Derek 2.0

Furthermore, as suggested by ISIS, welcoming in a Trojan horse to keep a political promise is foolish beyond belief. There might already be soft sympathizers within Canada, but bringing in potentially "educated" members of ISIS is how one makes a viable terror network on our own soil.....

Excuse to keep refugees out? Hardly, but reason enough not to rush the process to keep a political promise made during an election, and in the interim, there is no reason we can't continue to send aide to those refugees already safe in camps outside the conflict zone.

Why not? The Paris chief prosecutor, confirmed by the Greek Government, has suggested exactly that:

Sure, but do you realize ISIS has clearly stated, months ago, that they have members among said refugees? One could deduce that if we stopped ISIS, the refugees would no longer have a reason to run away........

Why? The airstrikes, from the onset, have prevented ISIS from operating as a near conventional force (with captured heavy weapons), a force that prior to said strikes, was able to take over swaths of both Syria and Iraq. The airstrikes have been very effective, granted they alone will not retake the ground lost to ISIS, hence the intent of training (and arming) the locals. Both valid points, but the POL resources of ISIS have been degraded, to the point that its members are now rarely seen in the backs of light Toyota pick-ups, let alone Hummers, MRAPS and Abrams tanks......I don't know that much oil is being smuggled out of ISIS controlled areas now. But going after those that fund ISIS I fully agree.

It will be interesting to see the Trudeau governments response if the French invoke article 5 of NATO....

We will support the French people by stopping attacks against ISIS? I like how Dion equates: How does the combat mission detract form us doing any of that? You speak of weasel words, there you go....

That's a good point, I wouldn't want to imagine the response to a terror attack in a New York from a terrorist brought into Canada under the guise of a refugee.

Further to that, when it took us nearly three years to settle an equal amount of Iraqi refugees.

Further to that, why would the GoC rush the process and put our security at risk when the refugees they propose to take are already in refugee camps outside the conflict zone? What would be wrong with instead sending further resources to said camps to help with their livability?

I won't debate with you putting the Trojan Horse before the cart.......tribalism is far older than the 5th Republic.

I'm not weaseling out of anything, nor was there an assumption that there would be 1 (working 24/7) person over the next 46 days, likewise nor is it assumed there is one person involved in the cited timeline form the GoC of ~36 months per claim.......as such, to compress said 36 months into 46 days, the GoC will require a net increase of ~24-25 times.......impossible, as such corners will be cut, and the Government could open up the potential for a Paris style, Trojan horse, attack from within.

Exactly and the concept of man-hours is a concept understood by anyone with a level of managerial experience, further compounded in Government......as such, compressing the current process that takes (as cited) upwards of 36 months (or longer) to process one claim, and fitting it into a timeline of ~46 days will require expanding the process nearly 25 times......in other words it is impossible to bring in the stated figure, within the stated timeline, with current resources. As such, if Trudeau keeps his promise, he is potentially putting Canadian lives at risk, unless he brings them here and locks them up in camps under guard...........I'm watching CNN right now, and they are reporting that one of the attackers was reported to have been processed at a refugee camp in Greece.

Ahh no, I didn't, as I clearly explained such is a calculation on man-hour requirements..........Nor is one person, working 24/7, processing the current (cited) estimate that the Government states is a process that takes upwards of 36 months per claim.

It makes perfect sense in terms of calculating raw man-hour requirements, inversely doesn't jive (at all) with the GoC's stated timeline for processing a refugee claim, upwards of three years per claim...........that is the Trudeau governments circle to square. Based on the departments own stated estimate to process a claim, combined with Trudeau's timeline and number of refugees, yes, I feel I'm (like all other Canadians) are in the position to judge.

Not at all (nor do I assume they will work 24/7), but that is the scope to process 25000 Syrians in the remaining ~1100 hours. This of course begs the question, how many qualified people do we have to devout to screening, and how much time will be allotted to each refugee?

Ask them about the IRA indeed........the British never proposed withdrawing from Ulster during the Troubles, and still have paramilitary and military forces in Northern Ireland. And being good Catholics, the worst of the IRA never proposed killing themselves to help achieve their political goals. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt we'll ever see a peace process and ceasefire with radical Islamic terror groups.

I'm not making anything up: I suppose I could have made a rounding error, feel free to correct my math.

If you've ever been through secondary inspection by the CBSA, they spend a whole lot of more time on each person, than the ~2 1/2 minutes that will be allotted to each Syrian, of 25000, to be brought in by the end of the year.

That would depend if they played the Article 5 card, the only time it has been invoked, in all of NATO's history (since 1949), was on the 12th of September, 2001.

Our contribution, combined with the British and Australians, equals that of one USN carrier strike group...hardly symbolic considering the Americans, for a first time since the later 80s, don't currently have a single carrier in the Persian Gulf.

Valid point, to add to it, consider this: There are 46 days left in the year, or better yet, ~ 1104 hours left in this year. To bring in 25000 Syrians by years end, assuming GoC officials work 24/7, they will have to process ~23 Syrian refugees an hour, or better put, screen each Syrian every 2 1/2 minutes......what could go wrong? I think Trudeau owes it to Canadians to look into each and every person we do bring in, more than the CBSA spends inspecting Canadians returning home from overseas for weird meats, drugs and large sums of cash.

What?

No, I understand the concept very well, you do not. When said pump is turned off, where does said pressure go? Likewise, as prescribed by Airbus, why will fuel still flow from the center tank even if both pumps fail?

I understand the concept perfectly, as do others (and Airbus), likewise know, from your own words, that you clearly do not..........but humor me, from the above "technical drawing" (its called a mechanical drawing) explain or name the portion of the Airbus A320 fuel system that deals with your "residual pressure". Likewise, despite the Airbus drawing stating otherwise, why you feel the APU isn't supplied, in normal use (as cited from Airbus) by the inner left wing tanks/pumps? Two very simple questions.