Derek 2.0

Wilber I'm sure could answer the question better, my direct experience with multi-engine, seized wing aircraft, is little more than a passenger.......but with that said, a large airliner will have multiple redundancy on-top-of multiple redundancy.......first to lose both engines, at altitude (reducing the chances of multiple bird strikes) would be caused by numerous of the said redundancies failing all at once and/or pilot error......With multi-engine military aircraft, the most common cause is contaminated fuel, followed my pilot error....... I don't know enough about this crash to speculate with any credibility, but from what I've heard in various media, is the air traffic controllers lost contact shortly after the airline requested a change in altitude......which could indicate the aircraft stalled and couldn't recover, be it pilot error induced by faulty instruments/equipment, loss of hydraulics and/or electrical power........ But that is all speculation until further facts are known.

No, it was a rhetorical question. Pure logic........how many members served in the Canadian Forces post Korea, versus how many were injured in Afghanistan.........the report linked in the OP speaks briefly to it, but doesn't indicate actual numbers....of course, of serving or recently retired members, only a small percent actually went over to Afghanistan, and of those that went over, only a small percent again actually left the bases and saw combat.....and of them, only a small percent received injuries and of those, only an even smaller percent have complained to the media about their "rough treatment" by Veterans Affairs.......... You mean piss it away? An unheard of prospect for younger members to do within the Forces....... That of course is dependent on the individual.......of course, none of those Vets that have come forward with being cheated have been forthwith in demonstrating their own management of their settlements......

Despite your saying so.......funny indeed No....it wasn't, you see, mine was based on actual historic fact..........yours on fantasy, after your facts proved wanting..... Glad you felt that way......inversely your wikipedia regurgitations are improving in both reply and timeliness, improving your ability to teach me that of which I already know.

Or add perspective that is often loss...... Did you read your own link? Odd that the number of injured veterans are increasing, several years after the end of our involvement in the Afghan war........Is this an indication of 1000s of Afghan injuries slipping through the cracks for several years unnoticed -or- the baby boomer generation now retiring and getting themselves (and their German ski adventure injuries) sorted out before retirement? I don't think there is any major issues with the new Veterans Charter........the option of a lump sum is far more flexible then a monthly pittance fit for dinning on cat-food as previous........... And I'll tell you why this is not a campaign issue, a reason well known among serving and retired members, the support they do receive from Canadians is a mile wide but about an inch deep.......And most do know their plight will steadily worsen under a Liberal or NDP Government, this of course is made obvious by the fact that neither have offered solutions to the new Veteran's Charter that they politically supported, all the while making it clear their policies (and in turn funding) priorities for the armed forces........... I have no doubt though that a Liberal/NDP government wouldn't reverse cuts (money and personal) made to Veterans Affairs, despite the majority of its clientele rapidly no longer requiring services.......a win for vets PSAC no doubt......

What of course is blanched over in this report is that it includes all Vets post-Korea.....from the 1950s through to present day, of which a tiny percentage are Afghan vets that were injured (be it physically or mentally) on deployment......When one looks at the vast majority claims, by far the largest ailment (~70-75% IIRC) is hearing loss, followed by back & knee pain from serving and retired members.......and of course hearing aides, chiropractors and physiotherapy is covered in full. Clearly hearing loss is the nature of the job, and preventative measures have been brought in in the preceding decades to help mitigate such injuries, but back/knee/joint pain is a common plight for most post 50 years of age, be they vets or not. Of course such injuries can be directly career related, inversely they can be caused by genetics, sports or by being overweight etc.........regardless, unlike the majority of Canadians, full treatment options are fully covered for vets no-questions-asked......Of course the media won't report on the plight of a retired officer in the RCAF that suffered a skiing injury in Germany, nor an overweight retired clerk in the army, both now suffering a common (to Canadian people) later in life ailment.......instead focusing on the more "dramatic", often of which is too only a ting percent.........There are far, far more serving and recently retired Afghan vets with no post-conflict injuries and of the ones that have been injured in various degrees, have made the transition to the next part of their (civilian) lives........ Clearly bad news sells............ Also by happenstance (if one must still place blame), the media and Official Opposition often fail to mention the current Veterans Charter was tabled by the previous Liberal Government, and supported by both the Tories and NDP......

