tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post8572957448561179331..comments2024-01-24T04:35:14.007-04:00Comments on The Canadian Sentinel: Worthington's Logic Just Doesn't FlyCanadian Sentinelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-26606357315735322702010-08-17T09:50:33.714-03:002010-08-17T09:50:33.714-03:00Typo: "Posed" shld read "posted&qu...Typo: "Posed" shld read "posted".Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-7505700898123581532010-08-16T15:12:51.828-03:002010-08-16T15:12:51.828-03:00It's wise to be prepared for the worst. To no...It's wise to be prepared for the worst. To not be prepared for the worst is to have a subconscious death wish.<br /><br />Better to be paranoid and prepared than to perish.<br /><br />I've done my homework re world threats. I've posed for years about it.<br /><br />I needn't provide further reason than I've already.Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-21473332085320444682010-08-15T15:18:18.728-03:002010-08-15T15:18:18.728-03:00It is irresponsible and suicidal to be minimalist ...<i>It is irresponsible and suicidal to be minimalist re national security and Free World security.</i><br /><br />"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.<br /><br /><i>…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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.glasnosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13658362289437230020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-29277864450509938892010-08-15T14:16:33.200-03:002010-08-15T14:16:33.200-03:00BTW, my wording above in the 9:27 comment is less ...BTW, my wording above in the 9:27 comment is less than careful.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-14769205953983965672010-08-15T14:11:23.470-03:002010-08-15T14:11:23.470-03:00Glasnost, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that you ex...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?<br /><br />Seriously? I'm afraid you've cocked my eyebrow here.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-13364897441051188212010-08-15T13:31:11.537-03:002010-08-15T13:31:11.537-03:00He assumes that the United States will necessarily...<i>He assumes that the United States will necessarily provide us with superior American hardware if we can't do our job. Strike three!</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.glasnosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13658362289437230020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-61119042667521089692010-08-15T09:27:29.686-03:002010-08-15T09:27:29.686-03:00I'll allow you that. In this case, you did yo...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. ;)<br /><br />Nevertheless, do you REALLY see the urgent need for hairsplitting on extremely minor semantic points?<br /><br />The Liberal-Media Complex could sure use your hairsplitting critical service, because, after all, they're far more prominent than I.<br /><br />I don't know why you bother with me, a little guy of zero widespread prominence, certainly compared to Ms. Geller. ;)<br /><br />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. ;)<br /><br />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.Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-90968418610191942002010-08-15T08:57:18.839-03:002010-08-15T08:57:18.839-03:00I did narrow it for the occasion, after double che...I did narrow it for the occasion, after double checking my dictionary lest I'd overlooked some nuance of "prominent."MikeAdamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268581071156700887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-19849780744853296002010-08-14T23:22:04.063-03:002010-08-14T23:22:04.063-03:00But your narrow definition of prominent is interes...But your narrow definition of prominent is interesting. Did you just make it up right now, out of convenience?Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-17988535948432350122010-08-14T23:20:36.093-03:002010-08-14T23:20:36.093-03:00Methinks you need to boost your cognition, Michael...Methinks you need to boost your cognition, Michael.Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-69528705756927849352010-08-14T23:08:44.700-03:002010-08-14T23:08:44.700-03:00I think a prominent person would have to be well k...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.MikeAdamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268581071156700887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-69785025250379799462010-08-14T22:40:25.869-03:002010-08-14T22:40:25.869-03:00Besides, "prominent" doesn't have to...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?<br /><br />Pam Geller is becoming more prominent all the time, accept it or not.Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-40681889329006454882010-08-14T22:38:35.023-03:002010-08-14T22:38:35.023-03:00I guess your "realities visited" are res...I guess your "realities visited" are restricted to the Old Media and the Clueless Masses, eh...Canadian Sentinelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04255833874079591126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16604508.post-50193244921069046392010-08-14T22:03:05.774-03:002010-08-14T22:03:05.774-03:00While I don't begrudge your solicitation for s...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.MikeAdamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05268581071156700887noreply@blogger.com