w00t new "tanks" for canada
 

FUCKING w00t
i guess
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmi ... pment.html

I think we need more submarines... 2 for each ocean eek:

better watch out ninety is going to get all mad bout that comment.

That is true...but oh well

Not exactly a tank btw. "Mobile gun system" or something theyre calling it.

A LAV with a cannon on top. Man, when are people gonna learn you need treads.

I wouldnt mind having one of those bad asses.

whats going on prot? no sig? we going anti-sig for a while?

As pointed out, thats not a tank.

And I couldn't cre less about how many submarines we have or if they even work. The Navy are a bunch of gays who sail around and fire missles from 100kms away while i'm leopard crawling through barbed wire with AK rounds flying over my head.

Treads? I doubt it. We don't need them. The government is tryig to make a "modern" army.

We have leopards now. Do we use them? Nope. We'd have to get the states to lift them or ship them to wherever.

Strykers can fit in a CC-130 Hercules, so were supposed to beable to transport them, but i'll believe it when I see it.

Tanks are going obsolete. Fighting is movig from the field to the streets. FIBUA is more of a reality than ever before. Its tough to fit tanks down city streets Strykers offer a 105mm punch with the agility of a LAV III. Too bad were not purchasing more. 66 of these things is nothing. We need 500 of them.

Thats why this government is so gay. We get blown up, so people say we need more vehicles. So the govt says OK and they buy 66 of them and everyone thinks everything is OK now since we got new AFV's. Well 66 aren't going to help much. Especially for the deployments we get.

[img]http://www.keysystemselectric.com/rob/canadiannavy.jpg[/img]

congrats you replaced kick ass leapord tanks with an apc with a big gun on it... NICEEEEEEE eek:

[quote="[2ndS.S.]Enigma":fc540]congrats you replaced kick ass leapord tanks with an apc with a big gun on it... NICEEEEEEE eek:[/quote:fc540]

Did you not read ANYTHING ninty said? rolleyes:

[quote=Zoner]Did you not read ANYTHING ninty said? rolleyes:[/quote:5db2e]

Nope, I quit listening when he flamed the navy first off. Stupid grunts. wink:

*bump* - had to correct the image.

unfortunately that dumbfuck Donald Dumbsfeld thinks the US doesn't need REAL tanks anymore.

I hope I don't live to see the day that Dumbsfeld's overglorified APCs get slaughtered by obsolete T-72s because they're ony armored against a 20 fucking millimeter cannon

lol, "Defence Minister John McCallum announced $600 million for 66 new fighting vehicles while the US ordered 2,131 of the vehicles in November 2000." Ok, now i really see how Canada is so weak in its military. biggrin:

thay nead one of these

[img]http://www.5thesbclan.com/flagg_images/bb-55.jpg[/img]


bb-55 uss north carolina


just how i like them ..

BIG GUNS!

Flagg

Canada doesn't really need a big military, we (the US) are their friends.
We like Lord Calvert and Molson, anyone fucks with our Canadian pals we're coming with all 12 carriers battlegroups, 10 Air Force Expeditionary wings, and 20 Army and Marine divisions. (as long as we're not tied down in some shithole country that dumbasses like Clinton and Bush Jr. decide to invade)

Not like Canada is gonna get invaded. Besides, everyone (China, Iraq, N.Korea, ect.) hates the U.S not Canada!

God help anyone who invades us. We're highly trained in "dropping the gloves" and we'll have your sweater up over your head faster than you can say "Take off, eh!"

biggrin:

And were trying not to run a deficit.

Free health care, baby!

/me high-fives ninty

Lower taxes, baby!

calmdown:

[quote="SW-14":f2eb7]Lower taxes, baby!

calmdown:[/quote:f2eb7]

rising prices baby!

you do know that lowering taxes on the rich prompts investing, stocks mean that companies will have to pay more dividend, where does the stock dividend come from?
average Joes like you and me have to pay more for the same goods so some fucker can get richer. I'm all for free enterprise, but stockholders do more harm than good when the economy is not expanding exponentially.

[quote="Sgt Stryker":dc6bf][quote="SW-14":dc6bf]Lower taxes, baby!

calmdown:[/quote:dc6bf]

rising prices baby!

you do know that lowering taxes on the rich prompts investing, stocks mean that companies will have to pay more dividend, where does the stock dividend come from?
average Joes like you and me have to pay more for the same goods so some fucker can get richer. I'm all for free enterprise, but stockholders do more harm than good when the economy is not expanding exponentially.[/quote:dc6bf]


Inflation is less than 2%, (last I checked) and GDP grew at a 7.2% rate in the third quarter.

ya but the state of the economy is not on disscusion here offtopic:
the canidian excuse for a millitary is.

[quote="A HUNGRY FATMAN":46f03]ya but the state of the economy is not on disscusion here offtopic:
the canidian excuse for a millitary is.[/quote:46f03]

That is not on discussion either. The discussion is purchasing new mobile gun systems.

[quote=ninty9]That is not on discussion either. The discussion is purchasing new mobile gun systems.[/quote:9b0ce]
ninty
is there any ather talk about getting anything else?
why not buy the abrams.
i is very well fit for the role of an mbt. atlease better than the one we are buying.
the lav 3 is a great apc. if not one of the best. but not as the role of a mbt.

[quote=maple]ninty
is there any ather talk about getting anything else?
why not buy the abrams.
i is very well fit for the role of an mbt. atlease better than the one we are buying.
the lav 3 is a great apc. if not one of the best. but not as the role of a mbt.[/quote:21446]

well if the Government wanted MBT's they would have ust kept the leopard and upgraded them all to A2's like the Germans have done. The loepards are still a good tank. They are still effective, but in order to remain effective they need upgrading. I guess the brainstorm in Ottawa is, scrap the MBT's and replace them with a smaller amount of Armoured Fighting Vehicles. As I said before, if we were to purchse 500 of these things, I could understand scrapping the leopard. These things aren't like a tank, but if we haev enough of them to go around, I don't see a problem with using them.

The thing with MBT's either Leopards or Abrams is that we can't transport them. Our navy can't ship them, and our air force can't fly them anywhere. We have nothing capeable of carrying tanks. These Strykers are supposed to be able to fit onto a CC-130 Hercules aircraft. I guess the government thinks if we can ship them, we can use them. Thats why our Leos are all up in Waineright. They don't move from there because we can't transport them anywhere, and we probably wouldn't beable to support them in operation. And the amount we have is so insignificant, they wouldn't really make a difference is a campaign like in Iraq.

So the general idea is totally scrapping MBT's. Once this deal goes through, i'm sure you'll see the leo's going away. That is unless the PM retires before the deal goes through. If paul martin wants to spend money on the military (which I doubt since he was finance minister when he cut the budget) then its up to him on wht he wants to do. Maybe he'll cancel the contract. Who knows. If Paul martin gives spending a boost, we might find that we have money for more vehicles. But that won't happen under chretien, and remember these strykers wouldn't even be delivered until 2006. So thats a long way off.