Actually no, the majority of the Soviet troops used in Afghanistan were teenage (2-year contracted) conscripts comprised of ethnic minorities from throughout the Soviet Union, equipped with largely dated equipment and led by third tier officers (Those unfit for service in Europe and along the Chinese border).....The one advantage they did have, was compromised once the Americans started supplying Stinger MANPADS to the Mujahideen........even then, the Soviets maintained ground and won the majority of the actions in which they fought........... The Soviet withdraw from Afghanistan was brought forth by the loss of political capital encompassed by Glasnost and the near total collapse of their economy due to the Reagan defense budgets of the 80s....... We are stronger and smarter, but to come out as "winners" required political leadership that desired to win, and in turn, gave clear direction and support to military leadership.... In a Western Democracy, the military leadership is beholden to the elected Government.......which of course is a reflection of the populace. Remember, when one points at another, there are three fingers pointing back at oneself........

I of course never suggested there were no Loyalists within Belfast, nor Ulster as a whole, having clearly acknowledged the sectarian nature of the conflict, likewise the scope of violence found within Belfast ......so I fail to see how you would apply the logic I used on your unfounded claims, in your above disjointed hypothetical....

Yes and all colonies comprised British citizens........like Ulster. Indeed......your though is that British forces in Iraq or Afghanistan were just deader....... "Mortality rates" are used by yourself as examples (when actual death totals don't help), except once mortality rates become inconvenient, then they become "red herrings".......as to relevance within our discussion, didn't you also suggest the Troubles had no relevance in discussing the GWOT........ Of course they couldn't........the British left, which would be akin to pulling up lock, stock and barrel in Ulster (which the Thatcher Government considered in the early 80s) or turning the Armada around once it received its first losses in the South Atlantic....... Again with the insults when your ignorance on the topic becomes obvious.......as by far, the Provos received their most actual support from within Belfast, with Provo battalions formed in all corners of the city and outlaying communities...and in turn the majority of the British solders killed or wounded having been in Greater Belfast..... That is rather rich coming from a person who's arguments share the consistency of that of Jello.....and once one attempts to nail said Jello to the wall, they are berated with insults.......By all means, continue to insult me, I don't mind at all, fore I'm of the belief that everyone on this planet has a talent and its clear (as Jello) that your talent is not regurgitating your wikipedia search results I leave you the last word.......since that is all that you've got

Indeed, after exerting untold brutality against said foes.....hearts and minds factored little when viewing ones enemy through a Norden bombsight....

I disagree, the strategy and execution used were flawed........such conflicts dating history back have been fought and won...... Yet, as cited, the British postwar were able to contend with such groups, in multiple examples, by the successful usage of "brutal methods".......you may feel such examples are "utterly silly", but they are historic fact.

Yes, modern Western democratic Governments do not have enough political capital for sustained, with self-imposed impediments, combat operations aimed at creation of a western-styled democratic society were none existed.....

A majority? During the troubles? Iraq and Afghanistan saw more intense death for British servicemen? Thats comforting..... When confronted with the actual death toll in Northern Ireland, did you not shift to rate of death over a shorter time frame in Iraq and Afghanistan to attempt to confirm your point? As would you contend that several hundred dead of several months of combat is a greater rate then 400-500 over a ~4-6 year span? Just because your assertion is countered, does not make my factual response "moronic"....... They didn't have to "give-up", the British/West left!!!! Did you not suggest the British were "wanted" in Belfast and that New Lodge was apart of Belfast? Your "points" are ever shifting when countered with facts, likewise your propensity towards personal insults....... None the less, in closing, a ~generation ago the British were more than willing to engage in combat operations, operations that were costly in terms of both money and personal, and see said operations through to a successful endgame. In doing so, the British armed forces were focused on actually winning the conflicts by any required means and not the perception seen by the populace of those they fought. A generation later, the British/West, well fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, heavily restricted their armed forces ability to engage in total war, instead attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of the local populations. Once this strategy was proven folly, the elected Governments rapidly lost the support of their own populations and in turn, withdrew (or in the process of) their forces and handed their enemies a default victory...... With the case of Iraq (and I'm certain Afghanistan in the near future) the former enemies have regrouped and once more pose a threat to the West........And the West has returned to the same mess that they left unfinished.....With the British, this runs counter to their experience in contending with post-war insurgencies (Northern Ireland, Malaya, Kenya etc), of which until Iraq and Afghanistan, the British excelled and achieved positive results........... As I said, the GWOT was not a stupid fight, but in how parts were waged (nation building) and other parts self-defeating (restrictive ROEs, self-immolation over the treatment of ones enemies, avenues of gaining intelligence etc) were without a doubt "stupid".......

