WestCanMan

So the gov't can screen 25,000 refugees from the world's foremost terrorist hotbed in the 2 months since Trudeau was elected without having a single Tashfeen Malik among them? Or is one or two ok? Gimme a break. Trudeau is the biggest idiot ever elected since democracy was invented. When the first Canadian is killed by a Syrian refugee I want Trudeau run out of office and I hope someone files a civil suit against him personally for criminal negligence. I doubt he can be charged criminally.

True moderates need to evolve past the point of giving their "eternal souls" to a book that demands [death to all infidels] the killing of billions of people. I refuse to accept them as peaceful, loving neighbours regardless of how nice you claim they are. I'm happy with them over there and us over here, but I don't have to trust them. Thousands of years of actual human history go against that.

No, she's running the country. You'd know that if you were married.

Hypocrisy dialamah, hypocrisy. That's the elephant in the room that you're trying to ignore. He said that he didn't need gov't funds for childcare because he takes so much money from charities, he cancelled it for everyone else, and now that he has access to the funds he is taking them and yet noone else can, because of him. That's hypocrisy at it's best and that's what everyone else is acknowledging. Trudeau's like a little kid walking around making declarative statements that he can't live up to. In the military we'd say "keep your mouth shut and make people guess how stupid you are."

You're looking for things to hate. You might want to change that.

Squid it seems like you didn't read his thread at all. He made a lot of good points there. If you want to disagree that's your right but imo you should probably focus more on his individual points than just guess what he meant from his title and then just zero in on your own assumptions.

I've seen references to boy toys going as far back as Marco Polo's writing. I mostly passed that off as one person's viewpoint but it keeps popping up everywhere. The problem is much larger than you want to believe. Afghanistan and Pakistan are part of the Arab world, fwiw. They both share a border with Iran, which is almost in the center of all of the Arabic States, and they were both part of the Persian Empire. They're as muslim as any nation in the world. They couldn't be any more arabic. Pedophilia in the Catholic Church isn't as widespread as you want it to be to fit your story line, and it's not legal anywhere in the western world. FGM is not part of the civilized world, and I'm an atheist so if you think you're hurting my feelings or something with your ridiculous claims about the Jews and Christians as bigtime FGM'ers you're barking up the wrong tree. And you're wrong again, I don't recall seeing anything you said in your post that was true.

Marcus you can't compare western views on paedophilia with those of some of the arabic nations. It's a crime to have sex with young boys here and a long-established practice over there (I'm not saying in every single arabic nation mind you). http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/asia/afghanistan-boy-abuse-us-military/ I'm not just taking CNN's account of it, and I'm sure you can dig up plenty more examples on the internet if you have the stomach to look for it. I know people who came from several different parts of the middle east and life over there is nothing like here. I know a Iraqi and a Lebanese/Jordanian couple who all called it a "vacation" when they fled their homes with nothing more than whatever cash they had in their wallet plus whatever gas they had in their car, never to return. The couple I'm speaking of did it twice. I've heard several people talk about how houses with women in them neededtheir windows blacked out, and women don't dare walk outside without a Hijab, Niqab, etc. Sharia law is brutal and shamelessly discriminatory, and you can see all over the world where Islamic populations start demanding Sharia law even where they don't have the majority. Here in Canada Muslims have already tried to establish sharia law for family matters. Do you think we would be just fine with a population of 1,000,000 muslims here? What if they were 25% of the population? 50%? Life gets worse and worse for non-muslims as their population base grows. I'm an atheist, and I'm aware of how dangerous it is for me to say that I don't have an imaginary friend in most arabic nations.

I never started off here "embracing their enemies", I've been defending the point that I am not comfortable with immigration from anyone involved in that conflicted region, Jews and Arabs alike. I was branded an anti-Semite (ridiculous word) for that because somehow it's politically incorrect to say the same things about the Jews from Israel as the Muslims from Syria.

The point that you are missing is that this isn't a straight-line "Muslims are always causing problems and the Israelis have to protect themselves" situation. The Israelis have been terrorists and committing war crimes since before 1949 and they still are today, but everyone sees the guys on "their side" as "freedom fighters" and are willing to cut them some (or unlimited) slack. The Old Testament and Quran give their followers carte blanche to discriminate against, fear, hate and ultimately kill people of other religions. It would take more than just a large-scale massacre for you to ever say "The Israelis crossed a line today". I'm an atheist, I distrust both sides equally. I don't think we should back the Israelis no matter what they do. They need to smarten up or just be left to fend for themselves. The last thing I want to see is Canadians getting killed or injured fighting for the current version of the Israelis. They are crap.

- You're only looking at the last 40 years, how convenient for you. - When the Israelies "retaliate" they commit war crimes all over the place, the only reason that we don't know more about it is that the focus of the media always shifts to "Terrorism" when the Israelis go on a killing spree. And they do kill children. When 25 rounds of small arms fire hits a father clutching his son that's no accident. - Google the King David Hotel Bombing, or the Israeli terrorists fighting against Britain in WWII (you know whose allies they were then right? And all we see when we watch movies is American Jews going off the fight against the Nazis). Get comfortable with the fact that the Israeli Gov't is founded by terrorists and that the leaders of terrorist organizations like Lehi and Irgun started up the Likud party which now governs Israel. The Israelis have a medal that they give out to their "heroes" which is named after lehi (aka the stern gang) and national holidays honouring well-known terrorists. Everything you think you know about Israel is wrong, and they do not deserve the unconditional support and respect that we, as Canadians, give them. Like in any major conflict, both sides share plenty of guilt. For you to be so firmly on one side in this is extremely naive and displays your lack of knowledge and judgement. You are too lazy to look into the facts and yet your opinion is polarized enough for you to justify more Israeli war crimes. People like you can easily enough be convinced to join awesome groups like the nazis, irgun/likud/lehi, or hamas.

