Derek 2.0

I'm not sure what I could offer as an extension........Sundays I pick Lotto numbers and gender of the unborn though

Those are both remarks from the leader of the NDP and Liberals.......reported by the media. Though I have no doubt the ability of ISIS will be diminished, I would be very surprised if ISIS were to be erased within 6 months, let alone 6 years or even 6 decades...... As do I, but that is putting the cart before the horse at this point...

Air traffic control is not an issue.........and ISIS/rebels have demonstrated the ability to shoot down aircraft......though measures are in place to greatly negate such a threat, it is still present. Yes, your position on military action is known.........does any form of military action meet your approval? For instance, was the Second World war, a war with the costs?

By calling it "Harper's Iraqi war"? Or disparaging the ability of the Canadian Forces? Have not both the NDP and Liberals made their positions known?

That’s an interesting idea…perhaps coupled to an increase in the current humanitarian footprint.

Or it’s an indication that recent avionics and mission software upgrades, designed to allow a more measurable attack capability, have been completed………coupled with a Syrian purchase of the Russian S-300 SAM system several years ago, with perhaps questions surrounding which faction is currently in control of it….

Odd, I've seen the General on both CBC's P&P and Global, and his opinion is that air strikes are a good "first step", but further action (on the ground) will likely be needed.

With that sampling, what are the projected seat totals, over a year out, for the LPC/CPC/NDP?

I agree, I think their position is consistent and based upon their preconceived, misguided principles. Though I’m not surprised of the result, I’m surprised that they didn’t rely upon some sort of out, like lack of UN sanction (regardless of prior Liberal Government engaging in military action sans formal UN support) and instead chose to roll over completely to Quebec politics.........This is a result that I'm sure is not a shared throughout the party………For example, I have no doubt that a John Mccallum, Marc Garneau, Scott Brison or Andrew Leslie would favour inaction, nor Trudeau’s smug and insulating referrals to the Canadian Forces. I largely agree.

How is it unhealthy? The position of the Government, based upon a recent poll, would indicate air strikes against ISIS are supported by the majority of Canadians, including Canadians that didn't vote for the Conservatives. I fail to see the point. Both the Liberals and NDP made their positions known, prior to the release of the Governments action plan, and prior to Monday's debate in the House. As far as I know, neither parties have indicated their positions could be changed by further information.........As such, the Government has selected to govern.

Yes, because it would be used by both the Liberals and NDP as a political whacking stick........It’s unfortunate that the Government felt compelled to do this, then again, it’s equally unfortunate that the two Opposition parties are so partisan to use defense procurement as a partisan issue……With the F-35 itself, such games are not played to this extent in the domestic politics of the majority of the partner nations…….nations that have had various changes in Government, from all parts of the political compass, throughout the JSF program life.

A presumed initial Canadian delivery date would clearly be predetermined by the signing of an actual contract……..if a contract had of been signed this summer, it’s not farfetched to suggest a small initial order, based in either/or Florida/Arizona to train the initial Canadian personal, followed by the initial squadron (likely) stood-up in Alberta to start the transition process. The USN/USMC are currently paying ~3-4 million per aircraft.....For us, that would equate to ~325-350 million. It would be dependent upon each aircrafts remaining fatigue life expectancy (FLE). Our air force uses a fleet management dictum that doesn’t see aircraft usage spread equally amongst the fleet, but instead, a practice that sees some individual aircraft used greatly versus others with (relatively) little use…..this would lead to a likely outcome of not all of the fleet remaining until 2025, will gradual retirements between now and then, coupled with a portion of the fleet remaining airworthy post 2025. The exact total, again would be dependent upon each aircrafts FLE…..this information quite obviously will not be in the public sphere, but with that, I would be surprised if the entire fleet was determined to be worthy of a SLEP at all. I am not personally aware of the exact figures, but if I were, that level of information would be considered OPSEC...... With that said, it will become obvious through subtraction when the details of the upgrade contract, via either/or a DoD FMS request or a straight contract to Northrop become public. I don’t see it as a reflection of the F-35 itself, but the political climate a year out from a Federal election.

Agreed, why derail the Trudeau bashing thread further..... In Iraq, without a doubt when at the request of the elected Government.........Syria, has yet to openly request such action, so as it stands, it's a safe play. Without a doubt they will degrade ISIS from putting together conventional force structures, as it will curtail mobility between communities..........overall though, to defeat ISIS will be a fight the Iraqis and Kurds will have to win. Bah......We've got the Pope on side to lend credence to this Holy Crusade

And the other Sunni Arab Government in the region.....

At what point does sending jets go from "one thing" to "a war"? I fail to see the difference.

I don't think the Government has hidden the fact that Canada will undertake a combat mission.....

Two points, there already is an aid mission........second, polls indicate that you're wrong on the intentions of the majority of Canadians.

Is further instability in a region of economic importance a preferable option?

Even though Sunni and Shia Muslims in the region are attacking ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

That's clearly subjective........

That seems reasonable, but with the acceptance that circumstances on the ground could change, why would you lay blame on the MND? For instance, air strikes could run their course, but further humanitarian aid could be required, coupled with security provided for Canadian aid workers.

The Government has indicated 6 months.......I assume that accounts for "limited" to some.......Now what do you view as targeted?

It appears........the Liberals offer nothing.......How does one provide aide safely in a war zone? Again, why do the Trudeau Liberals oppose, as indicated by polls, the majority of Canadians desire to see military action against ISIS?

What would you define as limited and targeted?

Would you agree that the Governments plan is limited and targeted? I do agree though, we (as in the West) shouldn't, nor can win this conflict in the end with air strikes alone, as that will ultimately be up to the Iraqis/Kurds on the ground in their own country........I don't understand your concern over equipment usage, or your latter suggestion that this "mess" is unwinnable and not our fight.....versus limited intervention at the opening of your post...