Moonbox

There isn't much of a record. For the last 40 years the record has been of poor, small and third world backwaters getting bitch slapped by the world's biggest super power. Personally I doubt that China or Russia would have had much trouble rolling over Iraq or Yugoslavia either. Yes I know that thank you. Most of them are NATO allies, however, and don't generally sell that equipment to the USA's enemies, nor is the USA in the business of selling the tech to detect their own aircraft. Whatever they did, it was innovative and could happen again.

It's a terrible comparison. The fact that you can't see the difference is unsurprising. If we were talking simple reciprocal law then the UAE would have imposed VISA restrictions a long time ago - as in when Canada imposed their own. That's not what happened. In this case, the UAE got frustrated with the breakdown of a negotiation, and added a penalty for not getting their own way that was never part of the negotiations in the first place. A business deal which had nothing to do with VISAs. I'm not embarrassed. I'm proud. I don't think the government is terribly embarrassed either, because they're clearly not backing down. What do I have to be embarrassed about? I think the UAE misjudged the reaction they'd get. I haven't complained about a thing. I've done nothing but make fun of the UAE's leaders. I'm telling you to grow up because you look like you're trolling. I've mocked and ridiculed the UAE's leaders, and your response was to mock and ridicule me personally. That's fine, I can handle it, but your pretense of maturity is priceless. Read back a little bit. I agreed. It's not a big deal. I still think it's funny how the UAE's leaders reacted. So do a lot of people here. News to me. Blackmail was probably a bad term. Coercion would be better. "Shaking down" would be too. Any such activity, however negative it be, is actually QUITE laughable when the party you're trying to bully/coerce/shake down/blackmail doesn't care and isn't afraid of the consequences you are threatening. It's one of THE MOST satisfying things in the world to stand firm against it and laugh in its face.

What terms are you talking about? You're right, the UAE isn't third world at all, but I'm not sure what else to call their leaders. As an aside, it truly is no wonder why the US gets such lukewarm commitments from its allies. I'll certainly be glad when our troops are out of Afghanistan. It's almost like we're ridiculed more for what we did send there than not sending anyone at all.

Why do you keep bringing Brazil into the discussion? It's a completely different situation and has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Brazil imposes VISA restrictions just like Canada and the US do. Big deal. They didn't do it because they demanded landing strips and didn't get them. They didn't try to bully and embarrass either the US or Canada into making economic concessions. That's the definition of a red herring. Give it up. Grow up. It's the UAE. Nobody cares in the grand scheme of things. It's something in the news to talk about and in this case a lot of us are finding it pretty laughable that a bunch of diva princes are wetting their pants because we're not caving in to their demands. Again though, keep telling us how we all feel. Maybe eventually you'll get a rise out of one of us. :lol: I think that immoral and injust might be a little dramatic for the situation, but contemptible, childish and sly. They tried to shake Canada down for trade concessions and couldn't, so they kicked us out of their base. That's fine. I don't see anything terribly wrong about that. The retaliatory VISA move, however, is a pretty funny. When one side has something the other wants, you negotiate for it. If the negotiations break down and you don't get what you want, you don't penalize the other side in addition to that. That's more akin to blackmail/bullying, and there's really nothing upstanding about that.

Because Russian weapons proliferate all over the world and anyone NATO fights is using them. They have no qualms about selling modern tech to whoever pays. They're doubly happy because not only do they make money off it, it also serves as a deterrent against western expansionism.

The radar 'network' was already severely degraded by attacks prior to the first stealth plane ever even taking off. They didn't launch any deep strike missions until the Apaches had already taken out three of the main radar stations. This allowed US air strikes to fly to their targets undetected until they were practically over top of them anyways. No, I'll concede that point, it wasn't SIMPLY because the Iraqis were primitive. They weren't exactly cave men, but they never had a chance to start. US personnel were better trained, better organized, better equipped and had an unbelievable advantage in air power from numbers alone that the conflict would have been over quickly with or without stealth aircraft. The Iraqi's couldn't even penetrate the armor of the M1A1 tank. Hell even the Americans could barely do it. I'm not sure Vietnam is a great example. For one the rules of engagement were extremely strict for fear of China entering the war, second Hanoi was surrounded by jungle, supported by China and had probably the densest AA shield the world has ever seen. Iraq was a desert and nobody supported them. I'm not saying that stealth didn't prove itself in Desert Storm, but I am questioning whether a 20 year old conflict, in which the US flew planes with superior stealth, is a great justification for an inferior stealth design. Considering the Russians will have had 25-30 years to refine their detection abilities so that they could detect the F-117, I'm wondering how likely it is that they won't be able to figure out how to see the 10x more visible F-35.

