• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Welcome to Canada: Here are the new rules or C-17s and how I Hate Disinformation

Gobsmacked

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Here comes yet more Tory Disinformation!
Remarkably similar to Liberal Spin.

From Thursdays NP [http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2212201 ]
'CITIZENSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES'

In Canada, rights come with responsibilities. These include the following:
OBEYING THE LAW

One of Canada's founding principles is the rule of law. Individuals and governments are regulated by laws and not by arbitrary actions. No person or group is above the law.


Unless of course you are a Tory Politician, PWGSC Military Procurement Official, or Civilian & Military Procurement Officials in DND responsible for Acquisition of Major Crown Projects.

Note Gobsmacked2006 Comments from Fri Nov 13.
They only touch the surface of the whole Rotten Military Procurement iceberg.
(Interesting how initial replies conveniently ignore the facts as long as the AF got exactly what it wanted,
with cup holders - as the IL-76 obsessed Taxpayer has noted. 
Who cares if it was done Illegally.  Folks on this biased site sure don't.  Helmet On for the inevitable Flak -  :warstory:  )

Funny how they state: 'One of Canada's founding principles is the rule of law. Individuals and governments are regulated by laws and not by arbitrary actions. No person or group is above the law.' Yet, during the C-17 ACAN competition (a Laughable term, more like a pre-determined shoe-in), the Incompetent and UnEthical Procurement Officials and Military Officers involved at PWGSC and DND not only Broke the Law, they completely Ignored it!

PWGSC & DND ruled out, amazingly on all counts - even though it is basically the same aircraft with the same engines as the C-17, the Fully Compliant BC-17XM / BC-17X & interim C-17 Lease (to cover the interim development period) that we had proposed. And could not even dismiss our Formal Protest until after they somehow convinced the Manufacturer (Boeing) to Disengeneously pull support for their own aircraft!

I think Libya or North Korea probably have more open competitions than exist in Canada, especially under the Tories. Plus, the Military, even though we had submitted a comprehensive formal proposal in 2003, acted like the BC-17 did not even exist (even as a concept) even though they and the Government - who we had sent out a e-mail notice to all ministers involved in spring 2006 before the ACAN was announced - also played dumb and Disengeneously stated there were no suitable competitors.

All in all a pack of Dishonest and Corrupt Incompetent LIARS in the Military Equipment Procurement arm of DND and PWGSC!!!

Also, don't forget the Dishonest and Corrupt Incompetent LIARS who form our current Government and the less-than honest folks at Boeing who got Canada to pay more per C-17 than would have been paid per BC-17XM (a Fully Compliant 'C-17 Lite').

Oh yeah, to a delusional individual who goes by the handle 'Watcher' (from DPs site), who had snottily noted 'The lack of any court challenge says volumes!'. Not only does the whole 'National Security Exemption' prevent such a challenge, (circumvents the whole CITT appeals process) while the since enacted Fairness in Procurement act does not apply retroactively, plus, having the aircraft manufacturer Disengeneously pull their support for their own aircraft basically: cut the legs out from under us for such a challenge.

(http://opo-boa.gc.ca/plainte-complaint-eng.html - The Procurement Ombudsman can investigate:
    * The award of a contract for the acquisition of goods below the value of $25,000 and services below the value of $100,000 where the criteria of Canada's Agreement on Internal Trade applies
)

BTW, even though we had approached the Auditor General of Canada's [AGC] office, specifically the Dir of Military investigations (a Hugh somebody), it is telling that no AGC report on the C-17 ACAN was ever done, plus they could not even be bothered to follow up with us on it.

And don't forget the oft quoted Bald-faced LIE:  A fair, open and transparent process

An Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) was the procurement approach used to acquire four strategic lift aircraft.
The ACAN process permits the government to identify an intended contract award recipient based on the mandatory capabilities and detailed market research conducted by the Department.

detailed market research conducted by the Department - Christ, they did not even reference facts which were already well known to them from our Comprehensive 2003 Formal Unsolicited Proposal.  This had garnered positive replies from then MND, CAS, DAR, and AF Chief of Staff.
This method of procurement fosters industry competition, ensures fairness and transparency, and increases the efficiency of procurement timelines.  :rage:
What a load of Crap!

PS: Does not even get into Media aspect, whereby Left/Right wing controlled Media completely ignored the story, while a certain pay-for-disinformation DUD site [http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-joining-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/ ] even Threatened to Blackball us, and probably did, because we dared to suggest corrections to inaccuracies and mis truths in his C-17 ACAN story. {Information Way outside his Lane of Knowledge!}
So much for responsible Media.  :eek:

Also dismissed, for lack of Media comprehensive ability, was our BC-17XMs for Dutch Leo 2A6 (the majority)/2A4 (for Training & Spares)/Buffel Equipment Exchange Proposal Aspect of our ACAN submission.
(I guess thats what Army equipment had to do with a C-17 ACAN SOC - Statement of Capabilities submission.)  ::)
(Not to mention that, as then staunch supporters of the CF - not surprisingly no longer, we had proposed numerous benefits to support the CF and the preferred-AIM of the AD community to maintain a fully-supported AD Regt.  Funny, did not see Boeing or LM do that!)
I see that the DND and O'Connor's preferred - and without the doubling/tripling of IRB benefits from a bigger Cdn purchase,  and more expensive direct purchase of mainly Leo 2A4s [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091103/AG_tanks_091102/20091103?hub=Canada ] has really been successful.  :Fri13:

