Canada's New Defence Minister

[Stoker]

My mind's not made up about the CF-18's -- pro:  if the house is burning, it's a good idea to help put out the fire; con:  how much (numbers-wise) are we actually helping put out the fire, and is the overall firefighting approach an effective one?).

If I were of the "GTFO" persuasion, I could say, "our jets (as well as those of several other countries) have been there for a while, and didn't stop the Paris attacks, so how much will more of the same help?" 

There's more than one way to stand with France at a time like this than keeping jets in theatre.

I agree to a point but the perception to the public for example dropping bombs on "bad guys" is a powerful one. IF we were to pull out at some point it should be later given the events in Paris. I think this is not the right time.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Notwithstanding my long held (and not shared by much of anyone) views on refugee policy, my concern is not with most of the 25,000, it is with that pesky "small part" that Brad mentioned ~ a "small part" which might, I fear, slip through our security screen due to a political campaign promise.

    (By the way, we, as a nation, did well by (for) and from the Hungarian refugees in 1956, the Ugandan Asian refugees in 1972 and the Vietnamese boat people 1979/80. Refugees are not and need not always be a burden on society. Sometimes refugees have integrated better
      than immigrants. That doesn't alter my opinion on global refugee policy.)

 

[Haggis]

If I were of the "GTFO" persuasion, I could say, "our jets (as well as those of several other countries) have been there for a while, and didn't stop the Paris attacks, so how much will more of the same help?" 

In their claim of responsibility, ISIS asserted that the presence of French forces in the conflict was the reason for the attack.  Would this not have happened if the French weren't there?

Conversely, without resistance from the coalition, how large and powerful would ISIS be today?

 

[The Bread Guy]

IF we were to pull out at some point it should be later given the events in Paris. I think this is not the right time.

Good point - in addition to "what?", "when?" is an important optical/political factor.

In their claim of responsibility, ISIS asserted that the presence of French forces in the conflict was the reason for the attack.  Would this not have happened if the French weren't there?

Conversely, without resistance from the coalition, how large and powerful would ISIS be today?

Also good points adding to my head scratching ....

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What I do fear is inspired attacks here at home, I fear for some of our Muslim communities that will suffer a backlash over this, I fear that some people will want irrational action on this.

I don't.  Hasn't happened yet.  Can we stop concern-trolling the "backlash" until one actually happens?

 

[George Wallace]

Good to know. As I mentioned before, I despise when people utter buffoonery comments that are so xenophobic even when they try to hide what they really mean. The same person that will make a comment like "these people come over here....", is the same one that will claim "I can't be a racist / xenophobe because I have friends that are x,y,z" which is always crap really and made just for convenience sake  :

We are all biased in our own ways.  It is human nature.  No one is exempt from holding a bias towards something that is foreign or different.  To label anyone/everyone who disagrees with your views as a "Racist" is absurd.  It really pains me that the term "Racist" is so often used by many as a defence of their own opinions and bias.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Perhaps the "fighting aged males" should join the rebels and try and get their country back.

Leaving their families to die?

Easy to talk about this stuff when our children are safe.

 

[Cloud Cover]

If we are to bring them in then we should restrict their movements and have a plan in place to repatriate them to their home country when the situation improves.

Once they are here under the present rush to appease a political promise, it is unlikely they can be forced to go home and anyway, why would we want them to? Maybe in a generation or 2 the offspring will see a prosperous ancestral land for which to return, and we will profoundly miss them as our own population ages with less and less grace. And anyway, who says those families  want to come to Canada if they have other more local options.

I think our strategy should be 3 part- (1) fund refugee resettlement in other countries (2) accept all of those families who wish to come to Canada (ie more or less than 25,000, it doesn't really matter) but (a) first clear them from abroad by putting them on a fast track special purpose immigration process, something with more rigour than an airlift/refugee asylum process that is causing so much concern; and most importantly (3) take every orphaned child out of there and from every country that doesn't want such children  RIGHT NOW. MY GF and I will take 3 or 4, please. I cannot think of a better contribution of guaranteeing a prosperous future for Canada.

