Derek 2.0

I agree. Though in my opinion the NDP’s stance (and the Greens) on national security is wrong, one can’t confuse it with not being both a principled and historic approach to such maters…...Trudeau has claimed his support of the anti-terror legislation was due to his belief that “maters of national security should be beyond partisanship”……… The question to be asked of Trudeau next will surely revolve around him not supporting military action against ISIS in Iraq (despite many prominent members of his party calling for such action) and where he will stand once the mission comes up for review/renewal (and quite possibly expansion in size and scope) in the next several months…….

You didn’t obscure the definitions? You just spent the last several weeks explaining how a light cased bomb is a demolition bomb…….when a demolition bomb, as defined by the USAAF, can be construed as a light case bomb (like you said), a general purpose bomb (like I said), but also armour piercing bombs and aerial dropped sea mines………So let’s leave the minutia aside. I never contested large bombs were dropped on German cities, I stated large demolition bombs (Which as I stated above should have been further clarified to large general purpose demolition bombs), bombs with a similar make-up and explosive potential as that of high explosive artillery shell. I never stated light cased blast bombs (combined with incendiaries) were ineffective against older cities largely constructed of wood/brick/mortar, but that such loadouts would be ineffective against concrete targets. I did state, that artillery bombardments of an equal scope as aerial bombardments, will deliver the same destructive force…….4000 tons of explosives delivered by North Korean artillery would be as destructive as 4000 tons of bombs delivered by Allied bombers. Likewise artillery can deliver both more accurate (when contrasted with WW II high level area bombing), sustained and concentrated destructive potential (as outlined prior) then area bombing…….A single artillery piece can deliver repeated munitions within an area measured in square yards, versus a WW II era high level bomber delivering its load over an area measured in square miles. And as I said, the North Koreans have the like ability to deliver the same tonnage of high explosives on Seoul as the Allies delivered on like Axis targets……..though, as stated blast/incendiaries would be less effective against concrete targets, the Allies still relied upon area bombing to attack densely constructed, concrete industrial targets……..with smaller (GP demolition) HE bombs, as I said 4000 tons of HE dropped from a bombers is as effective as 4000 tons of HE delivered from artillery……

I'm certain that's the reason the Trudeau Liberals are siding with the Government......clearly they too feel the election war is at stake...

What point? As I said, large demolition bombs weren’t used for targeting cities, but concrete targets…. Including the links that you provided? I tried digging it up, by all means: Furthermore: Very simple questions, by all means, have a go at them..... What do you mean? The link to Globalsecurity supported my point with regards to North Korean artillery ranges and rate of fire.......I'm sorry if it confused you...........What other sources did it underscore, your other linked to blog? Its odd that you provided the links to the blogs (Which are both cited and well researched in my opinion) to "underscore your point", and now, you criticize the very same blogs used by you to "underscore your point"........ Now, for a definite definition, precluding both your provided blogs and that goofy globalsecurity site, I’ll offer first, from Arthur Harris’s own book…….notice “bomber” Harris refers to high capacity bombs as Blast (not Demolition) bombs………..Second, a definition of a demolition bomb, from the USAAF magazine circa 1943………..Low and behold, it refers to numerous classes of demolition bombs (GP, Armour piercing, semi-armour piercing, depth bombs and light case)………so it seems, we’ve both obscured the definite definition from the organizations that dropped them, as such, I will admit partial fault when I stated the Allies didn’t drop large demolition bombs on German cities, what I should have stated, the Allies didn’t drop larger General Purpose bombs on German cities………. With that, we can move onto why large light cased, blast bombs wouldn’t be effective against concrete targets (like a modern city like Seoul), but a smaller HE general purpose artillery round would……

In my interpretation, the changes granted to CSIS in the new legislation encompassing both the sharing (4.) and disclosure (5. (1) ) of information (versus the existing law) of someone suspected of undermining the security of Canada.

No, I think the Government added it to give CSIS the ability to streamline the use of intelligence collected by our Allies, information that currently would be inadmissible in a Canadian court, as such precluding its use in legal proceedings against the suspect(s)….

The Government has already stated they won't change the legislation.........so I would assume that would include later in committee.

