Borg

Politics aside - he has been investigated - no charges laid. To this day he has not been found guilty of anything - I do believe he is still walking free - no incarceration? All we can offer here is opinion. And as we all know, everyone has opinions - just like they all have a**holes. So, the best thought is - until charges are laid and he is found guilty - he is not a crook - he is a man who worked the system to his best advantage. No different than many. Borg

Well, my daughter is 16 and plays hockey. She is the only female in her hockey school - going on right now. She is well put together and pound for pound probably the best "in shape" person I know. The boys in her hockey school ALL can out muscle her and could - in a full contact game - pound the living hell out of her. Because it is a school they all allow her to use her skills but do not slam her into the boards as hard as they do each other - perhaps because they respect her capabilities as a young woman. But is an all out match - with full contact -they would probably carry her off the ice. And my daughter admits this quite readily. Stupid ruling. Stupid to mix the genders in something like this. But what else can we expect? We have created this monster by doing nothing. Let the girls play. Let them get hit hard and then let's se the legal ramifications. A full out body check is a tough thing -I have had the broken bones to prove it - and I stood 6 plus and 200 plus during my youth on the ice during high school hockey. I shake my head and wonder - Why is it wrong to think young people of different sexes have different capabilities? If not, then what is good for the goose MUST be good for the gander - therefore boys MUST be allowed to play girls hockey. Let the boys play the boys and the girls play the girls - no shame here and it is a heck of a lot safer. Human Rights Commission? Nah. Human Stupid Commission. Best to all. Borg

I agree. However, if someone 'on my team' accidentally shot another teammate, we'd all feel sad, a bit of anger, etc. and move on. If that teammate did it on a daily basis, I'd take his gun away. I think the last time was several years back, was it not? And I rather doubt it was the same teammate since those involved last time have retired. Actually it has been less than a month since a Canadian shot a Canadian in Afghanistan. Blue on blue. Borg

Canadians more worried about climate change, support Kyoto targets: poll Most folks I know are more worried about making the bills for the month. I will worry about this when I figure out how to keep a couple bucks in my wallet until the next paycheque rolls in. Borg

Mr. or Mrs. J. Wrath has jumped in - turned up the heat and left. Probably enjoying a good snort of something aboutnow and chuckling away at the responses. Borg

Ohmygawd, the idiocy on this board continues still. I've read the replies to your concern over "friendly" fire, most of which has obviously been written by sheeple. Interesting - I do not believe I have ever been called this before. I did not know I fit that category. Thanks for enlightening me - I will do my best to repair that illusion. In the end we should probably just kill them all - the middle east folks - and let the God of your choice sort it out. Regards Borg

To a certain extent - despite my writings - I agree with you. Be that as it may, the military is broke and rusting badly. I am not so sure they could provide a sustained effort. Borg

Not truly sure what this has to do with friendly fire - or are you drawing upon my "Liberals" comments? Borg

Out of curiosity, who would you like to see him replaced with? Borg As prime minister....out of those in contention, I would say Gerard Kennedy. Then we ar e polls apart in our politics. Pun intended. Borg

Out of curiosity, who would you like to see him replaced with? Borg

I would think you should be looking at the same thing happening on the Canadian side of the border. Under first Chretian and then Martin our freedoms were quickly deteriorating, even though both of these leaders were definitely anti-American. Under a Liberal government they were willing to allow the appointed, unaccountable Supreme Court looneytoon judges to have the last word on everything in this country, and both Chretien and Martin said so publically. I don't know about you, but if these clowns are going to be making decisions that affects the way we live our lives as Canadians, then I want those people to be elected to office so that they can not only be held responsible for their decisions, but we the people can fire their asses. Canada a democracy? What fairytale have you been reading? If having judges hold a final say on interpreting the law is a problem, then it is a problem virtually every mature democracy has instituted, including the United States. So, what do you think would be better? Putin's Russia? It seems to me - uneducated as I may be - that your statement on face value is 100% on the mark. However, I want my legislators to MAKE the laws and the judges to INTERPRET them. There has been a little bit of law MAKING by the judges. In my books this is not on. As for interpretation, there was an interview with a few of the surviving founding fathers of the Canuck constitution. They have been very quiet - but the one thing I noticed was their disappointment in how they failed to see how the judges could twist some of the meanings. I believe it was a Western Standard mag article. Interesting reading. Those interviewed would have made some serious changes if they had realized how the constitution was to be interpreted by judges. Several made pointed comments as to the "spirit" of the constitution as interpreted by Liberal appointed (their words not mine) judges was not what they - the founders - had intended. I am sure some will disparrage the magazine, but it was quite an eye opener to me. Borg