If the Old Testament (bible) and Quran were invented today they wouldn't be allowed to be published in Canada because they are rife with orders to hate, fear and discriminate against other religions. You can beat a slave so bad that they can't get up for two days, but its only a sin if they die according to the bible The first commandment, "Thou... have false gods before me" is a blank cheque for priests to change from their peaceful rhetoric to "kill them all." If some hag in the states can interpret the bible to mean gays can't be married then it's easy enough to convince Catholics/Jews (same bible) to kill all _______'s". Allowing people to act according to their religious convictions is a recipe for discrimination at the very best. If mankind can't evolve past religion we are just going to keep reliving the same hideous crap til we finally destroy the planet. .

He's a person that brought more to the table than shoot 'em up. And yes I do think that it's important for a person to have more knowledge of the military than what they read in a book, or saw on tv.

Any military vehicle is basically a mobile platform for weapon systems. Ships don't change that much from year to year compared to aircraft, and civilian ships can be easily outfitted to carry troops or some types of anti-submarine equipment. You can drop sonobuoys off of anything. Civilian planes can't be outfitted to take on many roles of military planes. Ships are also easier to update year by year because there is always ample space to put the new stuff on. Switching from a mk__ torpedo to a mk___ torpedo is not as big a deal as changing weapon systems on a plane. I was in the Navy and I think it's more important to keep the air force up to date. You obviously need some ships to form the backbone of the navy but support vessels of many types can be valuable and they could be made from existing civilian ships in a pinch. There are also tons of ways to kill ships. You would really feel like a sitting duck sitting on a surface ship in this day and age. You are visible from light years away with your radar and sonar going, you are sloth-like compared to subs, torpedoes, missiles and planes. It's not a pretty picture. Subs are a good investment, unmanned or very lightly-manned subs are probably the way of the future (present) but I know it sounds scary to think about. Drones are taking over a lot of jobs that manned flight used to handle.

If your kid was a fighter pilot would you just want the cheapest one? What if it was visible on radar from an extra 8,000 miles away, or wasn't compatible with the latest radar, or it wasn't compatible with the new missile that came out in 2021, or it had weaker armour, etc? If he was in the inf and he needed air support would you be ok with the cheapest one if it couldn't get to your kid? People will be flying these things with the intention of coming home. It's never about just getting the cheapest one, and they are never all equal. Trudeau narrowed this down to "just about the money".

If it was just that simple smallc then why are the liberals even comparing them? Why not just go with the cheapest one? Not all "multi-role fighters" can perform all of the exact same roles, have the same range, can carry all the same missiles, have the same electronic warfare equipment, can take off and land on the same runways, etc. Trudeau is changing for the sake of change. All he ever did the whole time he was leader of the opposition was bitch about anything and everything.

There are things that you don't know about our military just from reading Jane's. Even if you were in the military you wouldn't know a whole lot about things within your own branch of the service that weren't within your specific field. I was never in the air force so I don't know exactly what capabilities the f-18 did have, what it's limitations are/were. That's not just in terms of how far, how fast, how much weight it can take off with, it includes things like what systems it can employ, what it can upgrade to, what types of armaments it can/can't carry, etc. The CF-18 was able to do everything from aid in search and rescue to shy of heavy bombing. The price of a fighter plane is irrelevant if it can't do what it needs to do when the time comes for it to do something important. We can'y buy a fighter that just does most of the stuff we need it to do.

You can take whatever you want from this info smallc, cheers.

The US airforce has all kinds of aircraft from "top of the line" to "serviceable". If they were going to go with just 1 type of aircraft do you think it would be something that's just ok? Canada's defence needs are different from Germany and France as well. A cessna can fly right across either of those countries, year round, on a tank of gas and get back (that's an important distinction). Our air force flies fighters mostly out of Bagotville, north bay, comox and cold lake to protect 10M square kilometers and it gets down well below minus 40 with metronome consistency here. We need a fighter with longer range and it also has to work in extreme weather conditions compared to those German and French fighetr planes. Every single plane we have needs to be able to do everything, we can't just get some for this and some for that.

You're off on a tangent smallc. We aren't talking about who he was doing selfies with. If you want to start another thread to talk about selfies go ahead. This thread is about Trudeau blowing off the topic of all the murdered people in France to tell world leaders about "a lesson we all need to learn". The people in the selfies is worthy of it's own thread ok smallc?

The previous title of the thread mentioned that Trudeau was pontificating at the g20, which he was. It's not demeaning and it's accurate. The same people who found this thread name inappropriate left the thread "Harper the Disgrace" unchanged. That's a disgrace, but whatever. Life's a bit of a sandbox sometimes.

A bunch of idiots.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2678854482 This is all I've got, but it's enough. Instead of saying anything about France (or lebanon) at the g20 he's talking about how great Canada is at turning refugees into model citizens "Canada has always known that drawing people in and giving them paths to succeed..." "We figured out a long time ago that..." "This is a lesson that we all need to learn..." It's a good speech to Canadians about why we should take in refugees but sorely out of place there at that moment. He was pontificating, and his speech was completely condescending without a mention of the events that occurred. France and the rest of the G20 didn't need to hear about our success rate over here where we are all fat and happy on this occasion. It's a time to discuss action, not rainbows and puppie dogs.

I'm telling you what happened Smallc, the CBC reported that "Trudeau got a rock star reception at the G20". That's not an interpretation, it's a bolded news headline. That's the formation of public opinion in a nutshell.