So, I'm watching the news on TV, and there's a Pentagon spokesman saying
how pleased and happy the Pentagon is that Canada is sending six F-18
fighter jets to join the other coalition forces in bombing the ISIS
militants in Syria and Iraq.
And, this Pentagon guy is really playing it up... as though Canada's
role in this military operation was central to the whole thing, and if
it weren't for Canada's measely 6 jets, the whole operation would be
It occurs to me that:
1. this Pentagon guy is trying to make the Canadian viewers feel good
about their minimal contribution and is avoiding the blindingly obvious
fact that 6 fighter jets is not a big contribution for a medium size
country like Canada.
2. there are probably about 24 or 25 F-18 fighter jets on each and every
American aircraft carrier that gets sent into the region, so 6 lously
planes is hardly a major contribution to fight ISIS.
It seemed to me that the elephant in the room was the fact that six
fighter jets is hardly a significant contribution to a war effort that
may last for years, and it's probable that our government doesn't want
to commit to any more than that because they know they'll be paying to
support those 6 jets in Kuwait for years to come. Also, they're
concerned that if any of those planes get shot down, and the pilot
survives, they may have to be negotiating with ISIS to spare his/her
life. So, they don't want to have to deal with that mess at home if a
Canadian gets decapitated by ISIS.
I just feel embarassed that Canada's contribution of 6 F-18's probably
isn't significantly more than what Belguim or Holland are sending. We
are a medium power in the world, and can send more jets, but our
government just doesn't want this to turn into a public relations mess
if one of our pilots gets captured by ISIS.
Besides, if there were ever a need to destroy someone or something, then
ISIS would be at the top of the list because they won't stop trying to
destroy us. What else are we going to do with our military? Make
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:17:10 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
I'd say it's more likely he's trying to make it look like that the few of
Obama's alleged coalition of 60 countries that are actually doing anything,
are doing more than they really are. You're right that it's not a lot, but
it's at least something and more than most other countries are doing.
I would think the number is 3X+ that. As I recall, an aircraft carrier,
fully loaded, has close to 100 planes total.
Yes, all that is probably true. You also have to wonder at what point the
overhead to coordinate 6 planes is worth the trouble. Are those planes under
US control? Who and where does the missions have to be approved, etc.
Frontline just had an hour show tracing the rise of ISIS since the US left
Iraq. If you can find it online, it's very interesting. Frontline isn't a
conservative leaning or anti-Obama bunch, yet it's clear that they lay most
of the blame on his actions and inactions. You have advisers from the US
Embassy in Baghdad, US Ambassador, etc all saying Obama was informed for years
of what was happening, how the situation was deteriorating, and Obama did
Perhaps most interesting is where Iraq started to go off course. It appears
to be another moment like before the first Gulf War, when the US ambassador to
Iraq made some remarks to Saddam that he thought were innocent. Back then,
the ambassador said that the US didn't have a position on the border dispute
between Iraq and Kuwait. Saddam took that as a green light to invade Kuwait.
This time, as the last US troops were leaving Iraq, Maliki came here for a
visit. While here, he was informed of a plot by some of the VP's security
staff to allegedly overthrow him. He told Obama about it. Obama told him
you're your own country now, responsible for your own security, you'll have
to deal with it as you need to.... Maliki took that as a green light and
promptly had the Sunni VP and his security forces arrested. From then on he abused the Sunni's, arresting Parliament members on trumped up charges,
purging them from the military and police, shooting them, etc. That lead
to the Sunnis doing a total flip. While they had helped the US in the surge
to defeat Al Qaeda, they now welcomed ISIS as being their savior from Maliki.
And apparently the most the US did was have Biden occasionally say, "That's
not nice", while the US looked the other way.
This bunch in Wash DC are blame shifters. When the war
goes bad, they need some one to blame. I suspect the
credit now, is setting you up for taking the responsibility
later. That's my best guess.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
You forgot the 'personal' communication from George Sr. [that letter makes
great reading] the letter sent by the Female amabssoador, AND the constant
'innocent' comments you mention. No, the scenario looked orhestrated, not
an oversight. One of the reasons Saddam called George Sr a liar.
Uh, I READ that letter. Saddam sought 'formal' approval and received it. I
HEARD the full context of the Amabassdor's speech in response to his
verbally requesting authorization.
Exactly why are you asking me to rewrite history? These thing happened.
Saying they didn't does NOT make it so.
To FORGET the facts and go along with the premise of lies, now THAT is
being a loon.
On Monday, November 3, 2014 12:07:02 PM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:
Please provide a link to that letter where Saddam sought formal approval from
the USA to invade Kuwait and receieved it.
It wasn't a speech. It was at a meeting between Saddam and the ambassador.
Why on earth would an ambassador ever give such an alleged "authorization"
in a speech? Good grief.
I'll take you off the loon list as soon as you provide a credible link
to the alleged formal approval letter and the ambassador's alleged speech.
Kook, conspiracy theorist websites don't count as credible.
"Loon" as in short for "lunatic" or loon as in a large aquatic bird?
I too heard that prior to the first Gulf war, the Iraqi government
informed the US ambassador in Iraq that Iraq was planning to invade
Kuwait to recover war reparations for Iraq's war with Iran. The
response of the US Ambassador (presumably OK'd by Washington) was that
the USA had no interest in "internal" Iraqi affairs. Iraq had long held
the position that Kuwait always was, and still is, a province of Iraq.