Seems to me that you have said it all. No western democracy is perfect, but I cannot disagree with your one liner. Borg

Geoffrey - FYI - to the best of my knowledge and compliments of http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18/ Hornet operators: Australia (Royal Australian Air Force) Canada (Canadian Armed Forces, Air Command) Finland, Suomen Ilmavoimat (Finnish Air Force) Kuwait, al-Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Kuwaitiya (Kuwaiti Air Force) Malaysia, Tentera Udara Diraja Malaysia (Royal Malaysian Air Force) Spain, Ejército del Aire Española (Spanish Air Force) Switzerland, Schweizer Luftwaffe (Swiss Air Force) United States (US Marine Corps) United States (US Navy) United States (NASA) Borg

They were based in Italy I believe. Correct - Aviano Borg

They served in the Gulf and Kosovo with no tanker support. What was done then? These are the recent parties I was referring to. There was a fair amount of tanker support in that part of the world. I believe the majority of tanker support was from the U.S. - you know, that country people love to hate. They have a large number of 10's and 135's. The Canucks had to pay for this service - it was not free. Be advised these are the only two missions since the Korean War that the Air Force provided top cover and ground attack - that I know of. They can send a lot more riflemen and spend a lot less money. As an aside I do not believe we have ever sent a tank squadron to battle since the Korean War - and yet we have them. We simpy cannot move them. Yup they are old - but they are still reasonable capable. It is easy to ship a LAV - just as long as we can rent a foreign aircraft to move them. I am not truly certain they will fit in a Herc. To move a squadron of fighters takes a pile of money and a pile of resources. That just does not exist in our rust bucket military. Just getting them and their spares and their techs across the pond takes enormous quantities of money and resources. The Canuck military is physically unable to move itself anywhere without serious support from outside agencies. That support is very, very expensive. One example - a few years back, returning supplies were held up in the middle of the Atlantic by a shipping company who were concerned the Canuck military would not pay the freight charges. The Navy threatened to board the ship and take it under tow - just to be sure we got our "stuff" back. Piracy by the Canucks? It is a lot tougher out there than most folks realize. Manning shortages, equipment, infrastructure and so on. The military is short some several hundred military pilots. It is also losing tremendous numbers of techs to the civilian world. If you know of anyone who is fit and under 50 there is a job waiting for them - all they have to do is apply. I have a friend who recently re-enrolled at the age of 51. My recruiting source tells me they are well and truly desparate. They are now at the stage that they are desparately short of people who can train the new recruit. A new pilot can wait as long as 3-5 years to reach wings status. And then s/he has to go through operational training before being a qualified operational line pilot. A far cry from the 18 months of times gone by. It will take years before the military is back on its' feet. And that will not likely happen if the Libs get back in. Historically they rape the military. So, money, people, tankers, ships and more money - all necessary and all missing. That does not even touch the tip of the ice berg - but I am sure you get my drift. Money, money, money - buys resources and capability. Otherwise I do not have a more informed answer for you other than what I have already stated. Over to you - it is late and I am pillow bound. Borg

You're correct. For some reason I thought the aircraft of theirs that crashed was an F-18 but it was an F-16. Why is there no support for the F-18 in Afghanistan if the Dutch can fly F-16s? I suppose I could be flippant and say the Dutch are more "operational" - and perhaps I could be right. They have dedicated tanker support - we do not. However they are a very small ground participant - so they brought their F-16's to the party. Those boys are quite a capable crew. We on the other hand fly old C-130 aircraft - that can tank - but we cannot fly supplies AND tank. So we do the ground work. I am not sure how we could use the Airbus for tanking either, as it is probably max'd out in people and cargo flying. Additionally, despite the obvious recent parties and participating Hornets - we usually leave the fighters at home and bring our riflemen to the party. So the NATO gang gets together and negotiates who brings what to the dance. The roles are divvied up and everyone gets on stage to do their part of the overall task at hand. In all honesty I do not believe the feds can afford it. And I for sure know the Hornets can do the job - it is simply not part of their mandated role. Much to the chagrine of the drivers and maintainers who train and train and train. All above comments are opinion only and I stand ready to be corrected. Regards Borg