From the reporting in the media, the suspected killer was charged with domestic and sexual assault several years ago....and that once police were first called to the house nobody answered the door and they left.......only to return hours later to find the victims dead.......my question, if they are responding to a call with a man with a recent violent past, why they didn't enter the home the first visit? That's not to say those inside weren't already dead, of that its not been made clear in the media, but it does seem a lapse on the police's part.

It sounds like the Edmonton police services s**t the bed on this one............

........Like any other former British colony Like the greater death toll or higher costs........but of course Northern Ireland cost more and saw a greater loss of life than Iraq or Afghanistan for the British military Indeed and I responded with the higher rate found within the Falklands.... And why didn't they (or the West) end Iraq and Afghanistan on their own terms? Leaving before the enemy was defeated played into it I should think, or is that too moronic and baffling to you? So again, are you suggesting the British were wanted in Provo controlled communities???? These are your words, how have I misrepresented them?

Indeed........like Catholic Republicans in Northern Ireland I should think.... Was it not you that suggested the British withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan because of the shift in public opinion from the deaths of their servicemen? It sounds if you forgot your own incorrect pretext..... Did you not shift to "casualty rates" after incorrectly pointy to death totals of UK servicemen as justification for withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, well staying in Northern Ireland because of your incorrectly claimed lower death toll???? More total British forces died in Northern Ireland then Iraq/Afghanistan and the Falklands had a higher "casualty rate" then Iraq/Afghanistan.......as such, that would tend to counter your previous failed point on deaths/casualty rates.... And you would be wrong..........see James Joyce Did you not suggest the British were welcome in New Lodge?

Never been to Turkey proper, but have been to Cyprus...I'd imagine Greek holiday packages are rather cheap now........

Every divested colony contained British subjects prior to being divested....... Another goal post shift? I clearly stated totals......since we're shifting the pitch to casualty rate, the Falklands were far more deadlier then both Iraq and Afghanistan.......Any calls for a British withdrawal post Bluff Cove? Says the fellow that claims the Troubles didn't encompass religious tension and that British forces were welcomed into Catholic, Provo controlled, communities???? Whats next? Jews enjoying picnics in Buchenwald or Marines sunbathing on Iwo Jima??

I know were it is, like I know it was one of the most dangerous geographic locations on the planet for a British serviceman throughout the 70s and 80s......the British were wanted dead.... The costing associated with Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan.......guess which saw the greatest outlay in Pound Sterling....... The British had no problem divesting themselves of their Empire through the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s.......and of course, they let the rest of Ireland go decades prior......... I have.......more members of the British military, police services and intelligence services died in Northern Ireland then both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.....perhaps you should redo your math....and please, learn more of the actual conflict(s) were discussing, so as not to continue to waste my time.

So? The British were not wanted in New Lodge..... I already have.......several times Riiiiiight.....nice shift of the goal posts........And whom perceived the cost benefits, and by that (your) measure, why didn't the British do likewise in the later 70s in Northern Ireland? Surely cost benefits would have factored in (in your mind) during the British economic troubles of the later 1970s....... The conflict in Northern Ireland lasted decades longer and sent home more Union Jack draped coffins than Iraq and Afghanistan.........So why no shift in public with Northern Ireland, but a shift with Iraq and Afghanistan?

Are you suggesting that not one segment of the Afghan population wanted the British/West there? Also that the reason the British left the region was because of cost? (Your costings are fantasy I might add) Are you stating British public opinion and in turn British domestic politics didn't play into the the withdrawal of forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan???

Why did the British Government remove British combat forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the end of hostilities?

As I said to you already: As I've said, the difference being, in Northern Ireland the British were more concerned with winning the actual conflict as opposed to the "hearts and minds" of the locals in Iraq and Afghanistan..........

And that too won't happen, the Americans would never put the control of their own currency in Non-American hands.....frankly, with issues encompassing the Euro over the last several years, I don't see why anyone would.

I never said that they were.....quite the opposite actually, as such, will ensure it won't happen.