• Announcements

    • Greg

      New Members Please Read   10/07/2016

      New forum members should review the Forum Rules and GuidelinesĀ before contributing to the discussion forums. Also note, new forum members need to post in an existing thread at least ONCE before they can post a new topic.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. ...and that is because the USofA has reneged on the safe third country agreement. Through its deport everyone and their dog policy it is no longer a safe third country. Canada's policy hasn't changed at all, only the USofA's has.
  3. I don't care whether you agree with me or not. Read the article. I'm just saying what his own father had said: he's Somali. His own dad ought to know. :shrug:
  4. Exactly, or NORAD..........but the last combat counter air missions the RCAF actually took part in was the UN sanctioned air policing over Libya.
  5. I have no idea, the Libyan air force pretty much ceased to exist after several days of UN sanctioned counter-air patrols and deep interdiction by the Allies. But the enforcement of the Libyan no-fly-zone was the last anti-air combat mission performed by the RCAF.
  6. You can't fly CAP missions for NATO if not prepared for air-to-air combat. What's next...Canadian ships that don't have to float ?
  7. Were they fired upon by other aircraft, or did they fire on other aircraft during these sorties?
  8. The last air to air combat sorties RCAF fighters took part in were the Libyan conflict......before that, operations over the FRY and before that the first Gulf War...
  9. But it wasn't just vocal masses...it was Canada's ruling government and Parliament as well, cheering on the A-stan mission as far more legal and moral than the invasion of Iraq, which had yet to even happen. Canada couldn't do both, so Afghanistan it would be.
  10. When was the last actual air to air combat a Canadian Forces fighter was involved in?
  11. And provide a capability that any nation with modern smart weapons can perform with a real fighter..........modern smart weapons made the B-52 and B-1 two of the most capable ground attack aircraft ever. Super Tucanos would be worthless against a foe with semi modern air defenses, meanwhile would suck resources from a force like the RCAF daily, resources better applied to a modern force of fighters.
  12. I can tell you I was not there. I was against Afghanistan from long before, but yes there were all sorts of calls for bombing those goat herders back to the 7th century. Like I do today, I was then trying to voice an opposition to those vocal masses. Trenton/Bellville is a military town, so it is hard to say how representative those voices were of mainstream Canadians compared to the family & close neighbours to those who were being sent on a mission and expressing their direct support. It is always hard to tell the mainstream opinion from the vocal masses, and we don't get asked in this pseudo democracy we run under. I don't know what polling was done in the early days, I know that there were a lot of polls around 2008 timeframe that showed Canadians against the mission, where Americans didn't really turn until 2014 or so. A big part of the problem was the statements coming out of the Whitehouse that Americans and Canadians alike bought into. Remember the perception was we were going into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden.
  13. Today
  14. Sure is, namely when the Trudeau government has stressed the importance of keeping our NATO and NORAD commitments, Hornets in Eastern Europe. Likewise NORAD, the "threat" of air-to-air combat with Russian fighters, newly rebased in their Arctic, is another potential challenge.
  15. And I fully agree, and have been warning against mixed fleets for years............as they suggested, it it were necessary, we could purchase legacy Hornets from forces retiring theirs....case in point, Kuwait is soon to be retiring their F/A-18C Hornets (Hornets nearly ten years newer than ours) and there is no reason we couldn't purchase the entire fleet and perform any required upgrades for a fraction of the cost of "interim" Super Hornets.
  16. Maybe it's just me but I don't agree with your assertion about his identity.
  17. I know...Canada would rather buy the Queen a new hat than decent kit for Canadian Forces...so much cheaper.
  18. Canada belongs to the British Commonwealth and we do have partners there and like said, IF the USA would stop doing "our interest" we wouldn't have so many wars.
  19. Farther and farther away from God, a step by step fall.
  20. Yeah the muslims are here to get us overhear. They are stripping us of our values. Trudeau is a softie. Canada needs a prime minister that kicks all muslims out. That way me and you will feel better about it.