So what? Helicopters flew over the border beforehand and knocked out the outlying radar stations. Cruise missiles did the same.

Primitive and useless in the face of the opposition. You had one third world nation run by a yahoo dictator and with the training of a monkey fighting 100:1 odds in the desert against the world's biggest super power. As for how the defensive networks were degraded, read up on the first moves of Desert Storm. The most dangerous radar networks were wiped out by Tomahawk missiles and low flying Apache gunships well before the first stealth bomber flew anywhere.

If we were fighting a mutual enemy? Yeah sure. Kind of like the British allowed American military bases over there in WWII right? Analogy is the worst form of argument, but it's especially bad when you do it as stupidly as some of the ones we've seen here.

Against a primitive, corrupt, poorly organized army which had already had most of its defensive network wiped out. Since Desert Storm, the Russians have had 20 years to develop technology to detect stealth aircraft. By the time the F-35 comes out, it will have been 25 years. The F-35 is also 10x less stealthy than the Nighthawk, B-2 or F-22. The Russians will have had 25 years to refine their detection abilities, while at the same time we'll have downgraded stealth. Most planes have their own fly-by-wire systems now. We were talking about the radar, situational awareness, helmet mount displays etc when comparing different designs. I'm suggesting that basing your choice of airframe (which you'll be stuck with for 40 years) on the electronics/avionics package, is not the greatest idea considering you'll be swapping them out every decade or so anyways. Like I said before, 90% of last 200 air-to air encounters ended up in a "WITHIN VISUAL RANGE" skirmish. In this situation, the F-35 is easily detected. AMRAAM kill ratios are abysmally low in any conflict recorded. The sidewinder has continued to reign supreme. If we need strike aircraft we should buy enough to fulfill the missions we're likely to need them for. We don't need 65 strike fighters. We'll never send that many anywhere. The most F-18s we ever sent anywhere was 20 I think. Buy 20-30 F-35's so we have some overseas capabilities to bomb whoever the Americans tell us to, and then spend less money on better air-to-air frames for sovereign air defense.

Stealth hasn't really been 'proven' at all. It hasn't faced anything but third-world, poorly trained, rag-tag armies/airforces. Beating up on Iraq is hardly evidence of the success of stealth technology. The poor dudes had lost their radar, command and control network within the first few hours of the conflict. The most interesting part about this was that the opening moves of Desert Storm were undertaken by Apache gunships, where they flew in low to knock out Iraqi radar stations. As for avionics, like I said before you can install the same avionics on pretty much every plane out there if you want. It's not really an advantage to the airframe itself. Out of hundreds of kills over the last few decades, only about 20 have been BVR kills, meaning the long range weapon systems did not pan out like people thought, and the encounters usually degraded to WVR dogfights. The F-35 seems to make a lot of them, and they were mostly made to take advantage of cost savings, which is interesting because the plane is still hugely over budget.

Yes. Very good. In Red China, anyone can be doctor! I can be doctor! Give me $100 I give you breast implants! After you wake up, I will be disappeared! WiTH your moneys!

Show me a link where it was indicated this was part of the negotiations, instead of a penalty imposed against us for not giving the UAE what they wanted. I'm betting you can't. Yeah waldo...I'm sure you're right. The Harper government imposed the visa restrictions against the Czechs and Mexicans just to be mean.... Except Harper isn't 'leveraging' anything with his VISA restrictions. What is he trying to get out of it? Less Czech and Mexican refugee claims. Is he pressuring the Mexican or Czech government for anything? How many landing spots has he asked them for? This is like talking to a wall.

It was wyly. My bad. Sorry waldo. It's hard to keep you guys apart. Okay fair enough but it doesn't make any difference either way. Kick us out of the base. That's done. That's not what the thread was about anyways. It was about the VISA restrictions, which came out of nowhere. Was that part of the negotiation too waldo?????

I can still laugh at them and consider them and consider them crybabies. Again, I can still have a laugh about it and feel satisfied that we didn't let them have their way. Tell me how I feel some more. Please. I'm FASCINATED! There is no problem. Where are you getting that from?

