Signals.Cpl

Just because one person going through the proper channels in one organization hits a brick wall means all people in all organizations will face the same problem? Going through the proper channels might not get positive results all the time but the process is in place for a reason, go through the process and if you hit a brick wall you go outside the change of command.

Are the Australians purchasing the Hornets instead of F35's or are the hornets just a stop gap measure while awaiting the F35s? Because if we are comparing the F35 and its 40 expected years of service and the Hornets and their predicted 10-15 years of service before the F35s start coming in to service its the equivalent of comparing apples to space shuttles. Hornets might be good for the next 10 to 15 years while the USAF and the RAAF are still using them but what happens 25 years from now when the USAF and RAAF have removed those aircraft from their respective services for a decade and we need replacements or end up on operation with our allies but we cannot work alongside them because we are using obsolete aircraft designed 60+ years before?

But he went through the roper channels if it all is correct. If he had an issue and went straight to the media that would be a different story. If all avenues are explored and it becomes apparent that nothing can or will be done about the problem then go forth and involve the media, but if he did not bother to bring this up to the chain of command and then went straight to the media it would be much different.

IF it was a close election an assumption could be made that he did in fact win the election illegally thus he loses any claim to a pension. On the other hand if we want a real message to be send to the country as a whole, we take his pension because he tried to cheat the Democratic process and give him a significant fine to serve as a deterrent for anyone contemplating the same or similar acts in the future. As for his seat, he should be kicked out immediately and we should go about running an election so as to have a real representative in place.

If his cheating did not change the outcome of the election kick him out and ban him from election. If it did change the outcome then take away his pension, he would not be entitled to a pension had he played by the rules, so he should not be entitled to a pension when he breaks those rules. Any financial benefit should be returned promptly.

And Georgia was not a NATO member. As soon as they abandon a NATO member, the US in particular and NATO as a whole lose meaning. We will see NATO collapse and be replaced by regional alliances, a big reason most European nations want to be member of NATO was and is security. Abandon member nations and NATO becomes about as useful as the UN.

They most definitely would, last time around the allies sold out their smaller allies and ended up paying dearly for it. Should the west abandon their smaller allies to anyone, it would end the alliance and destroy American credibility. Last time around the French and British sold out Czechoslovakia to the Germans and ended up facing Germans armed with Czech tanks and weapons...

Again though, killing an innocent child has a price, there is something that you would kill a child for its that simple. Maybe it will not be to save your child maybe it will be to save a hundred innocent children its plain and simple. You asked earlier how one blows themselvs against their will... well simple the same way a Navy SEAL throws himself on to a grenade to save his friends. You hold a gun to my loved once I will blow myself wether I want to or not.... thats how. Such as? Yeah, because nothing was demanded of them. John Smith of Anytown USA might have grown up and had the same troubles as the average person and never had to make the decision, just because he didn't have to put a price on his actions doesn't mean there would be none... And I didnt say anything about killing a little child did I? See how that works? There is a price for everything. There is a way I can force you to commit any action, there is a price you will not be willing to pay for inaction, its that simple. It might be your family or your nation, or it might be your own life or money it is different to everyone. You are either thick in the head or pretending to be thick in the head but you have a price. I dont know why I am arguing either, you are worse than bud... its like arguing with a wall... only this wall only spews self righteous bullshit.

And what if they are rewarded for killing an American, Canadian or Israeli soldier with the civilians being "collateral damage"?