  21. It is one of the main requirements of a Fighter / bomber or multi role aircraft are you saying that is not a role Canada needs.........
  22. Something does not compute. WE have a new member (Alexboyking) who's posted only 3 posts so far. He has -3 on his rep. So I gave him a plus for each of his 3 posts - how come he's still minus 1? Shouldn't it be neutral?
  23. The question here is What are Canada's options , get on board with NATO Requests and come up with a 10 year plan to be at 2 % GDP......Or rethink our defensive commitments, which would cut Canada away from the grown up tabler totally....At least for the NATO, NORAD tables....but also our other alliances such as the US, UK , Australia, New Zealand, Can defensive pack.... Leaving us with what just the UN, there is an option.....not...
  24. The safe third country agreement is about each country accepting back foreigners that attempt to cross at official border crossings. Yes, perhaps it could be extended to cover illegal crossings, but that would be up to the Americans to agree to accept them back and the same for us. Certainly it is worth exploring some more with the Americans. I agree that putting more resources to clearing cases faster sounds like a good solution. I haven't heard if it has been tried, and what the challenges would be.
  25. Now there is an idea with no traction at all, lets not send them to places like Afghanistan.....Who is not going to send them...The government....Citizens.....Who.... i remember my first tour to Afghanistan, Thousands were lined up along the fences in trenton Ont , 3.30 am cheering us on, shouting things like get some, show them goat herders who is boss...The very fact that the Majority of Canadians were in favor of the early Afghan mission....and that would continue until we moved south into Kanadar.....once s steady supply of deed soldiers started returning home.....that is when people shut it down.....Yes they had started to voice opinions about camouflage and open air Ilitis jeeps, But every dog and pony show that DND did for politicians, soldiers would freely voice their opinions, we need Transport helos, attack helos, to reduce the number one killer of Canadian soldiers, IED's .....what was the return answer ....lack of funding.....until the point they :the government " where forced to rent, "Russian" helos, which no one really knew if they were going to fall out of the air or not..... then we leased some American helos CH 47D, then we bought some, they were delivered well after we had exited Afghanistan..... As for attack helos....well we had the Griffons....limited to how much weight they could carry due to armour, and wpns....so no extra personal...... And once we were there , Canada just forgot about them, with no support from the citizens , funding for equipment dried up....soldiers got bent over the table, and stripped of everything.....I remember it got to the point we the soldiers were funding things like building new fire halls, clinics, and schools out of donations from soldiers own pockets.....at the mid way point Afghan stopped being Canada's mission.....and became DND's....they were paying out the bills, they were doing all the work, without support for back home, all Canadians were interested in was POW mistreatment made by a professor who was not even in Ottawa, attacks by diplomatic corp, because it was a DND mission, the diplomats had all screwed off under ground....after the last minister died in a IED attack.... My point here is WHO is not going to send troops into places like these....the government .....Ya right......the citizens.....they don't give a rats ass....
  26. Not sure this is true given the 'safe third country' treaty we signed with the Americans. The only specific suggestions I have I already made, which is appointing sufficient adjudicators to hear their cases quickly, and then pulling them out of our regular court system and setting up separate courts which will hear their appeals in a quick and timely fashion so that they can't stay here for years worth of appeals. This will cost money but less than the cost of feeding and sheltering them for years.
  27. You're right, but I wasn't looking for individual nations. The visa office in London for example, handles visa applications for a number of other countries, but if a huge number of Irish overwhelmed it so that there were many more applications than it had visas to offer the number I asked for would still say that this office had many more applications than it could issue vias for. And you can't choose which office to apply to. If you are in Ireland you must apply in London for example. If you are in Pakistan, you must apply to the Abu Dhabi office. If you are in Iran you must apply to the office in Ankara. All I was really looking for was supply/demand mix and raw numbers for the regions.
  1. Load more activity