The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Allies at work
A very interesting story for the military enthusiasts and defense observers:
"Canadian CF - 18 fighter jets helped plug a hole in U.S. air defences for almost two weeks this month after American jets were grounded as part of a crash investigation."
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Allies at work:
"Ready aye ready, we stand with you"
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-28 5:33:02 PM
Watch the Liebral/Dipper/Green Alliance say how this is proof that America is dependent on Canada.
Can't they ever just say "This one's on us?" Of course not - they're greedy and lazy and expect things done for them. Thank goodness I'm an Albertan where ignoring Eastern stupidity is as easy as breathing.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-28 6:14:24 PM
On an aviation related subject, tomorrow is the anniversary of the 1963 crash of TCA flight 831. The DC-8 was travelling from Montreal to Toronto when it crashed 20 minutes after takeoff. 118 people were killed making it one of Canada's worst commercial aviation disasters.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-28 6:16:16 PM
History was probably made with this deployment. The RCAF fought the Japanese in the Aleutian Islands during World War II 60 years ago, but other than that, when has the armed forces of any other country stood ready on US soil to defend the United States?
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-11-28 6:26:03 PM
NATO did after 9/11 - AWACS aircraft were sent to the continental US to monitor airspace.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-28 6:45:36 PM
First we beat them silly in 1812 and then we saved their buttocks in 2007.
Way to go Canada!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-28 9:09:11 PM
First we beat them silly in 1812 and then we saved their buttocks in 2007.
Way to go Canada!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-28 9:09:52 PM
We have air worthy craft? Heaven help them if they need submarines....
Posted by: Brad Donovan | 2007-11-28 9:10:31 PM
There was no Canada in 1812, so it was Britain who fought the US to a standstill in the War of 1812.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-28 10:01:20 PM
per ardua ad astra
Posted by: dewp | 2007-11-28 10:37:57 PM
The CF-18A Hornets are doing their duty and resolving a problem in Continental Air Defence by
temporarily replacing the venerable F-15 Eagles
-but the Canadian aircraft are also getting older
and have encountered some problems currently under evaluation by DND .The clerks in DND call them the CF-188 Northrop who designed the FA-18 Hornet refer
to it as the F-18A Hornet. All Canadian F-18A's were purchased to replace the F-104 Starfighter Fleet in the CF Air Division in Europe. End of Cold War terminated that idea. DND are focused on the replacement for the CF 18A at the moment which
might be the F-35 JSF but don't bet on it. F-35 JSF Program has a lot of problems -no surprise to us.JSF "Joint Strike Fighter" Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-11-29 6:14:34 AM
Jack: maybe Santa Harper would spring for some F-22s, if the US would allow their export? Some Apaches would be nice too for Afghanistan.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-29 8:09:26 AM
Great idea Zeb -friends in Israel tell us a lot of
F-22's are going to the IDF -F22 is ultra advanced technology and would make an ideal replacement for the CF18A Hornet, especially since the F-22's have been doing a lot of flying and the initial bugs are
worked out -Ottawa should make a serious move to
purchase the F 22 shortly because I suspect problems with the CF18A fleet are quite serious - we know the Vertical Stabilizers are prone to induced flutter
which Northrop designers anticipated. CF Studies on
the aircraft are classified. Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-11-29 8:47:30 AM
"There was no Canada in 1812, so it was Britain who fought the US to a standstill in the War of 1812."
It was Charles Michel de Salaberry and 500 "Voltigeurs Canadiens" defeating 4000 Americans in Châteaugay. This millice was exclusively composed of Canadian soil borned as a prerequisite and they called themselves Canadians (aka French Canadians).
They fought, as free men, for the sake of their Patrie, famillies and territory and not for "Britain".
"La Trompette a sonné. L'éclair luit, l'airain gronde:
Salaberry paraît: la valeur le seconde,
Et trois cent Canadiens qui marchent sur ses pas
Comme lui, d'un air gai, vont braver le trépas.
Huit mille Américains s'avancent d'un air sombre.
