Signals.Cpl

We don't vote for the UN representatives either, nor do we vote for the ICJ judges so whats your point? And what exactly is the European Parliament? Any proof that the IMF Is telling government they are not allowed to have elections until they pass the EU budget? What exactly am I kidding myself about?

Unfortunately, on paper that makes sense, in reality it does not. The problem with the west is that people don't want the west to police the world, and when people in other parts of the world start slaughtering each other, then westerners ask why the government isn't doing anything. And when the government acts, the people ask why we are policing other countries. And to be fair, the military has not experienced this age of limitless spending that you speak of, as it is always on the chopping block. For example during the 90's the Liberal government kept cutting the budget, while increasing the Peacekeeping commitments up to the point where the military as an organization was ready to collapse.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the majority of countries that joined the EU later on after the initial group of countries had to meet criteria to join, which in many cases took them through an election, Party #1 wants to join the EU, Party #2 does not. It is not feasible for a nation to have direct democracy.How many people are informed about say the F-35 enough to be able to make a decision other then, Im a liberal the Conservatives are buying it so I don't like it, or we are peacekeepers we don't need planes for that. If you don't like the government, next election vote for someone else, if you don't like any of the choices, run for office.

So you are under the opinion we should turn over defence to the US then? I mean if we build our Military to be able to meet our needs we can be truly independent, go wherever the government needs us to go, protect our sovereignty conduct exercises and operations with our allies and be able to conduct operations with or without the United States. While on the flip side, we can maintain the bare minimum and expect that whenever we need the US they will come, in essence we become a puppet as we won't be able to do anything by ourselves. Every Nation has national interests, ours a generally aligned with those of the US but there are times where our national interest are different and being severely dependant on the US is not a way to be able to conduct business. During World War 1, we fought with Britain, France and Russia as our major allies, but we were an independent fighting force, and did not require anybody to clear the path for us.World War 2 we were once again an independent fighting force as we were able to hold our own in any battle. The reality is that the Canadian Military ended World War 2 with the 3rd Largest navy and the 4th Largest Airforce in the world, we could definitely stand on our own.

What do you mean by that?

Is there a way to well force the government to move on to a tender bid? But would a tender bid be just a waste of time and money if the decision is already made? By this I mean, if I want the planes to be purchased, I will look around and put the exact requirements that the F-35 meets thus making it an exercise in futility. Would it be a better Idea if the government gets together with all parties and decide what they want/need the fighters to be able to accomplish, meaning decide the mission that the government would expect the F-35 to undertake(Defend Airspace, can operate safely with our allies etc.) and ask the DND to amend the requirements to meet the governments needs? And can it be possible to purchase a small number of F-35's for say one Squadron and then have a different aircraft for the rest of the fighters. Another question is, do we want to be able to function as an independent fighting force or would do we want to have the US clear the path for us in any major conflict?

I am not suggesting a review and revision of the immigration laws is racist, the problem is we are already a diverse Nation, and so is the US. In my opinion, changing the immigration policies of Canada, is a good idea and much needed, however we are already a diverse society and thus changing the immigration policy will not have the immediate, nor short term effect on the issue that the poster brought up. Stating that minorities do not integrate with mainstream society and thus ruin a nation because well they live in enclaves populated by people of their cultural background might or might not be true, but immigration aside what is the change that is proposed to "fix" the problem if it actually resists.

First my assessment of the UN is based on facts. United Nations resolutions are meaningless unless the US takes notice of them. The Department of Peacekeeping is nothing but a drain of resources. If China, Russia and the US don't agree the UN is powerless as the power is concentrated on 5 nations, 3 of which generally stand together and 2 of which are generally on the other side of all arguments. Now, on decisions by the world court, the ICJ makes a ruling, and say Russia does not go along with it. What would happen in this case? Well Canada can appeal to the United Nations Security council about Russia's refusal to comply with the ICJ ruling, where a permanent member of the security council can Veto the appeal, oh wait I think Russia has veto power thus we can take it to world court, we win in world court, Russia does not comply with world court decisions, we appeal to the Security council, and guess what Russia can veto any resolution that will force them to comply. Direct source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/International_Court_of_Justice.aspx Further Sources: http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/en/ifaq.pdf on pg. 39 of the document http://www.icj-cij.org/information/en/ibleubook.pdf on pg. 75 of the document http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter14.shtml http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter5 You know what, it doesn't really look that well for Canada if Russia does not comply as well we can once again bring the issue to the security council and the decision would require 9 of the 15 votes, including ALL of the permanent member states( United Kingdom, France, China, United States and Russian Federation). The only chance for us is if Russia votes for us(unlikely), or Russia abstains from the vote, which means we have to pray they boycott the SC. Just because we don't have the means to stop the submarines does not mean we should give up our ability to defend our airspace.

So your evidence is that some crazy guy with mood swings was arrested peacefully? The other day I saw a homeless guy at McDonald's at Victoria Park and Finch being overly aggressive to the staff and customers of the restaurant, yet when police came he was so calm nice non confrontational...OH MY GOD HE WAS PROVOKING MCDONALD'S STAFF IN TO A VIOLENT CONFRONTATION EVERYBODY CALL THE NEWS!!! Seriously? We went through this, propaganda BS has got to stop. Either do it competently or don't do it at all. Montebello police, They admitted to being provocateurs, tape from the G20 showed absolutely nothing to suggest they were provoking anything. The officers were identified through their jackets, kinda defeats the purpose don't you think? Pittsburg well the police read the Riot Act, did they expect a written version? They were told to disperse, warned if they did not disperse they would be arrested or other police actions would follow, they did not disperse police used other means at their disposal sounds like they were warned and when the police followed through with it, everyone cried about it. I didn't see anything about provocateurs there, I think whoever made that video should lay off the pipe.