It is not surprising that in a negotiation, one party would view the other party as "wanting more". A better strategy is to view the negotiation from the other party's perspective. Perhaps I have. It did not change my opinion - as bland as I admit it to be. Borg

Dutch Air Force has no F-18 aircraft. They fly the F-16. Reference - Order of Battle - http://www.scramble.nl/nl.htm Borg

The ability to support F-18's in Afghan land is not there - it may come in time - but we are a long way from it. Borg

Not really. Those who never do anything never make mistakes. FTA has the gist of it. On the otherhand, is there something about their training or SOP that contributes to the incidents? Given that it is not just allies who are the victims of fratrcide, but many more US casualties, it may be a valid criticism. If you have the largest military and are involved in more wars, it is only logical that you will be involved in more incidents. Those who never go to war will never have any incidents. We have no capability to provide air support for our army in Afghanistan, therefore we will never be guilty of bombing our own side. That's not the point nor is friendly fire limited to air strikes. The British are at war, are they experiance a similar number (weighted to troop strength) of fratricidal incidents? Interesting points - for those who might not know - the first "blue on blue" by the recently deployed group to Afghan was a Canadian soldier fatally shooting a Canadian soldier. It is unfortunate. Extreme measures are taken to prevent it from happening. But mistakes do happen in the heat of the moment. Usually it is as simple as forgetting to follow established procedure. A common happening that for the most part causes no grief. Once in a while however ...... Typically if blue on blue happens it demoralizes the crews involved - on both sides. Unfortunately there also seems to be a few on the outside who are quite prepared to jump on the Yanks when they are involved. They are not the only folks to have done this and it will happen again. Hopefully not soon, but the longer militaries go without an incident, the closer they are to having yet another. Rest assured this will be investigated - closely - and procedures will be put in place to prevent a re-ocurrence. Until another way is found to "screw the pooch". Then it will start all over again. To blame the nation is not only ludicrous, it shows what appears to be a nasty streak of satisfaction. Not on. As there are no atheists in fox holes or cockpits I say - may God rest the soul of the departed and may he bless this man's family. May God bless the wounded and send them on a speedy recovery. May God bless the pilots involved. May they be blessed with the ability to sleep at night after the nightmares stop happening. May those nightmares stop happening before the pilots reach their old age death beds. Borg

Well said. Borg

Our CF-18s are old and poorly equipped for bombing. In fact, they didn't even come with the right systems for bombs. We had to special order a few when we participated in the Kosovo campaign, and as I recall we didn't have the right communications gear even then. I doubt the CAF trains much in bombing, and I doubt we even have much of a supply available. Besides which, the CF-18s are not anywhere near as capable in close-in ground support as the A10 warthogs. They are primarily a high level fighter. Trips to the bombing range in the Hornet are very common. An exceedingly fine air to ground aircraft. Far more agile than most would ever think and at the same time quite able to be "self escorting" making it one of the better older generation multi role aircraft. It is dual role and dual purpose for this reason. If a Hornet is "FAC'd" in on your position you had better put your head down and pray. Auto bomb, toss bombing, radar aided, continuosly computed impact - all available on the old model. Trust me - it could do the job then and it is even better now. Secure comms, RHAW, Jammers and Link was an issue from day one - has been fixed. Borg

geoffrey I agree - but the folks you might argue this point with do not realize how far to the left the "centrist" line has moved. We are a product of a very successful social re-engineering program started long ago by that dastardly PET. He is beloved in the east by many, but most folks west of the Ontario / Manitoba border would as soon pee on his grave if given the chance. Right wing today is to stand up and say you do not believe in homosexual marriage. Some years ago that was considered the norm. Have a good one, Borg

We already do this. Only we arm them and they patrol the arctic. They are called Rangers. Borg