Oui! Trois cents sur huit mille obtiennent la victoire."
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 8:59:59 AM
Australia had a debate whether they should get the F-22 or the F-35.
If the air defense of North America is a prime Canadian concern, then the F-22 would be the best aircraft to do it. Of course if the Liebral/Dipper party were to do it, they'd use Sopwith Camels - in the high Arctic too!
Maybe some new air tankers could go with them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-29 9:02:51 AM
Marc: fair enough but whose side did the fight on? Not Canada's - but Britain's, like they had during the American Revolution. They may have used the term "Canadian" to refer to themselves, but that did not make them Canadian as we know it today.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-29 9:08:59 AM
1812 in North America was really a series of skirmishes. Canadian nationalists oversell this as a means to stir up national pride and crow about how they "defeated" the Americans. No one on either side took things too seriously. It was an opportunity for what few locals there were to earn some pay for either carrying a rifle or billeting soldiers from whichever gov't was paying the most.
The locals, of course would billet both sides depending upon which "tourists" were in the area. At harvest, the "war" would stop since everyone would go home to take in the crops.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 9:26:26 AM
They were on the side of their famillies and "coin de pays" like for all of our history.
We've fought Britain not long after that.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 9:28:50 AM
Of course they were on the side of their families. They were after a paycheck and the Brits offered the best deal. If the Americans offered better mercenary pay they would have worked for them.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 11:22:35 AM
Not to forget the Royal Newfoundland Fencibles who in August 1814 on Lake Huron "captured the American ships Tigress and Scorpion in a daring night operation" mounted from canoes. However, they were definitely Newfoundlanders and not Canadians.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-11-29 11:50:02 AM
You're not gonna hit high scores on your immigration Canada's test.
Learn Canadian history you tourist.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 11:56:36 AM
You're doing fine. Quebecers have always gone the way of the dollar - legal or otherwise.
It's a European "tradition" still extant in that part of Canada. (See Adscam)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 12:02:53 PM
And are you sure you wish to go "ethnic" on that issue ?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 12:04:27 PM
Marc: You are right -a period of Canadian History frequently overlooked -one of the foremost fighting families of the period were the Trudeau's who gained much fame fighting the Indian Allies of the British
-notably the Iroquois and Mohawks -Francis Parkman
famed Harvard Historian published several papers on the period -he also wrote the classic "Montcalm and Wolfe" the most comprehensive history of the Battles
for the Conquest of Quebec, French North America)
Canadian History ain't dull. Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-11-29 12:11:09 PM
The Air Canada DC-8 crashed on the Toronto International Airport -the aircraft had made a successful approach, but the inexperienced CoPilot
engaged the mainplane Spoilers prematurely causing
the already heavy aircraft to stall, Crew had the option to throttle up and go around and make another attempt but chose to press on, and everybody got killed. Commercial aviation remains somewhat dangerous -Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-11-29 12:17:28 PM
I am only interested in "true" history. Not the sanitized and revisionist crap that is pawned off for purposes of nation building and political correctness by social engineers.
Being a naivist, you of course have a high selectivity filter as well as a culturally biased perspective.
As a foreigner, and with equal and offsetting French (France) and Scottish biases I see the things the way they really were and are in Canada. I am more qualified than you to speak of these things objectively.
And why do I so aggravate your anti-immigrant attitude?
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 12:20:47 PM
"And why do I so aggravate your anti-immigrant attitude?"
"I am more qualified than you to speak of these things objectively."
According to your theory, I myself am "more qualified than you to speak of these things objectively." regarding Scottish history.
Let me tell you that William Wallace was in fact a traitor and a socialist-nazi who hated freedom.
How do you like me now ?
Your objectivity is maybe more "neutral" but your knowledge of Canadian history is poor. Learn it, then come back with facts based on real events and not some rethoric based on some writtings from the the enemy or other crap. You're only posting your opinion on that matter but, where are your facts ?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 12:45:43 PM
"your knowledge of Canadian history is poor."