Also completely ignored was the BC-17XMs for UK C-130Js Equipment Exchange Proposal Aspect of our ACAN submission & Tactical Airlift SOI submission, that would have seen the UK's C-17 fleet eased up from Strategic Airlift mission by 2010 to undertake Airlift missions in conjunction with a Canadian and UK C-130J airlift fleet.  Much sooner than the quote Accelerated CC-130J-30 acquisition.  :blotto:
Funny, could have sworn that C-130Js were a compliant Tactical Airlift aircraft.  ::)
 

tango22a

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PuckChaser:

You're doing better than I did! Wondering if he is just ranting or has been dinged between the eyes with a four pound sledge once too often! Possibly a tin foil hat might be in order?? All I could see was disjointed rambling.


tango22a
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So, what you're saying is that the Liberals would have had a truly fair competition, like the one for the Leopard 1's? I guess it's hard to understand buying something that can save lives NOW as opposed to just cutting budgets
 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
630
That's harder on the eyes than reading a CANFORGEN.

WTF, over.

???
 

Franko

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Gobsmacked said:
Here comes yet more Tory Disinformation!
Remarkably similar to Liberal Spin.

From Thursdays NP [http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2212201 ]
'CITIZENSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES'

In Canada, rights come with responsibilities. These include the following:
OBEYING THE LAW

One of Canada's founding principles is the rule of law. Individuals and governments are regulated by laws and not by arbitrary actions. No person or group is above the law.


Unless of course you are a Tory Politician, PWGSC Military Procurement Official, or Civilian & Military Procurement Officials in DND responsible for Acquisition of Major Crown Projects.

Note Gobsmacked2006 Comments from Fri Nov 13.
They only touch the surface of the whole Rotten Military Procurement iceberg.
(Interesting how initial replies conveniently ignore the facts as long as the AF got exactly what it wanted,
with cup holders - as the IL-76 obsessed Taxpayer has noted. 
Who cares if it was done Illegally.  Folks on this biased site sure don't.  Helmet On for the inevitable Flak -  :warstory:  )

Funny how they state: 'One of Canada's founding principles is the rule of law. Individuals and governments are regulated by laws and not by arbitrary actions. No person or group is above the law.' Yet, during the C-17 ACAN competition (a Laughable term, more like a pre-determined shoe-in), the Incompetent and UnEthical Procurement Officials and Military Officers involved at PWGSC and DND not only Broke the Law, they completely Ignored it!

PWGSC & DND ruled out, amazingly on all counts - even though it is basically the same aircraft with the same engines as the C-17, the Fully Compliant BC-17XM / BC-17X & interim C-17 Lease (to cover the interim development period) that we had proposed. And could not even dismiss our Formal Protest until after they somehow convinced the Manufacturer (Boeing) to Disengeneously pull support for their own aircraft!

I think Libya or North Korea probably have more open competitions than exist in Canada, especially under the Tories. Plus, the Military, even though we had submitted a comprehensive formal proposal in 2003, acted like the BC-17 did not even exist (even as a concept) even though they and the Government - who we had sent out a e-mail notice to all ministers involved in spring 2006 before the ACAN was announced - also played dumb and Disengeneously stated there were no suitable competitors.

All in all a pack of Dishonest and Corrupt Incompetent LIARS in the Military Equipment Procurement arm of DND and PWGSC!!!

Also, don't forget the Dishonest and Corrupt Incompetent LIARS who form our current Government and the less-than honest folks at Boeing who got Canada to pay more per C-17 than would have been paid per BC-17XM (a Fully Compliant 'C-17 Lite').

Oh yeah, to a delusional individual who goes by the handle 'Watcher' (from DPs site), who had snottily noted 'The lack of any court challenge says volumes!'. Not only does the whole 'National Security Exemption' prevent such a challenge, (circumvents the whole CITT appeals process) while the since enacted Fairness in Procurement act does not apply retroactively, plus, having the aircraft manufacturer Disengeneously pull their support for their own aircraft basically: cut the legs out from under us for such a challenge.

(http://opo-boa.gc.ca/plainte-complaint-eng.html - The Procurement Ombudsman can investigate:
    * The award of a contract for the acquisition of goods below the value of $25,000 and services below the value of $100,000 where the criteria of Canada's Agreement on Internal Trade applies
)

BTW, even though we had approached the Auditor General of Canada's [AGC] office, specifically the Dir of Military investigations (a Hugh somebody), it is telling that no AGC report on the C-17 ACAN was ever done, plus they could not even be bothered to follow up with us on it.

