Smallc Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 Don't we have an obligation to do more than that when fighting terrorists? We don't have an obligation to do anything. Quote
Smallc Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 It's a good move to pull out our fighter jets... I agree, if only for the aspect of collateral damage in a fight that isn't ours. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 Don't we have an obligation to do more than that when fighting terrorists? I think the first obligation should be having a strategy that provides some level of assurance we're going to stop creating new problems. Let's look at the history. Supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan allowed the Taliban to gain power and that provided a base for Al Qaeda to flourish. Deposing Saddam allowed Al Qaeda to set up shop in Iraq. Then in the ensuing years of civil war in Iraq produced ISIS. So, until somebody can come up with a convincing narrative about how all of this will have a happy ending, it seems like we should stop bombing people. 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
WestCoastRunner Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 I agree, if only for the aspect of collateral damage in a fight that isn't ours. I think the fight has become ours due to the terrorist attack on the Russian flight full of families. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Smallc Posted November 4, 2015 Report Posted November 4, 2015 I think the fight has become ours due to the terrorist attack on the Russian flight full of families. I don't see how that makes it our fight. We really don't even know who we're fighting any more. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 I don't see how that makes it our fight. We really don't even know who we're fighting any more. U.S. Intel suggests ISIS. And any Canadian could have been on that plane. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Derek 2.0 Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 The French don't even have all of their Rafales yet - they won't be retiring them any time soon. As for the F-18 contract - I had misread about the change. The rest of the information comes from everything I've read. There's no reason boring could not set up a facility for maintenance in Winnipeg, and no reason Dassault could not find a partner to build the Rafalr here, as MD did with the F-18 decades ago. Boeing isn't Bombardier is the reason.......Boeing will not invest in a maintenance facility for Super Hornets in Canada when they already have one in the United States. Furthermore, our Hornets weren't built in Canada, but St Louis.......If we want said facility, we will have to pay for it. And there is no reason that Dassault couldn't.......other than there being no industry partner presently capable of doing so in Canada. If they did, the result would cost a fortune, which again, business wise would be a stupid move for Dassault as they can barely keep their French production line open....so again, if we wanted Rafales produced in Canada, we too would pay for that. Boeing, Airbus and Dassault aren't Bombardier, as they are all profitable companies managed with a level of business sense. Trudeau's first moves towards our aerospace industry will/could see him cut the collective throats of the Canadian companies that are profitable, that being apart of the F-35 program have brought them collectively into the forefront of 21st century technology,in a program that will span decades.......instead, billions will be "invested" into Bombardier for little gain to the Canadian aerospace sector.......I don't know of any economist or industry insider that feels putting money into Bombardier is a smart investment. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 U.S. Intel suggests ISIS. And any Canadian could have been on that plane. Exactly, the fight against radical Islamic terrorists is no more or no less our fight than the fight against Nazism during the Second World War.... Quote
Smallc Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) I don't know of any government that will let Bombardier fail, either. The same could have been said about the Canadian auto industry, yet we did that. We're probably not going to get the F-35. We're probably going to get something else - probably the Super Hornet or the Rafale based on price, industrial offsets, and a whole host of factors that favour them. Off course, according to you, we still have PM Harper commanding a solid majority. We'll leave the futurecast to the future this time, I think. I'm not posting on this particular point any further, as to prevent thread drift. Edited November 5, 2015 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 Exactly, the fight against radical Islamic terrorists is no more or no less our fight than the fight against Nazism during the Second World War.... I was in agreement with that until reading recent articles. The reality is, we don't know who the good guys are, or the bad guys. Quote
Smallc Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 Furthermore, our Hornets weren't built in Canada, but St Louis.......If we want said facility, we will have to pay for it. My mistake Quote
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 I was in agreement with that until reading recent articles. The reality is, we don't know who the good guys are, or the bad guys. It's true there are few uniforms in the fight, but that's no reason not to fight. Have to rely on intel a bit more than we'd like and take as much care as possible to only kill those who need it. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 I was in agreement with that until reading recent articles. The reality is, we don't know who the good guys are, or the bad guys. You don't know who blew the Russian flight out of the sky? Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
WestCoastRunner Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 Ahhh. Dog whistle forum post. Only heard by dogs, not audible to humans. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Smallc Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 It's true there are few uniforms in the fight, but that's no reason not to fight. Have to rely on intel a bit more than we'd like and take as much care as possible to only kill those who need it. Yeah, but who do we side with in this anymore? It's getting very grey. Quote
Smallc Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) You don't know who blew the Russian flight out of the sky? I'm not seeing how that makes it our problem. And no actually, I don't. Edited November 5, 2015 by Smallc Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 I'm not seeing how that makes it our problem. And no actually, I don't. I'd say terrorist attacks on international flights is very much an international problem. Quote
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 Yeah, but who do we side with in this anymore? It's getting very grey. I think we have to side with whoever is fighting to destroy radical Islam, anywhere. A secondary consideration would be getting rid of Assad. Both worthy goals though. Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 I think we have to side with whoever is fighting to destroy radical Islam, anywhere. A secondary consideration would be getting rid of Assad. Both worthy goals though. The problem being that with Russia's clear support of Assad, the two goals may be mutually contradictory. Quote
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 The problem being that with Russia's clear support of Assad, the two goals may be mutually contradictory. Listening to the BBC World Service today, it appears Russian steadfastness in the cause of Assad might be wavering. For the first time they have spoken of him going. Maybe Iran won't have it though. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 I think we have to side with whoever is fighting to destroy radical Islam, anywhere. A secondary consideration would be getting rid of Assad. Both worthy goals though. Because our war on "radical Islam" has been so marvelously effective so far? 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
Guest Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 Because our war on "radical Islam" has been so marvelously effective so far? No, because it's necessary. Obviously, it hasn't been too effective. They're still around. Quote
Big Guy Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 Regarding the OP - one of the few things that a leader of a country can do is to give people hope and try to make them feel good about themselves. The great leaders in American and Britain were able to do that to their countries in time of tragedy. I think Trudeau is capable of doing that. I watched the staged performance to-day that actually looked spontaneous but it still made me proud to be a Canadian and seemed to have the same effect on everybody else who was there and who commented on it. Well done Justin, it looks like you were ready. 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.
Smallc Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 I'd say terrorist attacks on international flights is very much an international problem. And we link it to bombing ISIS how? Quote
Smallc Posted November 5, 2015 Report Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) I think we have to side with whoever is fighting to destroy radical Islam, anywhere. It's not clear to me that anyone involved is on that side. Edited November 5, 2015 by Smallc 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.