No, see the fact is that my example was just that an example, different people commit atrocities for different reasons, some do it for money, others do it for the adrenaline rush, some do it for the experience others for religious/political/ethnic/national etc... reasons, while others do it for love, some do it out of cowardice and yet others do it for basic human desires such as sex and/or power. The truth is I have a price yet I don't know what it is, it might be the wellbeing of my family or it might be my own existence due to cowardice. I don't know and I hope I never need to find out. Maybe you are the exception but I doubt it. As I said history is full of examples, people who have committed atrocities out of cowardice, self promotion, lust for power, money, sex fame and any number of other things and others who have let atrocities happen for the exact same reasons. And yes it does mean one loves more than the other, if you are assaulting my girlfriend I will beat you in to the ground wether you are a man or a women, that means I love her and protect her, while someone who stands by and "keeps his cool" means he doesn't really care. But see, it was a ridiculous scenario for your ridiculous scenario. I have a magic button, you have the choice, every American man,women and child Dies or an twice the number of Chinese men women and children die. Your children dying, or the children of some stranger in a far away land dying... You pretend to be above this but the reality is that you are just like the rest of us, you have a price wether you will admit it or not. I don't trust people like you who claim to be above the rest, be it a soldier who tells me how heroic he will be in a battle field without yet experiencing combat or a civilian who says she will let her children die because she thinks she is more evolved then the rest of us. Everyone has a price, wether it is simple or complicated, wether its selfish or noble the end result everyone has a price, it might be different for each and every person but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that some are more evolved than others.

Not an ugly comment at all. Right now I wouldn't do a lot of things, when my emotions take over and my logical and rational thoughts disappear I may be more than willing to do that. Lets give a ridiculous scenario for a ridiculous scenario, the very existence of the US is in danger as are its 350 million residents, would you or would you not sacrifice 50 million people to save the US? Or 100 million or 200 million... the rest of the world?

Maybe you don't love your family as much as I love mine...

I wouldn't blow up the planet, but it seems you are using anything to imply more than it needs to. We are confining the argument to having a price to say kill someone or blow yourself up, we could expand it to whatever you want but ultimately you would do anything asked of you, and anything within your power to protect those you love. So what would you NOT do to protect your son/daughter/grandson/grand daughter/husband etc? What price is too much? And keep in mind that its nice and easy to say you wouldn't do x,y and z now but if it came to the choice likely you would do it as history is full of such examples. I cant say not, but if the choice came to my family or someone else I doubt I will be thinking too logically or rationally. Do you doubt that some of the suicide bombers in both Iraq and Afghanistan did the deed against their will simply to protect their families?

Well, I wont be detonating a nuke and killing millions to save three members of my family but I would be willing to do pretty much anything to protect my family as would you and 90% of people in this world. The rest just don't give a sh*t. Lets say I hold a gun to your child's head and told you I would torture and kill her/him if you didn't comply, would you do anything for your child? Pay any price wether it be your life or my life if necessary?

It does not have to be money, it could be the wellbeing of your family, it could be any number of reasons. Someone comes and kidnaps your wife and kids and tell you to do something well thats your price, the wellbeing of your family. I wouldn't do quite a few things for money, but very few things are off the table when it comes to those I love and I suspect it applies to quite a few people...

Maybe they would end up with extra costs to relocate the "victims", that and maybe bad credit?

Not so, they would be arrested for human rights abuses... some people have rights and some people don't, generally if you pay your taxes and are a productive citizen you have less rights than those who live a life of crime.

