PIK Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 3% is well over 2000 sorties, and someone else will have to pick up that slack, that is the point you are missing and the embarrassment to our pilots. Lets face it the liberals have no plan and no idea what to do. especially when your defence ministers talks about how he would have loved to have air cover in Afghanistan, shows disarray in the ranks and they are only a month old. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Keepitsimple Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 So, I'm having trouble here. Do you want them to withdraw the fighters? No - I don't. But I also want to hold them accountable for the thought(less) process that went into their very firm election promises. If they continue to make knee-jerk commitments without understanding - or ignoring the consequences, we'll all be in deep trouble. And where did doubling the Syrian refugees to 50,000 in 2016 come from? Quote Back to Basics
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 .... And with the Obama is retreating remark , is more like he was swatted to the side lines by the Russians. Obama still has a lot more resources deployed to the region while Canada's fearless leader wants to "withdrawal" his precious CF-18s. Instead of whipping them out, he wants to whip them back in. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 No - I don't. But I also want to hold them accountable for the thought(less) process that went into their very firm election promises. If they continue to make knee-jerk commitments without understanding - or ignoring the consequences, we'll all be in deep trouble. And where did doubling the Syrian refugees to 50,000 in 2016 come from? Okay, you have to make up your mind again. The Liberals promised (at minimum) 25,000 government sponsored refugees. You yourself have pointed out that the 10,000 arriving now are not part of that figure. So that means we're now at 35,000. They did not promise that 35,000 would be the ceiling. 50,000 seems to be a possibility by the end of the year. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Okay, you have to make up your mind again. The Liberals promised (at minimum) 25,000 government sponsored refugees. You yourself have pointed out that the 10,000 arriving now are not part of that figure. So that means we're now at 35,000. They did not promise that 35,000 would be the ceiling. 50,000 seems to be a possibility by the end of the year. No I don't have to make up my mind. They will not reach their target of 10,000 by the end of the year - even though the vast majority were already in process as privately-sponsored. That's an important distinction - not only in the number itself - but as a measure of stress-testing the entire Federal/Provincial/Municipal/Support Group infrastructure. Arriving at an airport and being ferried off to a privately-sponsored household is a much easier task than a government, fully-supported refugee. As a result, their target of 25,000 government-sponsored refugees by end of February seems pie in the sky - as it always was. And now they're adding 15,000 to that? Whether one agrees with the idea or not, why the big rush to make these bold statements - before anything has really been accomplished? Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 3% is well over 2000 sorties, and someone else will have to pick up that slack, that is the point you are missing and the embarrassment to our pilots. Lets face it the liberals have no plan and no idea what to do. especially when your defence ministers talks about how he would have loved to have air cover in Afghanistan, shows disarray in the ranks and they are only a month old. 3% is well under 2000 sorties, to date it's just over 1200, and as has been pointed out, they often return with all the hardware firmly attached to the wings. We are spending a lot of dough to achieve very little. More training will be much more effective, assuming we need to stay in this thing anyway. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 3% is well under 2000 sorties, to date it's just over 1200, and as has been pointed out, they often return with all the hardware firmly attached to the wings. We are spending a lot of dough to achieve very little. More training will be much more effective, assuming we need to stay in this thing anyway. Yes...because training Arabs has worked so well in the past. Want to buy an ARVN rifle? Never fired and only dropped once. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Yes...because training Arabs has worked so well in the past. Want to buy an ARVN rifle? Never fired and only dropped once. Bombing them has worked real well too. Let's see, how did ISIS get started? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Bombing them has worked real well too. Let's see, how did ISIS get started? Seeing that Arabs are too dumb to do anything on their own without a Westerner telling them how, I imagine you blame Canada. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Seeing that Arabs are too dumb to do anything on their own without a Westerner telling them how, I imagine you blame Canada. Speaking of dumb, do you have any idea where those numbers on your keyboard came from? Quote
Big Guy Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Seeing that Arabs are too dumb to do anything on their own without a Westerner telling them how, I imagine you blame Canada. The major Arab states are sitting on their $trillions while the West is spending our $billions on their problem and giving up North American lives on protecting them. They sit back continuing to gather their oil money and keeping their air forces and troops out of harm. And you say it is the ARABS who are dumb???? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
DogOnPorch Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 The major Arab states are sitting on their $trillions while the West is spending our $billions on their problem and giving up North American lives on protecting them. They sit back continuing to gather their oil money and keeping their air forces and troops out of harm. And you say it is the ARABS who are dumb???? My opinion is that the Islamic State formed itself. Nobody forces folks to commit the horrors I've seen them inflict on those they deem not Scottish enough. That's all them. And seeing they are merely following the Quran as Mohammad intended, I ultimately blame the death cult called Islam for everything. This has been going on since Islam was formed with a brief lull in the 20th century for everybody except the Jews/Israelis...who didn't get a break from Islam. Well, it's back. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Speaking of dumb, do you have any idea where those numbers on your keyboard came from? The Hindus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system You may now make your claim that Arabs invented numbers...rather than adopted them from whatever land they happened to conquer. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 The Hindus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%80%93Arabic_numeral_system You may now make your claim that Arabs invented numbers...rather than adopted them from whatever land they happened to conquer. How could such dumb people conquer anyone I wonder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFgPX0hnNfA Quote
