Venandi

Oh? he asked with a surprised countenance... The CP 140 comes instantly to mind and I could entertain you with other scenarios at some length. Hight of the mechanical era with E-handles that pull out 2 1/2 feet, parts that are scarce at best, a level of serviceability that puts the H in horrid and a level of task complexity and threshold of experience required that defies easy maintenance / replacement... not to mention an existing shortage of crews sufficient to make a damn billygoat puke. By the sound of it, you probably think manning the P8 with purple haired Wiccans is easy peasy... right? I wish you the best of luck with it.

I'm thinking there might be a disconnect between what the Military actually wants and what Roboduh, Herb and Doggiedoo insist on voting for. I'd invite you (and them) to stay the course to Crazy Island though, it's fascinating to watch. My interest is casual and purely clinical now, I only want to see at what point Roboduh and the boys tap or snap. Yoda says: "so sure that right you are... hmmm? "Flying yesterday's aircraft tomorrow you are," and seriously dating yourself in the process.

Indeed, and the deliberate manipulation of cultural topography is usually narrative driven... especially here. Taken a step further, misuse of the term terrorist is as well. Numerous organizations have different definitions of terrorism, there are subtle differences between the UN, RCMP, FBI, Home Land Security, Canadian Forces etc. but really, they're all variations of a similar theme. The life of Jesus didn't fit a single parameter of any of the definitions... and the poster above knows it, as does any grade 9 history student who didn't sleep through the entire semester.

If it weren't so sad, watching progressive heads explode would be fun. Incredibly though, there's still no thought being given to answering the one question they really need to be asking themselves... "If you're going to be bat sH%$ crazy, WTF did you think was going to happen?" Seems to me that even Bill gets it:

Jesus was Jewish, was born in the Land of Judea and that's what the Romans called it during the course of his lifetime. So, If you're of the mind to call it something it wasn't during his lifetime you could just as easily skip further ahead and say he was Israeli. Then again, even though Rome was an occupying force during his life (and at the time of the change) I'm guessing you aren't inclined to do that, right? In like manner, anyone who was born, raised and died in "Waszush Onigum" would never have known they were from Rat Portage. If you want to skip further ahead to 1904 and beyond you'd say they were from Kenora. Look at that... even MAGA hyenas can play the name game.

All IMO but: I think we are on the verge of arriving at a point (I call it Crazy Island) where multiple independent deficiencies coalesce into a perfect storm such that regeneration becomes problematic... it's a critical mass thing. I'm no longer convinced that we can even spend 2% or man what we buy with it. As a for instance, manning the P8 and new UAV/UAS is going to be challenging... and we should have had those things squared off YEARS ago. Our recruiting/training deficit now stands at a 16,500 shortfall with a maximum training capacity of 6000 (or so) per year, that keeps us slightly above attrition and retirements. Increasing training at this point impacts operational tempo and will likely cause more attrition as you burn out the limited operational capacity that still exists. This could be a book or a 50 page thread but all of it qualifies as a slow motion train wreck years in the making with no end of warnings along the track that said "danger ahead." Even with unlimited resources, out training, out manning and out equipping the existing deficits will take years of consistent effort and a level of public support that has previously proved elusive. The debate over having an SSN capability intrigues me to no end... it's like listening to doctors debate whether or not I should eat eggs. The chickens who lay the eggs are now urgently knocking on the hen house door and we can't seem to decide on what colour to paint the roosts. Actually, you don't want to paint them at all but arguing about paint palates with Herb Doggiedoo and Roboduh is polarizing and there are votes to be had by whipping that collection of fools into a frenzy. The question "WTF did you think was going to happen?" isn't sarcastic, facetious, or even humorous IMO, there was no other possible outcome and the idea that rapid regeneration would be of such concern to Trump that a US invasion becomes likely as a result of it is laughable. Arguably, it's the domain of people who played a starring role in creating the problem in the first place.

Does the same logic apply to men who believe they're women or is that different? And if it is different, would you support the idea that I identify as 21 years old and let me join the military again? Surely that's every bit as credible as a man identifying as a woman, more so given my level of fitness actually.

True enough, but I think you could just as easily insert "Canadian voters" into the quote. I say that as one concerned by the uptick in liberal support, not saying it translates into seats but I'm a disappointed in the willingness of some voters to remain on course to Crazy Island.

Mild annoyance has been replaced by idle curiosity, I only want to see how much bending it takes to make them tap.