Fever pitched? LoL! Aren't you the clown wetting your pants and calling people twats? Yeah. I'm pretty sure that was you. If the UAE was dealing in good faith these negotiations would have been started back when Canada was looking for a logistics base, not 9 years into the mission. Get real. That's not how business is done anywhere.

The F-18 was a highly capable air-to-air platform at the time. It could handle virtually everything that was thrown at it at the time. It was superior to pretty much anything but the Tomcat and the Eagle at the time. The F-35, aside from the stealth and avionics, won't even match up to 35+ year old aircraft in that regard. We can only hope that battle doctrine and technology actually render WVR combat obsolete, otherwise the F-35 is going to get curbstomped. My fear is that they've been saying BVR combat will become the norm for decades now, and it's never happened. Planes have always found ways to evade LRM's.

Bubber there's never any excuse to say 'pwned'. It immediately makes you look dumb. What is your signature trying to prove btw? It's not much of a burn...

Do you need clinical experiments to tell you that breathing smoke is bad for your lungs? Not that I really care about the argument itself. Legalize it, or don't, it really makes no difference to me.

What a stunningly vapid analogy. Good job. What reason would we have to allow them there? Do we have any mutual enemies to operate against? Are we even allies? No? So why are you asking and pretending this has anything to do with the argument? I wonder how often Taiwan, South Korea and Japan try to shake the Americans down for allowing them to keep their airbases there? If they were demanding concessions for Canada using their desert as a base, they should have said so in the first place. How would you feel if you were sent a coupon/flyer for a free visit to the zoo, and then after you spent the day there they tell you they're going to charge you $50 after the fact to open the gates and let your car out of the parking lot? Pretty scummy right?

I couldn't care less what the UAE does. My OP was to mock them and show my contempt for them. That's all they deserve. They're like the kid on the playground, taking his ball home because he didn't get his own way. It's funny. That's all. Like I said before, countries impose VISA restrictions wherever and whenever they want. It's their perogative like you said. In the UAE's case, however, it's pretty clear they're doing it because we're not giving them landing rights for their airline. They're punishing us in any way they can. Their perogative, but childish. Some of you are really having trouble with what we're saying here aren't you? We're not crying about it. Most of us don't give a shit. It's a joke. It's hilarious. They can do whatever they want. I'm quite happy with the way Canada handled things, and I'm just as happy to have nothing to do with the UAE.

Waldo that was worse than reading one of Oleg's posts. Do some editing or learn how to write better man. That's just frustrating/hard to read. As for what's under negotiation, the UAE didn't really 'provide' anything to Canada other than sand in the desert. Indeed if anything, they probably profited greatly from having us there. Having the base there benefited them. It cost them NOTHING. Now, 9 years later, nearing the end of our deployment (the most inconvenient of times) the UAE has decided to shake us down. It wasn't a negotiation. It was an attempt to embarrass us and rip us off into getting what they wanted. Those clowns showed their true colors, and like I said before, we don't need them.

You're having the same problem as wyly here. Why should the UAE expect ridiculous compensation for something that benefits them anyways? We're staging attacks against the Taliban and Al Quaeda, a mutual enemy, and for most people that would be enough. Not when you're dealing with pompous Princes and Sheikhs, it seems. We really don't need friends like them.

Think about what you're saying wyly, and let's base our conclusions on who is dumber based on that okay? It's the same thing you say? One country trying to influence the internal politics of another? How is Canada trying to influence the politics of the Czech Republic? Could you explain that to us? No, you can't, because we're in NO WAY trying to. We're trying to save ourselves money and headaches because people from outside of Canada (many of whomm are from the Czech Republic or Mexico) are abusing our refugee system and costing us tons of money. It's not a right for people to be able to visit Canada, nor is it a right for Canadians to visit the UAE. What's hilarious about what's happened in the UAE, however, is that they imposed the VISA restrictions not to protect themselves, but rather to 'get back' at us for not letting them have whatever they want. They're throwing a tantrum, much like you did in your above post. I'm not surprised you can relate to their position. Fussing and wetting your pants when you don't get your way is apparently the way you still deal with your problems.

You're not too bright are you? People from Mexico and the Czech Republic were ABUSING Canada's refugee system. To protect taxpayers, Canada imposed the visa restrictions. In the UAE's case, there's really no worry of Canadians abusing their social welfare system, or really anything of the sort, so their retaliation was pure spite. The fact that you can't see the difference between the two is telling of your general ability to grasp simple arguments.