. . . i.e. - you don't espouse separatist revisionism.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 12:52:28 PM
obc is happy for every French Quebecers who dies, according to his on words.
You're very credible here, smoke meat.
Tell me, what is your Canadian ancestors did for Canada ?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 12:58:42 PM
You are under the delusion that because you insult a Scottish figure of history you are therefore insulting me. You trot this out because you would feel insulted if I did the same to you.
Unfortunately Marc, you can say whatever you want about any famous Scot. I do not find it insulting at all. The fact that this would insult you merely underscores the fact that you are extremely prone to cultural bias in your assessment of reality.
This imprisons you. I am free. You are not.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 1:05:33 PM
I'm not insulted because you have an opinion on Canadian history. My problem starts when you're comming with an account of Canadian history that you've not studied sincerly and with no facts to prove the theory you're proposing.
That's all epsi. Come clean and I will shut up.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 1:12:33 PM
"I will shut up"
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-29 1:29:07 PM
Well, for starters, all you say is that I know nothing and yet you do not present any accounts that deny my facts.
You do nothing but gainsay and insult and make completely ridiculous statements about my heritage and immigration status of which you know NOTHING ABOUT!
If anyone needs to sober and quit the weed its you. Maybe then you could present a concise argument that is woth debating.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 1:31:47 PM
Epsi, here's one:
24 years after those events starts the history of Papineau and "les Patriotes" who took arms against the British Regime regardless of their poor equipment and chances. They did it because the regime was in fact an opressor and did not represent freedom like the us.
Don't say we went with Canada because of "Paychecks". That's silly and you look like a fool regarldless of your "objectivity".
For someone who is deluded as for believing your background would be something important to you, I'm not so wrong finally - as anyone can see.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 1:39:27 PM
your regime is comming but not at this very moment.
But tx, I take your last "one sentence" start of a comment as a compliment.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 1:43:12 PM
The US was far freer than any British Colony. To argue that a bunch of Colonials living in Canada were fighting for "freedom" against the United States, the freest country in the world then and now is simply an outrageous argument.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 1:45:59 PM
The outcome of the War of 1812 was that Upper and Lower Canada remained separate from the USA. Had Canadians not beaten the poop out of them, we would not be Canadians today as we know Canada to be--and marcy-poo would be saluting the American flag instead of the Fleur do Lis, and English would have been his first language, and Spanish his second language.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-29 1:46:44 PM
I'd like to pay tribute to my adopted namesake, General Zebulon Pike, who died trying to make Toronto a better place - by burning it to the ground in 1813. If only they had left it that way - well, it almost is.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-29 1:52:09 PM
Our specific reality was and is not propriety of the british nor the Americans. If any of those whould become an agressor, we took arms. We fought both because of our patriotic values regarding French Canadians and their friends.
We still do it today in civilised ways - or not, depending on how much degres our freedom is attacked.
you call this a tar ?
your call and I have no choice to respect it.
But please get down your big heels when adressing issues you have looked at but where your lack of information and thinking shows.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 1:59:58 PM
"The outcome of the War of 1812 was that Upper and Lower Canada remained separate from the USA. Had Canadians not beaten the poop out of them, we would not be Canadians today as we know Canada to be--and marcy-poo would be saluting the American flag instead of the Fleur do Lis, and English would have been his first language, and Spanish his second language."
but the French Canadians never backed down in front of niether one or the other.
...until Trudeau l'enculeur de mouche.
You know Lady, when you were still a Lady in my mind, you were constantly saying to me that the first who call you names is the looser. I'm still calling the others with names but what happen to you ?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 2:06:10 PM
"You do nothing but gainsay and insult and make completely ridiculous statements about my heritage and immigration status of which you know NOTHING ABOUT!"
I would like to make one last thing very clear in case you didnt understood the evidence. I THINK WILLIAM WALLACE IS A FCKIN HERO !.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 2:10:02 PM
You are imposing present values on previous times. Back then, no one knew what being Canadian was. Even today, when I ask you Canadians how you are different from Americans you resort back to a defence of socialist which I find ridiculous if not appaling.