The first clip shows nothing but 3 guys getting in to a scuffle and then being broken up. Reality is, this proves nothing, mainly because if someone with a different agenda had gotten a hold of this video he can prove anything he wants. I believe I have made my stance clear enough about these so called agent provocateurs, if they throw bait to see who is violent and has violent intentions all the power to them, the second they start participating in the riot it kind of makes it a crime and thus should be punished. The second one, if you actually pay attention, they pointed to one guy, and a few seconds later they pointed to another guy crossing police lines while fiddling with his camera. This reminds me of a funny clip:

The first one showed nothing, but someone's commentary of what "happened". Even if the police parked the cars on purpose which I am not saying they did, but IF they did how does that justify torching them? Second one, a couple of young security guards backing away from what I saw as a large crowd, I don't know about you, but my life and I assume they were thinking about it the same as me, is worth more then a broken window. You see what you want to see, the reality is the guy with the black hair got ahead of himself, started chasing the animal away and then realized that it was a really bad idea. And you can say there was confusion on his face, I say there was fear on his face mainly because any sane person would be terrified at that point being outnumbered so badly.

See the number of times that RCAF aircraft has escorted passenger jets. When a threat is received the RCAF is called out to escort the passenger aircraft just in case. It does not happen often but it happens. There are a number of Passenger aircraft that were escorted by fighters to an airport as a precaution.

Between 70% and 90% of the Canadian Population lives within 150km of the US border, so that kind of puts the rest of the country as the under/un populated region. Also, Canada is not Russia so we should most likely avoid adopting their strategy for national defence.

The UN is a joke, that organization is a lame duck and has been for a long time and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. And even if the UN were to rule in Canada's favour, what is stopping other nations from just occupying territory they claim as theirs wether legitimate or not? And Russia may not be a threat, but when another nations flies in to your airspace with impunity that kind of weakens your case of being a sovereign nation.

So what if it ruins nations? What are the nations that are diverse going to do? Segregate themselves? Or kick out anyone who is "them"? All American/Canadian/Britton deserve the same rights and treatment without consideration being given to their race, religion or colour. this describes any dictatorship, and many communities that are exclusively one race, religion or culture.

And what happens if someone tries to fly a plane in one of our buildings? Would it be preferable we have to ask the US to come and rescue us?

Or the dozens of time that Canadian fighters have had to escort Russian aircraft from our airspace. Or the fact that parts of our territory are also claimed by at least four other nations one of them being Russia and with the possibility of the massive reserves of natural resources in the north, most of those nations will be willing to push for what they want, we as a nations should be able to push back.

I believe he thinks we are the US.

I was attempting to go the other way, I wish to separate politics from the purchase. Something along the lines of wether its a good idea or not rather then making it political. Subjects like this should transcend politics.

Do you actually believe peacekeeping works? Canada needs replacement jets, thats not the question, the question is which one.

Seems that people are divided on the issue, and some are for and others are against. I want to ask you all for the reasons why you support or oppose the purchase and if you oppose it what do you suggest we replace our current fighters with. Thank You

First off whats wrong with the psychological aspect? If the protestors know the cops are everywhere great protests as much as you want and no one should bother you, the people who have problems with this concept are usually the once who are doing something wrong. Second you have no proof that what the Montebello cops did was done in Toronto during the G20, and the fact is I don't see a problem even if it was used in Toronto, but you have not proven that it was and your only "evidence" for everything G20 is that well Montebello did this. Third, it seems to be your logic, as every time you try to prove Toronto did something wrong it must be because they are police and police officers in Quebec did something wrong. Its the exact same thing I posted. It might be precedent for Montebello cops, but it is not for Toronto cops, its YOUR assumption. When a police department does something it does not mean that every police department would do that exact thing. What the Montebello Police Department does has no bearing on what the TPS does nor does it have any bearing on what the Ottawa Police Service does and it does not have a bearing on the actions of the RCMP or the OPP. Let me quite my self page 6, 03 April 2012 - 07:11 AM Definition of sometimes:

Where did you pull 89 million from? And what was it for? And where is your evidence that police abused detainees?

Love your evidence: http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/torontog20summit/article/1105031--number-of-g20-charges-dropped-rises A few words make all the difference. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/28/toronto-g20-settlement-jason-wall_n_1117651.html If you are going to provide evidence, try to be more accurate. One settlement for anywhere from 1 dollar to 25,000 dollars is not proof that all arrests were illegal. There is a reason that most arguments require multiple sources as this might or might not be different that is why there is a need for multiple sources. One case cannot be the basis of the whole argument that every arrest was unlawful and thus all would succeed in court. From what I saw on the rabble site, I think if I used fox news as a source it would be more legitimate, which is pretty sad.

If you have evidence of the ruling of the courts, and I mean the protestors winning in court please provide it. If you don't have evidence or it has not happened yet I wonder how you know which way the courts would rule. I dont understand weather you are blind, stupid or just read my posts selectively because I have mentioned my support for the police, but I have also mentioned that I do not blindly support them, I am for actions by the courts for police officers who have committed a crime. I am for civilian oversight on all armed government Departments wether they are municipal, provincial or federal police, or the Canadian Forces. If it is shown that the police officers that committed the crimes, were ordered to do so, I support bringing them to justice and cleaning the chain of command starting from the lowest person involved all the way to the Chief of Police BUT I believe that the police were justified in their attempts to prevent another riot. The reality is no system is perfect, and the police actions during the G20 would have been seen as excessive one way or another because a showdown with the protestors was almost guaranteed.