I think that's pretty much always been the case though, if memory serves, and assuming we hire strictly on merit as opposed to inclusivity targets, the sliver available to draw from is about 7% of the population. From what I see now, and it's strictly anecdotal, long intake delays for non targeted recruits are resulting in some good candidates being lost to policing and fire services. Funny how these folks seem to gravitate to specific fields of employment eh? That's the way of it though and that's where the sliver seems to be. Very few people say "ya, it was a tossup between paratrooper and hotel management," or "tough choice for me, either fighter pilot or dental assistant." In any case, Canadiens seem to have decided what they want (proper thing IMO even if I don't agree) and so far they seem to be getting exactly what they asked for. Can't do much better than that really, all that remains to be seen is if they're happy with the long term results (some might say consequences) of what was achieved.

Rooting for you but I'm not so sure anymore. Common sense would suggest that people who don't even care about it (non Christians in this case) would be just as horrified by the overreach as those directly affected. We used to be that way as a nation, or at least as a community. It's much meaner and more polarized now and people don't give the slightest thought to what happens when it's their bull getting gored. When it eventually does happen they'll ask why aren't you on my side? Why aren't you supporting me? Why aren't you signing my petition? Thy'll say things like "look where this is going, how did we get here?" You can see that surprise and dismay right here in some of the comments about Trump's EOs, it's as if the people making those comments were expecting another outcome. Might just be me but we would govern ourselves more wisely if everyone had to do 3 peacekeeping tours before getting a vote. Knowing what you don't want is just as important as knowing what you do.

OK, you win... I made it all up. The primary headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet isn't Sevastopol and even if it was, Sevastopol isn't located in Crimea, it's an island off the coast of Boston. Crimea wasn't annexed because it's important either, it's because the borsht is tasty, the girls are hot and the Vodkas cold. Not only that, I share your utter astonishment that Russia wouldn't honour an agreement and think that anyone who even considered that to be a possibility is MAGA hyena of the highest order. How do you like me now?

You call other people fools whilst believing a hostile country will honour commitments they agreed to even though they harboured grave concerns about NATO expansion at the time of signing? And then, you label anyone who factors that into an estimate of the situation (EOTS) to be a puppet and a fool... I stand in awe of your logic here. Of course he wants the other stuff too... at this point I'd wager he wants all of it. This surprises you does it? It doesn't mean he gets though... As Yoda would say: "a revelation to you his appetite is hmmm?" On second thought, Herb might mumble something like that after a nap too, but, it would only be profound by accident and logical by random chance.

So... It doesn't matter what anyone thought was going to happen? It doesn't matter what any rational assessment suggested was possible, likely, or even worthy of consideration? And, anyone looking at or even considering these issues is a puppet by virtue of having considered them? Is the expectation that potentially hostile nations will abide by treaties the height of logical progressive thinking... I don't even recall the memorandum including NATO membership for Ukraine but you can do your own homework on that. In fact I seem to recall there being serious concerns put forward about NATO expansion. I think you should stick to sentences ending in duh / LMAO and stay far away from recruiting centres

The authors of the US Federalist Papers talked a lot about "inducements to war." IMO, considering inducements to war is a good way of looking at circumstances dispassionately, creating a rational threat assessment and then developing contingency plans based on it. Isn't that what you do in business? Are business assessment partisan nonsense or are they grounded a realistic appraisal of what's likely, what's reasonable and what's possible. Do they consider intelligence, situation, mission etc or is it a hateful mashup of partisan BS packaged in over the top hateful rhetoric? Let's just take a moment here... Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, did anyone here actually think they would just shrug and say: Now look at a map and consider the Russian propensity (and doctrine) of using land as a buffer against attack. Before any of this even started, did you seriously think that Russia would just smile and nod as Ukraine joined NATO and aligned itself with the west? Now let's stretch absurdity to the breaking point and consider something even more basic... if a person were to look at all of this dispassionately and suggests that maybe (just maybe) it might be an itty bitty inducement to war does that make them a Russian plant, an asset, a spy, a sympathizer, or traitor? Or does it just make them someone who looked at a map and asked a question no one here wants to even consider. Once again I find myself asking WTF did you think was going to happen?

That seems reasonable and it also matches what some of the pax reported feeling prior to impact. Some discussions seem to focus on RMLG collapse as a result of it... too early to know, time will tell and besides, I usually guess these things wrong anyway. This fellow generally produces a worthwhile product with decent overlays in a timely fashion and updates them as more information comes out. I've often see his work on aviation forums where they serve as the basis for SA and discussion as opposed to being accepted as fact or causal. Other than bashing Trump or Biden (or both), I'm not sure how much interest there actually is in the technical aspects here, I'll post his (expected) update when it comes out regardless (for those interested) and simply consider the Roboduh partisan flak as part of the process of posting anything. Cheers.