waldo Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 3% is well over 2000 sorties, and someone else will have to pick up that slack, that is the point you are missing and the embarrassment to our pilots. Lets face it the liberals have no plan and no idea what to do. especially when your defence ministers talks about how he would have loved to have air cover in Afghanistan, shows disarray in the ranks and they are only a month old. I said "bombing campaign"... that implies actual targeted air strikes, not the broader sorties. The U.S. Department of Defense maintains a relatively current count of strikes - as of 3:59 p.m. EST Dec. 16, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 8,912 strikes (5,856 Iraq / 3,056 Syria). Using that supplied <3% figure provided by Canadian government officials, that's less than 270 targeted air strikes flown by Canadian CF-18s since the first strike on Nov 2, 2014... over a full years period. Again, I'll ask you, other than the term 'symbolic' what would you prefer to call that contribution rate/impact? . Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 How could such dumb people conquer anyone I wonder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFgPX0hnNfA The Muslim hordes weren't hordes anymore than the Mongols were. The Arabs had a superior light cavalry system which ran circles around the heavier Byzantine cavalry or Hindu conscript infantry masses. Winning battles is all that matters. Ask Israel. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
PIK Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Waldo, who would you want giving air cover for our troops, the Americans, or have you forgot who killed the 1st 4 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Think about it. And if we bring bombs home that means there was no target or to many civilians. Edited December 21, 2015 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
DogOnPorch Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Waldo, who would you want giving air cover for our troops, the Americans, or have you forgot who killed the 1st 4 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Think about it. And if we bring bombs home that means there was no target or to many civilians. Yes...the very thing that makes bombing 'inefficient' is what keeps both civilian and friendly soldier safe on a battlefield with no lines and an enemy that uses human shields when at all possible. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Waldo, who would you want giving air cover for our troops, the Americans, or have you forgot who killed the 1st 4 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Think about it. And if we bring bombs home that means there was no target or to many civilians. Apparently the Americans are the only ones who can "misfire" http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fifth-estate-canada-airstrikes-record-coalition-1.3296285 Quote
DogOnPorch Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 To add...the Russians are using strategic bombers to do Arc Light style raids on enemy (which?) concentrations. Mostly dumb bombs dropped from 30,000 feet. So who knows what that equals efficiency-wise. Civilian casualties don't matter to Russia. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
waldo Posted December 21, 2015 Report Posted December 21, 2015 Waldo, who would you want giving air cover for our troops, the Americans, or have you forgot who killed the 1st 4 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Think about it. And if we bring bombs home that means there was no target or to many civilians. considering there are 69 so-called training troops there now, that's quite the CF-18 coverage rate, hey... and I guess those planes would only fly when trainers are on the front, hey... which is really the exception to the norm, yes? Of course, your ploy is so naive... there are no 'boots on the ground' in Syria... by your "logic" there should be no CF-18s in Syria, yes? More pointedly, since when do "bomb trucks" provide troop coverage? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2015 Report Posted December 22, 2015 Gee, it's almost like Trudeau doesn't want Canadian CF-18s supporting Canadian Forces on the ground. Why ? What is he saving it for...war with Russia ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 22, 2015 Report Posted December 22, 2015 Oh look...what a big surprise...Canada's Defence Minister does not rule out procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35A JSF. After all, the election is over, and Trudeau's political suckers can't take their votes back. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-refuses-to-rule-out-f-35-from-fighter-jet-replacement-competition-1.3375507 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 22, 2015 Report Posted December 22, 2015 Oh look...what a big surprise...Canada's Defence Minister does not rule out procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35A JSF. After all, the election is over, and Trudeau's political suckers can't take their votes back. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-refuses-to-rule-out-f-35-from-fighter-jet-replacement-competition-1.3375507 Only problem is there will now be an open competition. So bye bye bomb truck. Quote
waldo Posted December 22, 2015 Report Posted December 22, 2015 Oh look...what a big surprise...Canada's Defence Minister does not rule out procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35A JSF. After all, the election is over, and Trudeau's political suckers can't take their votes back. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-refuses-to-rule-out-f-35-from-fighter-jet-replacement-competition-1.3375507 if Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, "ducking the question"... twice... is your preferred interpretation of "not ruling out the F-35! The article is a helpful reminder on the Trudeau Liberal government's intent to define Canada's requirements prior to actually making a selection choice... as contrasted with what the AG Michael Ferguson found: Michael Ferguson's 2012 investigation found that the statement of requirements, an important document that sets out what the military needs in a piece of equipment, was written after the Conservative government had signaled its intention to buy the F-35. . Quote
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.