That response effectively told Hussein that the USA would not take any
action if Iraq invaded Kuwait.
That's what I heard on the TV news, and I am neither a lunatic nor a
large aquatic bird.
On Monday, November 3, 2014 2:17:11 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
What you heard was either wrong or you don't remember it correctly. Iraq
had a long running dipute over the location of it's border with Kuwait.
What happened was the US Ambassador had a meeting with Saddam and told
him that the US had no opinion on that Arab-Arab issue, meaning they
should resolve it themselves. Iraq never told the US that they were going
to invade. I don't think anyone really knows what exactly the US
ambassador was specifically told to say or not to say, versus her own
choice of words. There was no informing the US ahead of time of their
invasion plan. Given all of Saddams behavior that's on the record, do you really think he's actually tell the US or anyone else, that he was going to invade Kuwait? Or that he gave a damn what the US or anyone ever told
Iraq had long held
If that response was in fact given to actually being informed that Saddam planned to invade, that would be true. As it was given, the intent was
that they should settle the dispute between themselves. She should have
included the word "peacefully", or better yet said something like "the
US has no position on the issue, as long as it's settled peacefully".
Even if she had, it's not very likely Saddam would have done anything
differently. He's run his own show all along, defying the USA, UN, Arab
neighbors, etc. Even with 400,000 international troops on his border,
about to invade, he still refused the simple cooperation with the UN
weapons inspectors that would have avoided obvious disaster for his country
and his own death. You really think he gave a damn about what an
Then you too should be able to provide us with a link to a credible
source that says the US was informed by Saddam that he intended to invade
Kuwait. Kook websites don't count.
I NEVER trust news when it is condensed by a commentator, too much is
stripped from the information and too much is 'shaped' to meet someone's
agenda. However, I do trust actual interviews, actual words said, and you
can catch all the lieing and nuances of delivery for yourself. In this
case I READ the letter. I HEARD our Ambassador. These were real events. In
my mind Saddam was misled, on purpose.
I wish our news did MORE reporting and LESS digesting. But then again,
even actual feed must be taken carefully, due to judicious editing. Best
example was Clinton at D-Day celebration, where according to our news, it
was erroneously reported that he adequately handled a 'heckler' in the
audience. The bits and pieces shown, indeed made Clinton look composed and
intelligent and somewhat wrongfully 'assaulted verbally'. However, when I
saw the total feed, I was flabbergasted at how much shaping was done! The
'heckler' lost his son at D-Day and was merely voicing the question, [very
articulately, along the line of] What right do you, a known draft-dodger,
have to preside at this ceremony. Your very presence here is a travesty to
the memory of all these brave souls who died here. From memory, he was
cheered, which of course was placed AFTER Clinton's bumbling response.
For those in here that live too far south to encounter Canadian money in
their day-to-day affairs, what Kurt and Oren are referring to is the
Canadian $1 coin.
Since 1989, Canada has not had a paper $1 bill. It was replaced,
starting in 1987, with a coin which featured Queen Elizabeth's head on
one side and a loon swimming in a lake on the other. Loons are large
aquatic birds native to the Canadian north. I don't know if they
migrate or not.
The picture Oren linked to in his post is very similar to the loon
depicted on the Canadian $1 coin.
It is interesting to note that the original design for the $1 coin had
an image of voyageurs paddling a canoe. "Voyageurs" were the original
fur traders that opened up the country by trading trinkets to the
natives for animal pelts that were shipped back to England by the Hudson
Unfortunately, the master dies that were produced in Ottawa were lost in
transit to the Canadian Mint's production facility in Winnipeg. Our
government was concerned about the possibility that whomever had those
dies could counterfeit the coin, so they hurredly came up with a new
design which still featured Queen Elizabeth's image on one side, but a
picture of a loon swimming in a lake in front of a small island on the
other side, instead of the paddling voyageurs. That way, the dies that
featured the voyageurs would be worthless to whomever had them.
Apparantly, the whole kerfuffel came about because the Ottawa department
that produced the master dies found that they could save $43 by sending
the dies by courier (like UPS or Purolator) instead of using the
government's own internal mail system. That $43 dollar price difference
and the resulting theft of the dies is the reason why we have a loon on
our dollar coin instead of the image originally used on Canadian silver
dollar coins of voyageurs paddling a canoe. Those original master dies
have never been recovered.
And, because the depicted bird is a loon, the coin quickly became known
as a "loonie".
'Loonie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'
Some years later when the Canadian $2 bill was replaced by a coin
depicting a polar bear on it, that coin quickly became known as a
"two-nie", although a lot of people wanted to call it a "doubloon-ie"
after the medieval Spanish gold currency; the dubloon.
I knew there are loons in the lakes in Northern Canada, but I didn't
know that loons lived as far south and New York state.
I've never seen a loon, or at least, never recognized those large birds
I have seen as loons. Most people wouldn't know anything about loons if
it weren't for their image being on the back of the Canadian dollar
areas in late October to early November.
Loons spend the winter season along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of
Mexico coasts. Some loons winter on inland reservoirs.
Loons return to northern forested lakes and rivers in the springtime,
usually in April or early May. The breeding range includes Alaska and
much of Canada south to portions of Washington, Idaho, Montana, North
Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Maine.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.