Derek 2.0

Agreed......there is no need, nor place, for such slurs in an attempted adult forum.......and said usage resulted in a suspension for another member in the past.

And when the Chinese tell you to stick your conditions in your ear.........then what?

I agree, but then again, the nationalistic zealots in China lay squarely in the hardline camp…

We (as in the West) are at a crossroads with Red China, much like after the death of Mao and the start of a market based economy or further back the split in Soviet-Sino relations. Alienating China now will only strengthen the hardliners in the Chinese Communist Party and Peoples Liberation Army (which controls a great deal of the Chinese manufacturing capacity), and lead to at best another Cold War (with a country with greater economical prowess then the Soviet Union), or at worse, a third World War. Perspective must be taken……..Hong Kong student protests, and to date the response from the Government, has been no different than protests in the West like Occupy or at a G8/20 summit……the only major difference to date…….the Chinese students clean-up after themselves.

From your OP: A rhetorical question that you don’t favour? If so, Mea culpa....

And further dribs and drabs on the Supply class: To me, trying to put myself in the position of the USN, their present options are the force reduction and the loss of these two ships (and the strategic options they bring to the table), leasing/selling them to Canada, or find other funds to keep them in service, which is doubtful when they’re scrambling to fund the refueling of the carrier the USS George Washington….. Now the loss of these ships would likely entail the ships being put into category B reserve, allowing the ships to be reactivated in a time of national crisis. This does cost money, and the ships condition will worsen (despite preservation practices) with time, making a return both more costly and time consuming. On paper, the USN has many ships in reserve, but their reactivation isn’t assured, nor the required time being present to bring a given ship back into service in the time of war. With Canada acquiring the vessels, to some degree, it keeps the ships “in the family” and would allow the USN to still utilize these assets, via our working relationship in peacetime. They would lose operational command, but in all likelihood, in a time of war, both the RCN and USN would be working together…….perhaps a kiss from a cousin. Keeping them in service would likely require the USN giving up something else, or the US congress finding money within next year’s budget…….as I mentioned, witnessing the difficulty in finding funding for an aircraft carrier, I have my doubts two large, expensive to operate supply ships will see that much political capital expended…….In fact, I’d suggest a greater chance of seeing any additional funds being directed to funding several more Lewis & Clark supply ships.

A first for the RAAF:

Russia and China are apples and oranges……sanctions placed against Russia, were limited (at best) and targeted more so towards banking and other assets controlled by the oligarchy. Also, the actual levels of trade between Canada and Russia are non-existent when compared to Canada-China. Now I have a question for you: How do you rationalize inaction in the affairs of Middle Eastern nations, but purpose sticking our collective thumb in the eye of China?

Quite the opposite, we should encourage further trade and Westernization of Red China through even more trade agreements, cultural/student exchange etc………soft power such as this can work, as it did for Reagan over 25 years ago……Ultimately a regression of relations will only effect the populace and not the people of the ChiCom Politburo…….. Culturally, the Chinese psyche takes a far broader & longer term view, when compared to us in the West, with such things…….all that is needed from us is the continuance of our own cultural expansion into the remaining vacuums on this planet of personal/religious/economic/political freedom.

And we can be assured that next years election won’t have the F-35s as a focal point……….perhaps 2019? With the decision to defer the F-35 purchase this summer to until after next year’s election, this was inevitable, fore negotiations of the new aircraft would have to start soon to secure 2019 production slots, the allowance of Lockheed to purchase long-lead items and for the RCAF to set a date for the commencement of conversion training. I would expect the required upgrades will roughly entail something along the lines of the USN’s center barrel program performed on their older Hornet fleet. These upgrades would see efforts aimed at strengthening/replacing each Hornet’s dorsal deck and longerons, adding ~15-20% to the lifespans of each aircraft, dependant on the individual aircraft’s material condition….. Currently the USN/USMC legacy fleet will be finished the upgrade in 2017, allowing us to purchase the jigs and tooling from the DoD (which will require different ones for the Super Hornet). As to costing, between the kits purchased from Northrop and the labour performing the work, each Hornet costs ~3 million………..for us, that would translate into ~250 million for our fleet. What this will also do, is end the speculation from the peanut gallery on mythical purchases of Super Hornets, Rafales and Typhoons, for a OSD of 2025 for our Hornet fleet will signal a purchase of new aircraft in the ~2020 timeframe………..long after the branded about “alternatives” have gone out of production, and in the timeframe the current users will start retiring their own fleets of “alternatives”, discounting even a purchase of used “4.5 generation” aircraft……….Thusly a future Canadian Government, in the 2019 timeframe, will be able to hold a competition between nothing and the F-35.

