GWiz

(I know that, and the other thing I know is that NOTHING done on any board like this makes a lick of difference to anything... "Que Sera, Sera" as Doris day so elequently put it in her song... It can be FUN though... ) I don't think it's so much a matter of constraints though, it's much more about appearances, political appearances... There was no constraint, sadly, when the powers that be bought those 4 useless pieces of scrap they called submarines from the Brits... There were also no constraints when Canada's "air power" consisted of Voodoos (not too bad) and Starfighters (a useless killer) followed by F-5s (ok but very limited usefulness for Canadian needs).. With that kind of "history", when I look at how your Gov. (primarily the Hill) and U.S. Military are "talking" about and "viewing" the escallating costs for the "5th generation" airframes I get a bit worried... When the "owners" (Canada's Gov. of the day) of a team interfere with the "management and coaches" (Canada's Military hierarchy) and dictate how the team (Canada's Military) should play on a day to day basis it's seldom/never a particularly good team, regardless of how good the actual players on the team may be...

There are wars and then there are wars... Truth be told so called wars, like war on drugs, war on poverty or war on Terror, to name a few, are NOT wars at all... So perhaps certain actions taken by a country in the name of such wars are NOT justified in the actions they have taken?

Yes, BUT, as stated, in the end, every nation state must make it's decisions based on the interest of that state and not based on any outside interest... It's what I'd want Canada to do, wouldn't you?

- Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians.[8] The royal regime collapsed shortly after on February 11, 1979 when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. NOPE!!! No simularity there at all...

Actually, NO... If I want an OPINION about Egypt and what's really happening there I prefer this opinion... Egypt envoy to Canada hails historic, proud moment in wake of Mubarak ouster

Totally FALSE... - The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution or 1979 Revolution;[1][2][3][4][5][6] Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi or انقلاب بیست و دو بهمن) refers to events involving the overthrow of Iran's monarchy (Pahlavi dynasty) under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and its replacement with an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution. Demonstrations against the Shah began in January 1978.[7] Between August and December 1978 strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Shah left Iran for exile in mid-January 1979, and in the resulting power vacuum two weeks later Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians.[8] The royal regime collapsed shortly after on February 11 when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979 ,[9] and to approve a new theocratic constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979 . The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world:[10] it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military); [11] produced profound change at great speed;[12] was massively popular;[13] overthrew a puppet regime heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services;[14][15] and replaced a modernising monarchy with a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolutione faqih). Its outcome — an Islamic Republic "under the guidance of an extraordinary religious scholar from Qom" — was, as one scholar put it, "clearly an occurrence that had to be explained."[16]. - What part of that did you not understand?

Funny how this thread has turned into a "Pots and Kettles" debate... Please carry on... I'm sure my OLD CON (as opposed to neocon) American friend BC 2004 is "killing himself" laughing right now...

Ok, ok, so I exaggerated - A LITTLE! Always nice when we can agree...

A slight correction to my previous post... There are now TWO of the dumbest, most confusing, and senseless posts I have ever read... VERY It DEFINITELY would seem that Egypt wasn't the only place that had a breakout from an institution...

This has to be the dumbest, most confusing, and senseless post I have ever read... It would seem that Egypt wasn't the only place that had a breakout from an institution...

But, but, but wouldn't that mean Canada would become the same? Don't we FOLLOW the United States in everything it does?

There you go doing it again... "Sauce for the goose, Bill... I was talking about PRESENT technology! Here you are blue-skying extrapolations over the next few decades as if they are fact!" I'll try to be nicer this time as it pertains to what you posted... 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln

Ummm, everyone? So?

It still remains that a missile is a missile vs a UAV which is a retrievable, reusable, and constant "pilot/operator" controlled airframe with a wide use multirole function... This is not to say that a "smart" missile does not have it's place and/or advantages in a specific set of circumstances over a UAV... SR-71 Blackbird and U2 Dragon Lady - I remember them well... I take it then that we are in agreement in general of my overall assessment as it pertains to the subject matter of this thread and my attempt to TEACH Army Guy, Wild Bill and some others a few FACTS and realities of our TIME... Whether they are willing to LEARN is of course a completely different matter... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17363&view=findpost&p=625853

Fair enough... I like Bitsy, although we haven't "talked", giving opposing viewpoints and links is certainly a nice and refreshing change from the norm around here... And of course the FACT that Bushes motivation for his comments was trying to justify the Iraq War should only be seen as incidental to what he said... I fully understand your reasoning in that regard, although I do not share that sentiment, as you well know...

You're bringing up Carter in a GOOD light? UNBELIEVABLE!!! Are you sure you're not a Democrat in "sheeps clothing"? You sure as hell aren't a Fox News brainwashed, Tea Party loving, right wing extremist, Republicant... Your reasonableness and realistic insite contained in your posts lately, including a somewhat reserved viewpoint about Canada are blowing my mind... STOP THAT!!! :angry:

I believe you misread this part... I agree with everything you say, the DIFFERENCE I was referring to is that you can abort a strike and bring a UAV back without "firing" it's weapons vs a Missile, which MAY be aborted by blowing it up prior to reaching it's destination, perhaps causing unforseen damage, but it can't be "brought back" once deployed... Any arguement with that? I make it a point not to argue with the TRUTH, even if presented by you...