What? The irony of your post: “I asked you something and you replied in detail……you’re dodging my question!!!” Your goofy link.........Actually, it did support my conclusions, do we need to revisit it? Well no, you didn't answer the question, if you had of, I wouldn't keep repeating it... So Globalsecurity is reliable when you use it, but goofy when I use it........inversely, the loadout link first supplied by you is a worthwhile source when used by yourself, but just personal interpretations of a blog when I use it.......gotcha

And most Canadians support anti-terror legislation, likewise the mission in Iraq........Trudeau/Liberal flip-flop, the legislation is wrong (so he says), but he'll vote for it because its popular

So Trudeau and the Federal Liberals put on their big boy pants and are jumping into bed with the Government in quashing the rights of Canadians.......whats better, Trudeau is concerned with the bill, and wants changes to it, which the Government won't do, so he'll vote for it anyways.......The two-faced Liberals are back!!! I liked this part though:

No, but to determine their interest is subjective (in my opinion), I feel their interest in the region has evolved post 9/11……..i.e. The threat of another Superpower involving itself has been reduced, likewise the prospects of a regional war breaking out among nation states…….clearly their interest in asymmetric threats has increased though….

The Japanese are already buying F-35s.......likewise the ability to utilize them overseas: A choice far longer in the making than the beheadings.......

BC2004 speak the truth Michael, the Americans have had a great (military) interest in the Middle East since the later 1970s, further compounded by the fall of the Shah, the Iraq-Iran war, both military assistance and pre-positioning of forces in Saudi Arabia (and Diego Garcia) in the 80s (to counter a perceived Soviet threat), regular naval deployments, then of course the invasion of Kuwait, the liberation of Kuwait and the containment of Iraq up into the ’03 invasion……. The Americans simply filled the vacuum left by the British (and Commonwealth) following their withdrawal from “East of the Suez” and to a lesser degree the French………

I think the greater participation of Japan in world affairs is but only a natural reaction to the vacuum created by the growing irrelevance that is becoming of most European nations……… As said though, all nations have interests, surely the direction of the democratic Government of Japan is a reflection of the Japanese people’s world interests……Japan is after all one of the largest consumers of Middle Eastern oil, as such, their interest in the region is only natural. Inversely as American reluctance in Middle Eastern oil declines, so too will their diplomatic and national security interests, leaving Japan but no choice to grow their ability to secure their own interests in a region they deem vital……..

The free market........and that is why the price is rising, despite the Saudi's attempt to flood it.

Russia also has foreign currency reserves, and nuclear weapons and a working relationship with a bunch Shia Muslims that don't like the Kingdom or the other Arab OPEC nations........

The Kingdom has $750 Billion in foreign currency reserves…….what do you think happens to the value of those reserves when said currency goes in the crapper? Also, the Saudi’s might be able to extract and refine oil cheaply, but (as mentioned in the link I posted) the Kingdom will require a per bbl price of over $100 to stay out of deficit……..and no, the Kingdom can’t cut their welfare state whenever they like, for if they did, the Saudi Royal family would be the next group on Youtube wearing orange jumpers getting their heads lopped off…….. The Saudis can’t sustain themselves for “quite a while”, they’re gambling they can sustain themselves longer than other Petro nations………which of course is moot, with the per bbl price rebounding ~20% in four business days……..your prediction of oil sticking at $45/bbl has already come and gone, likewise your opinions (regurgitated media “analysis” by the same minds that suggested the price of oil would further decline or stay in the low $40/bbl range for “quite a while”) of Saudi Arabia’s ability to sustain “cheap oil”......

Have You? Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC Petro-Nations (Including the Russians) can't survive on low prices.......

Ahhh no, if prices stay too low (which they aren't) the Kingdom will go bankrupt........

$80-90 a bbl by Summer driving season.....

I'm predicting $80 by Summer....

It closed over $50 today.........

Actually the Prime Minister did release a statement on Baird's service........ I'd think Rona Ambrose based on her current and past portfolios.......Alexander would be a good second choice....

I think that they were...........a quote from the ages: Some Canadians have a "fuddled" view of our collective history...........

They certainly were and was a demonstration of the split between the Soviets and Chinese Communists a decade prior, likewise the Chinese thawing of relations with the West……..At the time, and is often forgotten, the possibility that the presumptive third World War would have been fought between the Russians and Chinese…….