As for the military options, we are either in or out and I say "out". It was always known that a ground fight and eventual extermination of sorts is going to be required, and except for the Kurds, Russians and some of Assads forces, no one else is going to do it against Daeesh. The fact is, this was always going to turn into a full scale regional apocalypse between and amongst overarmed countries and non-state actors, and there is nothing that can stop that.           



       


 

 

[Stoker]

Leaving their families to die?

Easy to talk about this stuff when our children are safe.

Yes it is as we don't live in a land racked with strife and I would dearly like to keep it that way. We are fortunate that we live in a land where physical distance has left us relatively unscathed from the turmoil over there. I'm not sure that would be the case if we lived in close to Europe given our current feel good policies. I wonder how Canadians would feel in for instance Germany's current situation.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Once they are here under the present rush to appease a political promise, it is unlikely they can be forced to go home and anyway, why would we want them to? Maybe in a generation or 2 the offspring will see a prosperous ancestral land for which to return, and we will profoundly miss them as our own population ages with less and less grace. And anyway, who says those families  want to come to Canada if they have other more local options.

I think our strategy should be 3 part- (1) fund refugee resettlement in other countries (2) accept all of those families who wish to come to Canada (ie more or less than 25,000, it doesn't really matter) but (a) first clear them from abroad by putting them on a fast track special purpose immigration process, something with more rigour than an airlift/refugee asylum process that is causing so much concern; and most importantly (3) take every orphaned child out of there and from every country that doesn't want such children  RIGHT NOW. MY GF and I will take 3 or 4, please. I cannot think of a better contribution of guaranteeing a prosperous future for Canada.

As for the military options, we are either in or out and I say "out". It was always known that a ground fight and eventual extermination of sorts is going to be required, and except for the Kurds, Russians and some of Assads forces, no one else is going to do it against Daeesh. The fact is, this was always going to turn into a full scale regional apocalypse between and amongst overarmed countries and non-state actors, and there is nothing that can stop that.           

I'm not against refugees or racist but I think there are legitimate long term concerns that need to be looked at.

- are we accepting certain tribes only or refugees from all tribes? If all, are we vetting to make sure we're not importing current problems?

- what's the vetting process and what paperwork is required? Syria, as recently as 5 years ago, was calling for Israel to be removed from the face of the earth. Can we make sure we're not bringing in anti-semi Ted or hezbollah supporters?

- are we vetting for certain skills (doctors for example) or just allowing all pers in?

- are we checking for medical issues such as PTSD/OSI and signs of early childhood trauma? If pers have these symptoms how are we making (potentially lifelong) support available?


On a personal level it bothers me that were fast tracking Syrians ahead of other refugees with equally agregious circumstances. What about Iraqis or afghans? Sudanese? Aside from social media outrage why us the Syrian plight such that we should FastTrack one people over another? It feels like an attempt at political points

There are a million questions and I don't believe they can be appropriately answered by Christmas. 

As for no one going into Syria,  I suspect France has been motivated to act. I do sincerely hope that we don't import our own reasons

 

[Jed]

Sorry, but he said: "Should we fear it? No." Well, I beg to differ. ISIL is using tactics (terrorism) that are designed to spread fear, and, as we can see in Europe, today, it works. Canadians should be apprehensive about this government's plans to fast track 25,000 "refugees" (almost all of whom will be, no doubt, decent folks who just want a chance) because a "small part" of that 25,000 are possibly, indeed likely, to be radicals bent on using terror tactics against Canadian soft targets.

It's no secret that I oppose the entire refugee scheme ... I think that converting the "fast track" election promise to policy is wrong, even dangerous because I fear it will offer a free visa to terrorists.

So I repeat my assertion that Minister Sajjan, and the entire Trudeau regime, needs to give his head a shake.

That is a very appropriate observation; however hard for our newly minted PM and MOD to hoist aboard.

 

[opcougar]

I concur...well said.

>What I do fear is inspired attacks here at home, I fear for some of our Muslim communities that will suffer a backlash over this, I fear that some people will want irrational action on this.