Back them there were military engagements between British Army regulars and Americans. But this was nothing but part of the greater global struggle between Napoleon and England. It had very little to do with an attack of the US against Canada and absolutely nothing to do with anything close to defending "Canadian values". The only values that what few local residents there were was who was paying the most to board troops and horses and could they get released before harvest time.
Read the real history. Don't read what has been written by some revisionist professor trying to create a national ethic or dogma.
You are being lied to Marc.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 2:17:24 PM
"Even today, when I ask you Canadians how you are different from Americans you resort back to a defence of socialist which I find ridiculous if not appaling."
Sorry, you're adressing one side of Canadians - witch in fact is a name took from how French decendents called themselves. In today's reality we, French and English Quebers are different than the US in so different ways.
Stay longer, you'll understand it by yourself.
"The only values that what few local residents there were was who was paying the most to board troops and horses and could they get released before harvest time."
You truly are ingnorant by choice here, Epsi.
No point in this discussion with you then.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 2:27:58 PM
Marc, I do not find how the etymology of the word "Canada" is relevant to the War of 1812.
Secondly, you have to present more to your arguments than "you are ignorant by choice". You have to actually present a counterargument.
The fact that you no longer want to discuss this only implies to everyone that I am indeed correct and you are wrong.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 2:32:04 PM
"The fact that you no longer want to discuss this only implies to everyone that I am indeed correct and you are wrong."
You've already won young woman - I have confess my innaptitude to argue with you. Why do you need a parade ?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 2:40:20 PM
And please fell free to teach us Canadians the rest of our real Canadian history objectivly, as the more qualified expert on our history you are.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-11-29 2:54:12 PM
The Americans were never allies of Napoleon. They were neutrals. In fact the US went to war in part because of British violations of American neutrality by boarding ships and impressing American sailors into the Royal Navy.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-29 3:12:10 PM
Much of the British War focused on the newly created
United States of America was fought on the North and South Atlantic -this period of North American history is highly documented in the Public Archives of Nova Scotia a British Colony in 1812, and the Cambridge Library the first and oldest Military Library in North America. which contains originaldocuments such as Letters of Marque provided to Nova Scotia based Privateers. In 1811, there were 75 Royal Navy Men of War based at the British Naval Base Halifax as well as about 150 Frigates. The RN arbitrarily sought and captured "American" ships at sea, impounded the vessels and
hijacked their crews who were forced by the rule of the Press Gang to serve on RN Ships then engaged fighting France as well as Spanish and Dutch commercial Pirates -Royal Navy needed crews and ships so they simply invoked their time test met5hod of taking what they wanted at gun and cannor point. The War was not a rivial matter to
Great Britain, The Royal Navy and British Army who for one thing burnt the US Capitol Washington to the ground.Native Canadins were for the most part UK immigrants and United Empire Loyalists, many of
whom became Privateers, but the RN would quite gleefully grab themand the crews at sea without so much as a thank you sir. It is clear in the RN documents of the period that the hard edged professional Royal Navy considered most North Americans as scum. The United States with weak political leadership were fools to take on Great Britain, and should have negotiated a settlement
with much more experienced British politicians.
My Mother;s family came to the British Colony of NS in 1819 and were already experienced seamen,from Londonderry and Belfast Ulster. I have suspected for yeras that some must have served out of British Ports like Portsmouth in the Royal Navy
of the War with France period. Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-11-29 3:17:21 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the blog editors could run a post with a recipe for canapés, and the comment thread would still erupt into the same old ideological slapping match between the same ten or eleven cast members barking out their same fixed repertoire. You'd almost fail a Turing test for how patterned and bot-like your dialogue can be.
Prove me wrong. Everybody, say one really nice thing about your most obvious rival here on the boards. No sarcasm either. And no cop-outs about respecting their convictions. Dig deep now. 3-2-1 go.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2007-11-29 3:21:25 PM
Well, I refuse to use any canapes recipes that are written in French just out of principle even though I am fluent in both languages.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-29 3:28:04 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.