But at the end of the day it is only a guess, the reality is that if you cut the pay we will see the TPS and any other police service and fire department that follows their lead become a revolving door employer, come in gain a couple of years experience and then move on to greener pastures. Now what happens when 50%+ of your department is consistently the new officers? What happens when the experience and knowledge of an organization disappears and you are left with the inexperienced officers? By the way, the idea is the same wether we are talking about the SEALs, JTF2, Infantry, Clerks or an ACISS Tech it all comes down to being able to do the job and some people no matter their qualifications or desire are not suited to do the job. Same applies to police officers and firefighters, I for one see being a police officer as a harder job than being a member of the military or even a member of the Special Forces units because ultimately you might deploy for six months, a year or two but once in Canada every time you go to work you wont have to worry about someone stabbing you, shooting you, fighting with you etc... or in the fire fighters case the same thing plus going in to burning buildings which causes a whole host of other hazards. You must have missed that in my initial post I stated if you want to stop paying over time you hire more officers. Reality is that hiring more officers will not cut costs though, it might be a necessity but the reality is that with each new officer you would have to pay for his initial recruitment(man hours spend to select him/her, resources spend etc...), initial training, ongoing training, equipment and supplies, medical, dental, death benefits, retirement benefit, workspace maintenance(more officers require more space), vacation time, etc... when all is added up you will be paying more than the time and a half for that officers to go to court outside work hours... I guess you didn't factor in the dozens of hidden costs associated with each officer. True, but that is only right as long as you are looking at a specific point, add up all the extra costs I mentioned above and the 5 extra officers are going to cost significantly more than the time and a half. I am all for more officers as long its for the right reasons. Police officers and fire fighters are not paid for what they DO, they are paid for what they MIGHT HAVE TO DO. Think 9/11 and the WTC, remember how everyone's instinct was to get out and get out fast while the firefighters, Paramedics and Police officers were doing the exact opposite and double timing it in to the buildings? How many people would have done that? Sure it does. Cut salaries and the good will soon leave while the ranks will eventually be replenished with less than capable replacements that will justify ever increasing corruption with their low pay. Not necessary that you would get better firefighters, but cutting the pay sure guarantees that the good will move to greener pastures, when your job entails putting your life on the line on a daily basis and you end up living at or just above the poverty line it means those who can will leave and those who cant leave will stay, and to be fair those who cant leave are usually not the cream of the crop. If the government decided to cut my pay in half I can live with that because Im single and I am ready to face more hardships than if I was married and had children, I can face the hardships but putting my family through unnecessary hardships will lead me to find a better job therefore the military loses a quality member. Same applies to police officers, cut their pay and benefits and you will likely see an exodus because then you will affect the quality of life of the families. As for the MPs, MPPs, Senators and City Councillors ask that question when they have to fight fire's or face down armed thugs. No, but you would get even more people willing to do those jobs, see thats how money works, offer a good salary and benefits and you get a lot of applicants cut said benefits and you get less applicants. You are making the assumption that the same number of people will want to serve and fire fighters and police officers if the salaries were 40%, 50% or 60% of what they are today but the reality is that those numbers will greatly drop as well and you end up with those who cannot do anything else applying, so is it really them you want as police officers? Ok, so there are 5,400 police officers and you are using one action by one officer as proof of what exactly? So there are 65,000 police officers in Canada at the municipal, provincial and federal level doing a great and dangerous job on a daily basis and you choose two events that were perpetrated by a handful of officers to prove exactly what? That police officers are bad? Cut the pay and those two activities become the norm rather than being an anomaly. As for the G20 what would you have done? Sit and watched those freaks destroy Toronto? I blame politicians for not letting the police lose on those animals that were destroying property as soon as it happened. Think about this, the G8 and G20 happen in a different city/country every time and almost without fail there is violence, destruction and property damage. Now what is the common factor to all those events? Every time it is in a new city thus new police force thus either every police department in every city the G8/G20 has been held is full of bloodthirsty maniacs or the more rational explanation is that thread that binds them all together, the "protestors" who go and commit those violent acts. And I am not talking about the actual protestors who were there to exercise their rights, I am talking about the animals who went there to cause mayhem. [+]Spelling