Ok, here ya go.... that was quick eh? If this turns out to be a maintenance issue I predict the fools who play the duh and LMAO game will fall silent as their counterparts opposite point out that the inspections and maintenance work took place on Biden's watch. This guy simplifies things pretty well. Being as it's 16 minutes long and a bit technical though Herb will need a nap, Doggiedoo won't understand it and Roboduh won't even watch:

This appears to be the result of a hard landing, you see very little flare in the last 50 feet, there was blowing snow across the runway as well which can be problematic in judging flare height. It will be interesting to see some of the initial assessments, I'll post them when they come out. In the interim, no amount of duh's and LMAO's is likely to put Trump at the controls and guessing at cause factors in the absence of information is unwise.

IMO, all of this has a distinct "why are you surprised" flavour to it especially when all it took to avoid it was not being bat sh%$ crazy. There was no shortage of people (including right here) suggesting that obvious law-fare tactics could easily (even likely) be turned against the very people cheering it on if there was a change in political fortunes. In the world of aviation incident/accident cause factors it's called the "normalization of deviation" and it usually leads to heartache at a systemic level. Almost invariably it gets worse with time, usage and acceptance... I don't think partisan law-fare is going away now and in due course it will once again be Democrats buffing their claws and smiling... after all, they invented it. I remember reading this article some time ago and thinking "ya, wouldn't it be ironic and well deserved if." It took a few minutes to track it down but here ya go FWIW... MSN from about 9 months ago and it begs a pretty simple question: "WTF did you think was going to happen?" https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-democrats-should-fear-lawfare-tactics-being-turned-against-them/ar-AA1o8MYy

First video I've seen of the accident in Toronto. Given the strong crosswind from the right this is clearly Trump's fault duh. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6368998633112

And the time you spent writing that sentence is lost forever.

Yes, there was a sudden and unexpected flash there for the briefest of moments... and then it was gone. I'm wondering who would voluntarily take the displaced Palestinians and what inducement would prevail against their reluctance to do so.... I don't have an answer for that. For an area of only 365 square miles it's densely populated and IMO it would be a tough sell to any country in the region. Europe has already learned some tough lessons in this regard so I expect it would be a hard sell there as well. What I'm really wondering is if the sympathizers here in Canada, and specifically on this board would be willing to step up and advocate for their acceptance here... and if not why not. Granted, it would be a huge undertaking and it clearly stands as a separate hypothetical above and beyond the moral and legal issues associated. But, in the absence of predicable deflections and irrelevant historical rumination's, were the folks here to balk at the general idea (in whole or in part) the reasons articulated would be instructive, they might even surprise themselves in the process of thinking about it when the result of the decision would directly impact them... a key factor that's missing in the discussions here (IMO).

It's sad because even now it's not too late, they can still have peace any time they want it. I just don't see a path ahead with Hamas at the helm. Israel needs a willing partner to make it work and that partner is conspicuously AWOL. I don't know how you negotiate with an antagonist who has, as their primary objective, your destruction as a nation and the annihilation of your people. Perhaps one of the resident wisemen here can offer a viable method of achieving it between the duh's and LMAO's normally on offer. The murderous neighbour analogy I've often used to simplify the scenario for people who've never been there always seems to draw a blank.... most shrug and say they would move. I also have doubts about a two state solution now even if Hamas is eradicated, I can't help but wonder what kind of monsters would be in line to replace them? I had the same concern while deployed on OUP Libya... Sudan was another disappointment. Some antagonists, seemingly by nature, are willing (anxious even) to fight themselves to a complete standstill, regroup, rearm and pickup right where they left off at the very first opportunity they have to do so. And without the slightest regard for the welfare of the people they pretend to represent. In the absence of blue hats from skiing nations how do you broker a lasting peace deal with folks like that? It seems only people with 3 ex wives who are estranged from their parents have the answer. The people here who previously (and gleefully) parroted "choices have consequences" now need to put some meat in the peace sandwich. Even though there's a Nobel Peace Prize here for the taking, they simply can't move beyond historical events rendered irrelevant by time and circumstance. Personally, while awaiting the profound wisdom of Herb, Doggiedoo and Roboduh, I would continue with the eradication of Hamas as a governing entity. All IMO of course.

It was (intended as) humour and ironically, offered as a potential cause of the lack of "mental hygiene" you refer to. Believe it or not, I actually thought a smart guy like you would have picked up on it instantly. Your reaction has eclipsed my own feeble attempt at humour... well done.

Ya, but it's grade 9 biology so you wouldn't get it... take a nap fool.