OT - Canada sending 6 F-18 fighter jets to battle ISIS

Page 1 of 2  
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 crippled.
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 parades?
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2014-11-02 6:17 PM, nestork wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

he has probably been dealing with the French recently.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 00:17:39 +0100, nestork

another 183 on order.
Providing 6 CFs requires over 300 men to support them - we are also providing air-air refueling tankers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca;3303940 Wrote: >

"tankers" (?) Yes, I had heard about an Orion refueling tanker, but I thought it was just the one plane? Is Canada providing more than one refueling tanker?
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nestork wrote:

If we drop tactical nuke bombs or carpet bomb them maybe...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 nothing.
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/2/2014 6:17 PM, nestork wrote:

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 www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, November 3, 2014 8:44:27 AM UTC-5, Robert Macy wrote:

Yeah, sure, the USA deliberately told Saddam it was OK to invade Kuwait. I suppose you believe the USA attacked ourselves on 911 too. Loon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
I

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4;3304057 Wrote: >

> Kuwait.

Trader:
"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.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 him anyway?
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 ambassador said?

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:37:22 -0700, nestork

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. ..Amazing difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or the Canadian money?
--
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman;3304196 Wrote: >

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.
http://tinyurl.com/p4hx4lj
http://tinyurl.com/mxknvj7
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 Bay Comany.
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' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loonie)
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.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
'Oren[_2_ Wrote: > ;3304478']On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 04:09:06 +0100, nestork

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 coin.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 23:25:21 +0100, nestork

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:39:38 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I've seen and heard them in northern Illinois, Chain-O-Lakes when I was a kid. Neat sound they make.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    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.