dre Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 The answer to the OP question is clearly no. Trudeau has not listened to our allies. Our allies -US, Germany, UK in particualr -are responding to the request from France to help in a tangible way in hurting ISIS. Keep in mind than when this bombing campaign started, ISIS was essentially running amok across Syria and Iraq. The Kurds were holding their own in defence of their territory in the north, but otherwise there was nobody on the ground that could touch ISIS in their daily barbarity. Canada and others undertook to halt the ISIS ground offensive, to buy time for local forces to get organized. That level of organization is certainly not tested, but the air support has hurt ISIS and slowed them considerably at a minimum. The imminent Canadian abscence from the actual fight is not just symbolic, it is duly noted by the international community and most defintitely by our allies. When some claim "Canada is back" is seen by others as "Canada is backing up", and insulting everybody by pretending we can lead from the rear. If it is intended to gain respect, it is a miserable and comprehensive policy failure, both home and abroad. And that is a question that needs an answer. Does Trudeau or more likely his advisors think he has so much political capital that he can piss it away by wrong footing this file too.? All he has to do to regain that capital- and some modicum of respect for abroad-is say and act: "our friends and allies need our help. We'll leave the warplanes in place for 6 months, then we are done in that regard and will switch our role to training and surveillance" It is puzzling and a bit disamying to see him miss the obvious a couple of times on linked files- refugees and ISIS- that matter to Canadians. Just because your friends do something stupid does not mean you should as well. The mission has zero chance of success... There's nearly 30 million disenfranchised Sunnis being forced to live under Shia Iranian proxy governments in Iraq and Syria. They are going to have their own state no matter what we do. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
ReeferMadness Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) The answer to the OP question is clearly no. Trudeau has not listened to our allies. Our allies -US, Germany, UK in particualr -are responding to the request from France to help in a tangible way in hurting ISIS. Keep in mind than when this bombing campaign started, ISIS was essentially running amok across Syria and Iraq. The Kurds were holding their own in defence of their territory in the north, but otherwise there was nobody on the ground that could touch ISIS in their daily barbarity. Canada and others undertook to halt the ISIS ground offensive, to buy time for local forces to get organized. That level of organization is certainly not tested, but the air support has hurt ISIS and slowed them considerably at a minimum. Ah, I see the usual suspects are sore that their heroes have lost the election and that Trudeau is keeping his election promises. So, we have the usual low-content, high-rhetoric bilge being promulgated. So, to bring a little intelligence into this thread, why don't we take a look at the allies who people claim we are letting down. France/England - The two co-authors of the disastrous Sykes-Picot agreement that is generally acknowledged to be an important contributor to today's problems in the Middle East each have significant issues with homegrown terrorism. Indeed, most of the attackers in the Paris attack came from France or Belgium. So, why are they bombing Iraq and Syria? Good question since it's likely to just make the homegrown terrorism problem worse. Most likely, it's a diversionary tactic to ensure the people at home that "something" is being done. In the case of France, it's almost certainly designed to stem the tide of growing support for right-wing racists since the Paris attack. United States - The USA's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other places have enormously aided (perhaps even enabled) the creation and growth of ISIS. Every American bomb dropped is another recruitment tool for terrorists. Like Britain and France, the American targeting appears to be more related to politics than logic. The 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia and the US responded by invading Afghanistan and then Iraq. The San Bernardino attackers came from California and Pakistan and were reportedly radicalized in Saudi Arabia. The US response has been to impose restrictions on people traveling from Iraq/Syria. wtf? Turkey - Turkey has a large, modern military and a border with Syria and Iraq. It could easily conquer ISIS itself but it won't. The only two forces in the region which have shown any competence and ability to fight ISIS (the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Assad's forces) are both enemies of Turkey. Indeed, ISIS fighters and oil have both flowed freely across Turkey's porous border and Turkey's commitment to defeating ISIS can be fairly questioned. Saudi Arabia - Like Turkey, Saudi Arabia consists mostly of Sunni Muslims, the same as ISIS. Saudi Arabia is also the home of the Wahabbi sect of Islam, which has been widely criticized as a breeding ground for Islamic extremism. Despite this, it's almost impossible to find western leaders who will go on record criticizing the country. Iraq - In the wake of the US invasion, the western alliance has tried to establish Iraq as a friendly power and to that end have armed it. The results have been disastrous. Iraqi units have given away their weapons and in some cases defected to ISIS. Most of the ISIS weaponry came from Iraq. Bottom Line - Not only will bombing fail to make Canada safer, our allies have conflicting interests and no cohesive plan for defeating ISIS. Edited December 9, 2015 by ReeferMadness Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Well, one thing is clear for Trudeau's supporters....keeping campaign promises is more important than defeating ISIS. We'll just forget that Canada helped to strangle and destabilize Iraq and Syria, because the devil made Canada do it. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 9, 2015 Report Posted December 9, 2015 Well, one thing is clear for Trudeau's supporters....keeping campaign promises is more important than defeating ISIS. If the bombing had even a 1% chance of defeating ISIS, that might be true. Quote
Topaz Posted December 11, 2015 Report Posted December 11, 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-has-threatened-to-use-nuclear-weapons-against-isis-but-hopes-they-will-never-be-needed-a6766196.html The following link shows Russia is more able to do more damage with their bombing than Canada could and perhaps other NATO countries. Quote
Topaz Posted December 11, 2015 Report Posted December 11, 2015 Sorry people, had trouble linking with IE so switched to Edge and that didn't exactly work either but it did get u to the page of the story. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 11, 2015 Report Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) One NATO country is better at shooting down Russian strike fighters. Edited December 11, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 do you seriously think your quote helps your statements/position in this exchange? "Looking for the F-35 to replace their F16s"... as I read it those stated upgrades weren't to go to the extent they now have in regards increased/enhanced strike capabilities. They're simply a reflection of through life upgrades to the platform, namely a reflection of the move towards GPS guided munitions (JDAM) verses 1970s era laser guided munitions (Paveway/ Pave track), and the move towards AESA radars over older (obsolete) mechanically scanned radars.......... Computer/Sensor/Data latency is the (new) key to aerial warfare.........the ~$1 billion spent by the RSAF upgrading their entire fleet (60+ aircraft) equates to the purchase price of ~10-14 new production aircraft....the same with our Hornet upgrades a decade ago, or the current USAF upgrade of their F-16 fleet. Simply put, it makes fiscal sense, and you could probably count on one hand the Western nations that since the 1970s forgo a SLEP for their fleets versus early retirement combined with a new purchase. I don't know the original source of this following graphic, last referring to the revised 2011 procurement plan.... I'll take it at face value, but it simply illustrates the delays with the program, but doesn't support your point that if the program wasn't delayed ~5 years, the RSAF would have opted to replace as oppose upgrade their F-16s, of which, some are upwards of a decade+ newer than the Americans fleet (which also, assuming the F-35 wasn't delayed, would have seen the American fleet replaced in that time frame either) Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 somehow, you think a glowing testimonial, offered per party line, just erases the other statements made concerning anticipated F-35 production cuts! I don't expect high-level Pentagon officials to break from party line... when they do, as they have invariably over the years, they're quickly reigned in and LockMart et al. do a full court media press in response to attempt to walk back the comments! In the latest revealing comment from Kendall (U.S. Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), just days ago, he's very clear and precise on those expected F-35 cuts... that you simply choose to dismiss/ignore. Or is it said officials offer context, in that (as cited) they did confirm the 2017 F-35 procurement cycle will be reviewed......like every other procurement program. Quote
waldo Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 I'll take it at face value, but it simply illustrates the delays with the program, but doesn't support your point that if the program wasn't delayed ~5 years, the RSAF would have opted to replace as oppose upgrade their F-16s not what I said... but thanks for finally acknowledging a delay... which is and will be a whole lot more than 5 years. What I did say was that if the F-35 was on time, on budget and on capability, you wouldn't see Singapore upgrade every last one of their F-16s to the tune of ~$1 billion dollars. Quote