I don't.  Hasn't happened yet. Can we stop concern-trolling the "backlash" until one actually happens?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Our contribution of CF-18's is symbolic and adds nothing to the operational and tactical campaigns.

Rather than repeating myself...

http://army.ca/forums/threads/121105/post-1400757.html#msg1400757

Please, let's stop saying things that aren't accurate.  I get it, many CAF mbr's don't like fighter types for whatever reasons.  The ONLY assets we have that are actually doing something that involves directly targeting ISIS forces are the same CF-18s you suggest are "adding nothing to the operational and tactical campaigns".  They are the only folks with the ROE and gear to strike, and they are striking.

 

[Good2Golf]

Rather than repeating myself...

http://army.ca/forums/threads/121105/post-1400757.html#msg1400757

Please, let's stop saying things that aren't accurate.  I get it, many CAF mbr's don't like fighter types for whatever reasons.  The ONLY assets we have that are actually doing something that involves directly targeting ISIS forces are the same CF-18s you suggest are "adding nothing to the operational and tactical campaigns".  They are the only folks with the ROE and gear to strike, and they are striking.

:nod:

To further reinforce what EITS notes above, back 16 years ago in Kosovo, under UN Operation ALLIED FORCE, even though Canadian CF-18s didn't have much of the sophisticated targeting and link equipment their contemporaries had, six, then 12 then 18 CF-18s were deployed to support an air campaign to halt Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo.  Our CF-18s lead numerous missions, significantly out of proportion to the size of the Canadian fleet -- numerous references note CF-18s represented just 2% of the allied air assets, but conducted close to 10% of the strike missions. 

It would be reasonable to consider that the technologically upgraded CF-18s operating in the skies over Syria would be considered by allies to be contributing significantly.

Regards
G2G

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Rather than repeating myself...

http://army.ca/forums/threads/121105/post-1400757.html#msg1400757

Please, let's stop saying things that aren't accurate.  I get it, many CAF mbr's don't like fighter types for whatever reasons.  The ONLY assets we have that are actually doing something that involves directly targeting ISIS forces are the same CF-18s you suggest are "adding nothing to the operational and tactical campaigns".  They are the only folks with the ROE and gear to strike, and they are striking.

You only reaffirm that CAF membership is at times "our own worst enemy".  The Army takes the cake in this regard.  People in the CAF need to stop being John Madden and actually support what our guys are doing over there.  Put the petty service rivalries to the side and stop talking out of your lanes.

Infantry shouldn't be injecting themselves in to every conversation about fighter jets and telling the Pilots and Aviators how they should be doing their jobs.

 

[Haggis]

Infantry shouldn't be injecting themselves in to every conversation about fighter jets and telling the Pilots and Aviators how they should be doing their jobs.

Please, search the boards and find a post where I told an aviator - or any other trade - how to do his/her job.  My opinions were directed towards the policy and utility of having those assets engaged.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Please, search the boards and find a post where I told an aviator - or any other trade - how to do his/her job.  My opinions were directed towards the policy and utility of having those assets engaged.

Point highlighted in yellow for you.  Did you know that the Kurds just captured Sinjar Mountain from ISIS?  I'll give you a little geography lesson:


https://goo.gl/maps/Yj3MHU1GJpr

Sinjar Mountain is the dominant high feature on the road between Raqqa and Mosul, capturing it allows the occupant to control the main supply route between ISIS two main strongholds.  The Kurds just recaptured it and have essentially cut ISIS supply lines in two.  ISIS is now forced to use desert routes which take far longer and also expose them to additional risk. 

Guess who helped the Kurds capture Sinjar?  Canadian Special Forces, supported by CF18 aircraft who dropped bombs on ISIS positions.  Yep our planes sure are useless over there  :

EDIT:

I don't get some folks in the CAF sometimes.  These guys killed two of our own, on home soil and they want to kill more of us if they get the chance.  Why the heck do we not want to be over there bombing them?  Are we sheep or are we wolves? 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Sheepdogs maybe?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sheepdogs maybe?

Some are, the jury is out on the rest though.

 

[Haggis]

Some are, the jury is out on the rest though.

The farther you get from the threat the more you become sheep and less dog.