American. Therefore, Canada, the new Leader of the Free World, has a new, serious responsibility, a moral duty we cannot refuse. Therefore it's time to become an economic and military superpower.
Walk softly and carry a big stick.
And make that stick bigger than the bad guys' stick.
14 comments:
While I don't begrudge your solicitation for some linky love from Ms. Shrugs, it must be said that Pam Geller is not a prominent American in any of the realities I've visited.
I guess your "realities visited" are restricted to the Old Media and the Clueless Masses, eh...
Besides, "prominent" doesn't have to mean someone mentioned all the time in the Old Media. It can mean someone of whom millions of people are aware. If millions know about you, are you not therefore prominent?
Pam Geller is becoming more prominent all the time, accept it or not.
I think a prominent person would have to be well known outside of the circles frequented by a certain tendency of conservative thinkers and beyond the ranks of those liberals who make fun of her. You could say she's prominent in the zany wing of the American conservative movement and I wouldn't argue with you.
Methinks you need to boost your cognition, Michael.
But your narrow definition of prominent is interesting. Did you just make it up right now, out of convenience?
I did narrow it for the occasion, after double checking my dictionary lest I'd overlooked some nuance of "prominent."
I'll allow you that. In this case, you did your homework... as if it's expected of you by certain folks for some reason. ;)
Nevertheless, do you REALLY see the urgent need for hairsplitting on extremely minor semantic points?
The Liberal-Media Complex could sure use your hairsplitting critical service, because, after all, they're far more prominent than I.
I don't know why you bother with me, a little guy of zero widespread prominence, certainly compared to Ms. Geller. ;)
Besides, I was taking a little literary licence, as do "progressives". They've expanded the definitions of things such as "racist" to suit their propaganda agenda, even suggesting that sexism is racism and similar brainless things. So the Liberal-Media Complex is silently crying out for your criticism... no need to worry about me. ;)
Nevertheless, I'm pleased that your criticism touched only on a minor, of-little-relevance point having to do with semantics and accepted definition. Obviously, you found nothing wrong with the overall substance of my post.
He assumes that the United States will necessarily provide us with superior American hardware if we can't do our job. Strike three!
I think Worthington is suggesting that the US would provide Canada with "fighter support" which is different from giving hardware to us, and not an unreasonable scenario.
You haven't supplied any facts or proposals regarding potential threats or credible concepts of operations to refute Worthington's main contention that "…fighter aircraft are not a high priority. Nice to have, but not at the expense of more necessary equipment."
The six Canadian Chinooks that have been operating in Afghanistan were purchased for $292M; that's bang for your defense buck - $16 billion for a couple of squadrons of fast movers to populate the Cold Lake flying club for the next 30 years is not.
Glasnost, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that you expect some kind of future-prediction "proof" or "evidence" one way or the other re potential threats to the Free World?
Seriously? I'm afraid you've cocked my eyebrow here.
For someone who's been in the CF, you sure don't sound very, well, national-security-realistic vis-a-vis the obvious reality both contemporarily and potentially.
Nevertheless, you're free to go around claiming that we needn't heed the lessons of history, nor look at obviously hostile regimes such as Russia, China and Iran, and project potential threats therefrom and ensure we're able to repel them immediately.
It is irresponsible and suicidal to be minimalist re national security and Free World security. I will not fall into that trap, even though it appears that you have.
BTW, my wording above in the 9:27 comment is less than careful.
Nevertheless, indeed, I contend that we would be fools to expect an American regime the likes of Obama's to come to our aid in case of the Obamacracy's Axis buddies attacking us... such as Russia.
While it's good to have a defensive alliance, it's foolish to not still have an independent capacity to defend our national sovereignty all by ourselves if need be. Why should Canada depend on another nation for security? If we're to let this be the case, then, well, I don't need to advise a wise person like yourself of potential ramifications.
It is irresponsible and suicidal to be minimalist re national security and Free World security.
"Minimalist" would be: don't spend the $16B on defense, which neither Worthington nor I are saying. Instead, we're disputing the priority of how to spend that money within the defense realm.
…you're free to go around claiming that we needn't heed the lessons of history, nor look at obviously hostile regimes such as Russia, China and Iran, and project potential threats therefrom and ensure we're able to repel them immediately.
It's not clear to me what I said that causes you think I'm making such claims. In fact, I'm doing the opposite by asking for threat assessment and proposed concepts that would support the priority being placed on fighter aircraft as opposed to, for example, attack helicopters, transport aircraft, or maybe Navy or Army resources.
If you can conjure a scenario where Russia, China and Iran would threaten Canada in isolation from her allies, and propose an accompanying concept of ops wherein fighter aircraft would be the highest priority equipment, that would be fine.
It's wise to be prepared for the worst. To not be prepared for the worst is to have a subconscious death wish.
Better to be paranoid and prepared than to perish.
I've done my homework re world threats. I've posed for years about it.
I needn't provide further reason than I've already.
Typo: "Posed" shld read "posted".
Post a Comment