waldo Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Or is it said officials offer context, in that (as cited) they did confirm the 2017 F-35 procurement cycle will be reviewed......like every other procurement program. nice spin! I could play you back that same quote from a top U.S. Pentagon official ((Kendall, U.S. Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)... if you'd like. He certainly goes farther than your claimed "generic comment on a review" - you know, where he speaks to budget constraints and an inability to protect the F-35 from cuts. Notwithstanding that quote from the U.S. Joint Chief who speaks of a review of the program proper, not just in regards a single year budgetary concern... rather, a review that calls into question just how many F-35s the U.S. military can afford... how many it actually needs. all of this review talk... cuts talk... from top U.S. military officials and politicians. All that coupled with Canada's shift, coupled with the Australian review, coupled with other countries purchasing 4th gen aircraft, etc.. At some point you just may have to acknowledge something, hey! . Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 not what I said... but thanks for finally acknowledging a delay... which is and will be a whole lot more than 5 years. What I did say was that if the F-35 was on time, on budget and on capability, you wouldn't see Singapore upgrade every last one of their F-16s to the tune of ~$1 billion dollars. That of course is unfounded though, assuming the the F-35 entered full production as planned, the RSAF would still have replaced a portion of their F-5 and A-4 fleet with F-15s a decade ago, leaving the remaining F-5 fleet to be replaced. Now the public info relating to an initial RSAF F-35B purchase all suggested an order of 12-24 F-35s, or the same number of F-5s currently in service.......In no alternative universe is Singapore replacing F-16s, newer than those in service with the USAF, a decade+ early. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 nice spin! I could play you back that same quote from a top U.S. Pentagon official ((Kendall, U.S. Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)... if you'd like. He certainly goes farther than your claimed "generic comment on a review" - you know, where he speaks to budget constraints and an inability to protect the F-35 from cuts. Notwithstanding that quote from the U.S. Joint Chief who speaks of a review of the program proper, not just in regards a single year budgetary concern... rather, a review that calls into question just how many F-35s the U.S. military can afford... how many it actually needs. But goes onto say the F-35 offers the most combat capability (over other programs) for money spent. all of this review talk... cuts talk... from top U.S. military officials and politicians. All that coupled with Canada's shift, coupled with the Australian review, coupled with other countries purchasing 4th gen aircraft, etc.. At some point you just may have to acknowledge something, hey! How about acknowledge that not a single partner, including Canada, has yet to leave the program..........funny enough, several years ago, you and I debated the prospect of Japan actually purchasing the F-35.......... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 To add, since much was brought up over this year's earlier USMC shipboard trials, the Marines just checked another box: VMFA-121’s role in the exercise was to conduct close air support drills and expeditionary missions in support of the MAGTF. During the exercise, the F-35 utilized the expeditionary airfield on Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, and the expeditionary landing pad at Red Beach on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. An expeditionary airfield of course being sections of roadways combined with prefab steel mats (in addition to support/service provided in tents/trucks) the Marines use to bring their aircraft with them after a landing........previous to the F-35, the only such fixed winged fighter they had capable of doing this was the Harrier, with their remaining aircraft (Hornets and Prowlers) having to remain on land or on a carrier at sea. This Squadron, VMFA-121, previously operated Hornets, as such, this in itself is an expansion in capability brought about by the F-35B. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Trudeau has scrapped the F 35 in that he has committed to an open competition to replace the Hornets. In all likelihood that will put the bomb truck out of the running. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 To add, since much was brought up over this year's earlier USMC shipboard trials, the Marines just checked another box: An expeditionary airfield of course being sections of roadways combined with prefab steel mats (in addition to support/service provided in tents/trucks) the Marines use to bring their aircraft with them after a landing........previous to the F-35, the only such fixed winged fighter they had capable of doing this was the Harrier, with their remaining aircraft (Hornets and Prowlers) having to remain on land or on a carrier at sea. This Squadron, VMFA-121, previously operated Hornets, as such, this in itself is an expansion in capability brought about by the F-35B. Isn't that nice. Good thing the marines are happy since the plane's entire basic design was f*cked up to make it STOVL. There's a lovely story one of the links I posted earlier about how all this dates back to Guadalcanal in WWII when the navy wouldn't risk their precious last few carriers to support the marines. And so, it's fitting now that the marines are having the last laugh by compromising the design of the main aircraft, not only for the navy but for the air force as well. What a gong show. Such a relief that Canada got out of it. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 ....dates back to Guadalcanal in WWII when the navy wouldn't risk their precious last few carriers to support the marines. And so, it's fitting now that the marines are having the last laugh by compromising the design of the main aircraft, not only for the navy but for the air force as well. What a gong show. Such a relief that Canada got out of it. Canada wasn't at Guadalcanal either, but is still very much in for F-35 Tier 3 subcontracts.....typical. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 Canada wasn't at Guadalcanal either, but is still very much in for F-35 Tier 3 subcontracts.....typical. We'll take the contracts to help you build it, but we want our money's worth out of the product we buy, and the bomb truck ain't it. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 Isn't that nice. Good thing the marines are happy since the plane's entire basic design was f*cked up to make it STOVL. You're assuming the design is f*cked up.........Without a doubt incorporating STOVL into the requirement by the Clinton Administration added to the complexity of the program (and was one of the reasons Boeing's X-32 lost to the X-35) but there is no evidence to suggest that developing separate fifth generation fighters for all three services would have been cheaper in developmental costs and through life operating costs.........you're simply repeating the theme put forth by the military aviation lobby that would be more than happy to develop and produce numerous different types. There's a lovely story one of the links I posted earlier about how all this dates back to Guadalcanal in WWII when the navy wouldn't risk their precious last few carriers to support the marines. And so, it's fitting now that the marines are having the last laugh by compromising the design of the main aircraft, not only for the navy but for the air force as well. What a gong show. Well a common urban legend, again you're not basing your slanted story on fact. See none other than the ships histories of USS Enterprise (nearly lost off Guadalcanal), USS Saratoga (supported the invasion force), USS Hornet (sunk during the campaign), USS Wasp (sunk during the campaign) and the jeep carrier USS Long Island (delivered the first Marine aircraft to Guadalcanal several days after the invasion).......hence such "stories" are factually incorrect, after all, the USMC is but a cog in the Department of the Navy and thousands of USN sailors died supporting the Marines at not only Guadalcanal, but Tarawa, Guam, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima and Okinawa etc. That's not to say the USMC doesn't value their "own fighters", with an emphasis on supporting Marines on the ground, but at the end of the day, without the USN, the Marines are just another landlocked army...... Such a relief that Canada got out of it. A false sense of relief (for you)......... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 ...That's not to say the USMC doesn't value their "own fighters", with an emphasis on supporting Marines on the ground, but at the end of the day, without the USN, the Marines are just another landlocked army...... True, but Marine Corps aviation has already seen this movie decades ago with AV-8 Harriers. Close air support platforms with teething issues are much better than no close air support platforms at all. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 Canada will still get the work of building components for the F 35, but it will have to pass muster in a competition before we consider buying it. Makes a lot more sense that Harper's approach. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 Canada wasn't at Guadalcanal either, but is still very much in for F-35 Tier 3 subcontracts.....typical. Indeed, even though we joined the War in 1939, our first major land action of our army (Dieppe raid) was several weeks after the US invasion of Guadalcanal..............a clear indication of the unpreparedness and obsolete equipment afforded to our military by the then Liberal Government*, and should be a lesson heeded going forwards. (*current Liberal MP/retired General Andrew Leslie's grandfather, Andrew McNaughton, was the then Liberal Government's Minister of National Defence, it can be hoped that Leslie will have some influence over this Government's direction to avoid the disasters dropped on the lap of his grandfather) Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 Open up your wallets (even more) suckers. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-pullout-from-f-35-program-will-boost-costs-for-other-nations-by-as-much-as-1m-per-jet Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 True, but Marine Corps aviation has already seen this movie decades ago with AV-8 Harriers. Close air support platforms with teething issues are much better than no close air support platforms at all. Sure, and before them, the RN and RAF.......when the British Armada sailed to recapture the Falklands in 1982, the RAF's Harrier force not only had to learn (in route) to fly off carriers, but also added the sidewinder missile to their arsenal and had to learn how to "dog fight" on the trip South, with the aide of land based RAF Phantoms and French Mirages (same aircraft sold to Argentina).......... And since that time, the British MoD saw fit to incorporate the RN FAA and RAF harrier force (until its retirement) and their replacement, the F-35......some do learn from history Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 13, 2015 Report Posted December 13, 2015 Indeed, even though we joined the War in 1939, our first major land action of our army (Dieppe raid) was several weeks after the US invasion of Guadalcanal....... Well, continuing this theme, Australia and the United Kingdom were at Guadalcanal in 1942....and they are F-35 partners today. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.