Not questioning wether or not there is a shortage of people who want to be police officers/fire fighters or not, question is how many police officers/firefighters we have and how many of those wishing to become one or the other are really the type of person suited for that job. Wanting to do a job and being capable of meeting the standards required for that job are two very different things. Look at how many people in the US want to be SEALs and how many people in Canada want to be JTF2 and CSOR members and then compare to how many actually get in. And if you were to have to go and do your job on your off days without being compensated for that you would be happy and do it? Wether an officer needs to be in court for 5min or 15 hours is irrelevant, he should get paid for that time, as to coming during working hours? Well think about it this way, every station/division needs to field say 30 officers every 8 hours at minimum, now imagine if 8-10 of those officers ended up having to go to court, what happens then? The officers are not available to do their job because they are in court which means someone else will have to be called in to make up the numbers and will therefore be paid overtime. What requirements should be placed on police officers and firefighters? A Degree in Arts, sciences or Engineering? Is someone with a degree in English really that much more worthy of a higher salary than a police officer or a fire fighter just because of their degree? The requirement for both jobs are specific and have little to do with a university education, many may want to be one or the other but few are truly capable of working either job. At the end of the day you get what you pay for, cut the pay and quality will go down, its really that simple.

Have you wondered why some might possibly reach 100k a year or more? Is it because police and firefighters are overpaid or is it just that they are short staffed? If you are short on trained manpower then the trained people you do have will take on more and more duties at which point they will be reimbursed for their overtime work. As for the uneducated part? Really? So you think that fire fighters and police officers are uneducated? Maybe some don't have College or University education but they most definitely are educated from the time they set foot at work for the first time up until their last day. They take courses and training to improve their skill set unless of course you think firefighter and police course within and outside their respective departments are not as relevant as a course focusing on the writing of say Dante?

Not quite, if we look at Afghanistan as a failure we should put the same conditions on World War 2 thus it means the end result was not worth the cost because the original estimate of the Allies was ridiculously off... Saying the end result in Afghanistan is not justified because the cost in lives and finances was underestimated could be applied to any other conflict, a war that should have lasted a few months to a year lasted 6 years and took more than 60 million lives along with a trillion dollars in 1945 currency whereas it could have cost much less, could have seen less loss of life and ended the war years early. By that calculation the war was a failure without consideration what the end result was.

So you are saying your father took no risk when moving to a new country? My parents moved here with only their savings and no promise of work or a steady pay check so I fail to see your comparison... moving to a new country with your kids and starting from the bottom is slightly different from moving to a country with a decent, consistent and longterm employment already arranged.

The Crystal ball does not always predict a referendum years before its called, if you do have psychic powers then maybe you could be of help otherwise immigrants make choices with the information at hand, fight tooth and nail to be Canadians only to be abandoned by Canada... Thats the beauty of the choice, it affects them they have to live with the choice THEY made for THEIR future instead of living with the choice OTHERS made for THEIR future. We can talk about citizenship from another light as well, you could have the province/state/territory exclude everyone without five generations of living in the province/state/territory... or restrict voting only to those who speak the language in the Area say french... so you end up with a large group of people who have no say in their future because they are not citizens of Quebec...

What about Canada? In the CF I believe you could join even if you are a landed immigrant as long as there is a shortage in a particular field in specific or in general...but more to the point it may speed up your citizenship process it does not change the fact that until you finish the process you are not a citizen.

They do affect people, but ultimately the choice between Bush or Gore, Harper or Layton less affect on the country than the choice between living in Canada or living in Quebec, living in the United Kingdom or in Scotland. What moral right does Canada have to invite immigrants to move to Canada/United Kingdom and leave their lives behind only to abandon them in the Republic of Quebec/Scotland? We are not talking about wether the government will be NDP, Liberal or Conservative, we are talking about wether the country you moved to is not the one you end up living in and you have no say. Well immigrants come to Canada but end up living in the Republic of Quebec while having little or no say in the process. People who have paid their taxes, followed the laws, build a life, bought a house, work etc... suddenly have no voice when it comes to their future. You may not see it because you probably never had to work hard to become Canadian but some have worked hard, some have taken substantial risks to move to and build a life in Canada only to get the rug pulled from under them may have a different opinion. If the Federal government says that should Quebec/Scotland separate you get a choice as to wether you continue on your path to becoming a Canadian/British citizen or a Quebec/Scottish citizen is one thing, having someone else decide that for you is a whole other thing.