And don't forget the oft quoted Bald-faced LIE:  A fair, open and transparent process

An Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) was the procurement approach used to acquire four strategic lift aircraft.
The ACAN process permits the government to identify an intended contract award recipient based on the mandatory capabilities and detailed market research conducted by the Department.

detailed market research conducted by the Department - Christ, they did not even reference facts which were already well known to them from our Comprehensive 2003 Formal Unsolicited Proposal.  This had garnered positive replies from then MND, CAS, DAR, and AF Chief of Staff.
This method of procurement fosters industry competition, ensures fairness and transparency, and increases the efficiency of procurement timelines.  :rage:
What a load of Crap!

PS: Does not even get into Media aspect, whereby Left/Right wing controlled Media completely ignored the story, while a certain pay-for-disinformation DUD site [http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-joining-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/ ] even Threatened to Blackball us, and probably did, because we dared to suggest corrections to inaccuracies and mis truths in his C-17 ACAN story. {Information Way outside his Lane of Knowledge!}
So much for responsible Media.  :eek:

Also dismissed, for lack of Media comprehensive ability, was our BC-17XMs for Dutch Leo 2A6 (the majority)/2A4 (for Training & Spares)/Buffel Equipment Exchange Proposal Aspect of our ACAN submission.
(I guess thats what Army equipment had to do with a C-17 ACAN SOC - Statement of Capabilities submission.)  ::)
(Not to mention that, as then staunch supporters of the CF - not surprisingly no longer, we had proposed numerous benefits to support the CF and the preferred-AIM of the AD community to maintain a fully-supported AD Regt.  Funny, did not see Boeing or LM do that!)
I see that the DND and O'Connor's preferred - and without the doubling/tripling of IRB benefits from a bigger Cdn purchase,  and more expensive direct purchase of mainly Leo 2A4s [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091103/AG_tanks_091102/20091103?hub=Canada ] has really been successful.  :Fri13:

Also completely ignored was the BC-17XMs for UK C-130Js Equipment Exchange Proposal Aspect of our ACAN submission & Tactical Airlift SOI submission, that would have seen the UK's C-17 fleet eased up from Strategic Airlift mission by 2010 to undertake Airlift missions in conjunction with a Canadian and UK C-130J airlift fleet.  Much sooner than the quote Accelerated CC-130J-30 acquisition.  :blotto:
Funny, could have sworn that C-130Js were a compliant Tactical Airlift aircraft.  ::)

I have no idea what this rant is about. Perhaps going back into your post and clarifying a bit will help.

What you have posted and are trying to attributed to the National Post is rather slanderous....seeing as it's your rant in the opinion column and nothing more.

Go get back on your meds.

Regards
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
217
Points
680
Gobsmacked, you've been off this site since March 2007, when several knowledgable Milnet.ca members proved your nearly identical rant meaningless.

What, if anything, has changed?



(Other than the amazing stretch of linking a Citizenship Guide to your C-17 hobby horse  ::) )
 

SeanNewman

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wow, that is quite the rant.

I for one (among thousands of others) am quite happy that we bought the C-17s.

Finally, we just asked ourselves "What is the best possible piece of kit we can buy to fill _________ need?" and bought it!

No settling for cheap stuff, no re-inventing the wheel, no creating something from scratch to cash-infuse a Canadian company, we just bought the best damn brand new thing we could.
 

vonGarvin

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
17
Points
430
It sounds to me (a dis-interested observer) that someone has an axe to grind. 
 

Jammer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
...or we could have waited for the A-400M (not even test flown yet), and paid three times as much for each airframe with no hope for maint spinoffs.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
88
Points
560
It sounds to me like someone got beat out of their consulting fee because some liebral pork barrel consortium didn't get picked.
 

SeanNewman

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jammer said:
...or we could have waited for the A-400M (not even test flown yet), and paid three times as much for each airframe with no hope for maint spinoffs.
Yeah, that's the ticket.

Now that we've found our differences we can start to work out our common ground.  As we agree on the C17, we will see what is next.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
291
Points
880
Journeyman said:
Gobsmacked, you've been off this site since March 2007, when several knowledgable Milnet.ca members proved your nearly identical rant meaningless.

What, if anything, has changed?
I took a look at his posting history and it would seem ALL his posts are pretty much meaningless rants, complete with colors, bold and italicized font, different sized fonts and a whole slew of smileys.
 

tango22a

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maybe WE should don our tin foil hats as a defence against whatever switched him on. Sort of like a flu shot.....you know Preventative Medicine instead of Political Correctness.


tango22a
 
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gobsmacked, if you don't like how we do things in Canada feel free to leave. I'm sure you will like the freedom in Libya or North Korea since you seem to suggest they do things in a way that you like.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
360
Points
980
PMedMoe said:
I took a look at his posting history and it would seem ALL his posts are pretty much meaningless rants, complete with colors, bold and italicized font, different sized fonts and a whole slew of smileys.

Perhaps he wrote their (whoever "they" is/was) sales material, which might explain some things.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
22
Points
430
PMedMoe said:
I took a look at his posting history and it would seem ALL his posts are pretty much meaningless rants, complete with colors, bold and italicized font, different sized fonts and a whole slew of smileys.

Not only are his posts hard on the eyes, but they are also skating on some pretty thin ice. The last one for example made some pretty serious accusations against various people/government agencies that could land a person in a court of law. Providing of course someone could actually make it past the first paragraph!
 
Top