http://youtu.be/Xnzrzpf3sxE By all means, please explain what modern systems can differentiate between a Kurd armed with an AK-47 and a member of ISIS armed with an AK-47…… Funny, last night you said:

No problem.....such provisions have been boiler plate in various treaties along the Pacific Rim, but are alien to some in Europe.......namely those that have/had various state owned or heavily subsidized industries........or have nationalized industries in the past.

Two geopolitical reasons namely: First, as already alluded to, direct Israeli involvement, like in the First Gulf war, would disallow the various Sunni Arab countries from participating for domestic consumption. Arab involvement in defeating ISIS, politically, is key. Second, ISIS is also fighting against Shia Muslim groups, proxies of Iran and Syria, like Hamas and Hezbollah. As the old adage goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend …..in that resources expended by Iran in support of their allies in the fight against ISIS, can’t be used against Israel……..From an Israeli perspective, this conflict can go on into perpetuity….

As the name implies, it protects foreign investors from a Government nationalising, expropriating, interference with patents etc…… For example, say you invent, patent and start producing a ground-breaking widget. I, from a different country, see the potential in said widget and wish to invest in your widget production with the expectation of a return on investment…….Now let’s say after times goes by, you and I are making money hand over fist on the sale of widgets worldwide, but then with a change of Government within your country, the new leader decides widget production is in the nation’s interest and nationalizes widget production…..and we’re left out in the cold. Now why would I invest money in another country without some form of protection? These provisions have been in place with NAFTA since its inception, and are an expectation of such international deals…..and have greatly benefited Canada through direct foreign investment in various industries.

Perhaps a false flag..........

They got the American stuff after ~800 defeated 30k members of the Iraqi army in and around Mosul, as cited in the previous link...........now how do ~800 defeat ~30k, who have modern western hardware? Or are you suggesting the report from several months back from the Iraqi government is false?

I thought they were "goofs"?

Not in the cited battle..........

I wonder if Xerxes would be a Shia today

I think you missed many a things.........as cited by the Iraqi Government, during the battle for Mosul, ~800 "goofs with black and white flags" defeated an Iraqi army force of 30k........and in turn, "liberated" not only the second largest city in Iraq, but captured from the Iraqi army much of the modern American hardware they have today, to say nothing of millions of dollars in gold and the capture of Northern Iraqi oil fields.

To an extent.......the American trained Sunni officer corps of the Iraqi army was largely deposed, once the Americans left, by the Shia majority Government.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states The Shia majority didn't control the former infrastructure (under Saddam as you suggested), but they certainly own it now........ I never said that you do: based on your previous post: So again, you don't really care if ISIS cuts the heads off women and children........based on your above quote.

Stuff given to the Iraqi army...........of which 1000s surrendered to ~800 "goofs with black and white flags"...........So why did the Iraqi army fold like a card table, and what will have changed after the West has left............ So, you don't really care if ISIS cuts the heads off women and children, as long as they're not motivated by religion?

No, the modern weaponry was donated and sold to the Iraqi army........the Americans have no qualms, when left with nobody to donate to, to shred/scrap gear in country, as evident today in Afghanistan…….Your goofs with black and white flags captured their heavier arms from both the Syrian and Iraqi armies. So, how did they capture modern weapons, to say nothing of large portions of both Syria and Iraq, with black and white flags? And once their heavy weapons have been destroyed, what will prevent them from repeating their recent history again with only black and white flags.... The various sects of Islam have been fighting each other long before there was a United States.

So prior to obtaining their heavy weapons etc, they were what exactly? The point dre is making, I feel anyways, is how did these "crazy punks with goofy black and white flags", not only obtain modern weaponry, but a chunk of both Syria and Iraq with such ease.........