As I've said and posted before here and on other Egyptian Revolution related threads - The difference between what I and I believe BC 2004 (plus some others) are saying is that we are presenting our arguements based on facts as they exist, the realities as they exist, and the "most likely" scenarios going forward based on those facts and realities... No "biases", no hidden agendas, no ulterior motives, no regard for media hype and opinions to increase ratings just a "it is what it is" commentary... Even the FACT that I (a very PROUD, highly intelligent and very unconventional Canadian) and BC 2004 (a Bush-Cheney loving, cantankerous, but NOT radically so, American with some pretty good "smarts" and experience) can share a very simular viewpoint as it pertains to the events and realities in Egypt should be something to give you pause and make you think... Not so?

You say; "I'm listening, teach me", do you you mean it? If you do, and that goes for Wild Bill and others too, I'm willing to try... Let's take a 25 year time frame from 2000 to 2025 as it relates to both life and this thread... Tech changes during the first 10 years (history) we all know about... GPS - Today ordinary citizens can get a multi satellite guided GPS that will tell them where they are anywhere in the world within a few meters/yards for under $200.00... Unheard of 10 years ago (except maybe for VERY EXPENSIVE military use)... A computer on your cellphone or other mobile hand held device that will fit into a pocket or purse available to the general public for around $200.00 to $600.00 - A dozen manufacturers, including a Canadian Co., are making ever more powerful devices that can "touch" people anywhere in the world and that are more powerful, and more useful and user friendly, than most Desktop Computers were 10 years ago... Satellite Radio, Satellite Phones, etc. - Mass Communication via orbiting Satellites including Tech that lets our Military personnel freely communicate with loved ones "at home" while serving "in theater" overseas... 10 years ago perhaps in it's infancy where our Military would "line up" for a 1 min. message to home... Today via apps. like skype any laptop can communicate freely via satellite, can offer 2 way video and voice, for media outlets and any other individual... Available to the general public a methodoly that would 10 years ago have been "top secret" at best... Remote controlled Aircraft available today at any hobby shop that are so advanced in control and performance that they would have been classified "top secret" for strictly Military application 10 years ago... Add to that "Flight Simulators" for use with a joystick and a computer that would have been the most advanced system (probably even better) in flight training just 10 years ago... UAV - While the basic technology has been around a long time, since 2000 in Military application it has evolved tremendously from simple reconnaisence to a very powerful assault weapon capable of "visual and controllable" (as opposed to a cruise missile which is not) precision strikes far behind enemy lines... Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) - from it's infancy to the Predator ARMED strike platform and beyond... US Army Roadmap for UAS 2010 - 2035 in PDF format - a very interesting read... Those are just a FEW examples, based on facts and history of how quickly and at what pace technology is evolving today... That pace will develope EVEN FASTER going forward... The simple truth as it regards much of this including UCAVs like the X-45 program and others, is NOT the Technology or Hardware, that already exists and is easily doable TODAY... NO, the "problem" is the same one causing great expense and delays in airframes like the F-35 and other "next generation" airframes, that being the SOFTWARE (which for the F-35 is only 50-70% complete and still untested) and in the case of unmanned (but manually and/or artificially guided) the ethical, and legal applications, cost in jobs and financials regarding current contracts (Like the F-35 and F-22), and other implications surrounding their "roll out" and use... However, like all major advances, these "problems" will be worked out... They have to be because if the U.S. doesn't, then China and most likely certain other countries, will... One other thing to remember is that just like it is today when it comes to ANY Military applications it's NOT the "individual unit" that is primary, it's "the package" of diverse units that rule the day... That means that it's NOT just about one type of airframe but rather how that airframe can be best inserted into a "package" of different airframes and functions acting in unison with each other... And still one further consideration, and perhaps the most important one, is the who, what, where, when and how, regarding the NEEDS in any expendature of BILLIONS of dollars of borrowed money and the TIME frames surrounding such a purchase pertaining to the realities (like no more Cold War scenarios) existing in the world today and into the forseeable future...

Ahhh, ok, can I take back the "thanks" I gave you when you found my link error (accompanied by a nasty comment I might add) then? Does that make YOU a Canadian?

That it is my friend, that it is... The TIMEs they are a changin'...

Hey what, no thanks for me? That's not nice...

Cool, an op ed in the Weekly Standard, RIGHT! Nice pic of Bush and Mubarak though...

So what? I should care what Laurence Soloman (or anyone else with an OPINION) says why?

- The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution or 1979 Revolution;[1][2][3][4][5][6] Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi or انقلاب بیست و دو بهمن) refers to events involving the overthrow of Iran's monarchy (Pahlavi dynasty) under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and its replacement with an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution. Demonstrations against the Shah began in January 1978.[7] Between August and December 1978 strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Shah left Iran for exile in mid-January 1979, and in the resulting power vacuum two weeks later Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians.[8] The royal regime collapsed shortly after on February 11 when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979 ,[9] and to approve a new theocratic constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979 . The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world:[10] it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military); [11] produced profound change at great speed;[12] was massively popular;[13] overthrew a puppet regime heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services;[14][15] and replaced a modernising monarchy with a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolutione faqih). Its outcome — an Islamic Republic "under the guidance of an extraordinary religious scholar from Qom" — was, as one scholar put it, "clearly an occurrence that had to be explained."[16]. - Other than the fact that a Dictator was removed from power there are absolutely no simularities between the Iranian Revolution and the events in Egypt.. Nuff said?