# War.....Is it coming ?



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tensions between Iran and the US have certainly ramped up quickly.

The "intelligence" guys on Twitter said it was building up. They can tell by military asset movements and their predictions were pretty accurate.

Problem now is what does Trump do ? Iran, Russia, and China are all best buddies now. They recently held joint military exercises.

Trump pledged getting out of the ME and now he may be forced to send thousands of troops into harm's way, during an election year.

Listening to Arwen Damon in Iraq for CNN, it is a screwed up situation. The "militia" we hear about on the news are actually Iraqis who belong to the Iraqis military.

Some of them were killed, so the Iraqi public view the American attack as an assault on their sovereign nation that killed their citizens. Everyone is fighting everyone over there.

The Iraqi government may order the US to leave. If they do, will the US pack up and go ? 

It is doubtful the Kurds will want anything to do with aiding the US now after getting thrown under the bus by Trump. That would mean significantly more US troops needed.

I guess the world waits and watches to see what happens, but I sure hope Canada doesn't get involved at all.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

While this is all going on and North Korea rattles the chains, is President Trump in the White House situation room with his finger on the pulse of the crisis ?

Well....no. Actually, he is in Florida golfing and tweeting dire warnings to Iran, North Korea and Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

What I've observed in the past is that when war really is coming, you see pretty close alignment from media mouthpieces in allied countries as all governments try to put out pro-war propaganda to prepare the public. Monitor CBC, BBC, and US outlets like CNN and Fox News.

For example, both leading up to invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as the more recent invasions of Syria, I saw the allied countries' media putting out similar propaganda pieces. This included the CBC, which started running stories on how evil and horrible the enemy is. The CBC also ran human interest stories focusing on the plight of downtrodden people in these places. In fact I remember how significantly these stories increased when Harper was preparing to bomb Syria in 2014.

Watch and listen closely and you will even see stories sprinkled among them that paint whatever group has allied with the west as saviours and heros. This is also part of the prelude to warfare: it's framing the story in the minds of the public, of who is the "bad guy" and who are the "good guys".

A sudden surge in highly *emotional* content (watch for themes like baby killing & rape) is, I think, a good indication of organized pre-war propaganda. Again the point isn't so much the story of the atrocities but rather the surge in the amount of reporting, and the volume of stories on the topic.

These propaganda tactics are incredibly effective. Here at CMF, back in those years, people would post daily on threads supporting the official propaganda lines. The media puts out the story, and the public latches onto it -- gets on board with the game plan.

People are easily to manipulate.

Note that atrocities happen constantly in the world, and the media generally ignores them or mentions them in passing. There are several horrible governments committing atrocities and mass killings, even genocides as we speak, but it's just not a big deal in the media. When the government wants war, suddenly you hear about a "big deal". I'm talking about watching for recurring, persistent media stories. Especially ones that aim to paint an enemy figure as evil.

Strong emotion. Good versus Evil. The urgent need to do something (war). These are the classic techniques of war propaganda.

~~~

Quick example: Saudi Arabia has been brutalizing Yemen, commiting war crimes by targeting civilians. They spread extremist, radical islam to other countries and support terrorism. But you're not going to wake up to daily news about the horrible Saudis. They are beloved friends of America & the west in general, so that theme does not get air time. My point is that you could easily have just as much news about this and many other countries, but it doesn't happen.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

So with ^ that in mind, when I scan CNN, BBC, CBC right now, I see what looks more like a neutral toned story on the Pentagon strike. Seems to be sticking to facts.

You'd have to watch the media in the coming days but so far this does not look like the classic prelude to war. However if you start seeing stories about horrible atrocities the Iranians commit, or a mountain of stories on what bad things Iran is up to, then... that's trouble.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Pretty much all the **** hole countries are running scared as Trump is a bit more assertive than the last guy. I like the line..."This is not a warning, this is a threat".
I wish he would start a Prime Minister University.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I didn't realize it was considered acceptable for countries to assassinate top generals of other sovereign countries.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What is most disconcerting is the experts saying it doesn't look like there was any US pre-planning for this attack. There were no protective measures taken.

Embassies are only now being fortified and the US government is warning all Americans to leave Iran and Iraq immediately. This could escalate very quickly.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

sags said:


> it doesn't look like there was any US pre-planning for this attack.


It was likely just a random opportunity and Trump seized on it in hope it would change the channel on impeachment.


----------



## redsgomarching (Mar 6, 2016)

gardner said:


> It was likely just a random opportunity and Trump seized on it in hope it would change the channel on impeachment.


or he can stay in office by starting a war.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The US is sending thousands more troops to the area. I was surprised to learn how many US troops currently are in the middle east.

There are 70,000 deployed in the middle east alone, and hundreds of thousands deployed around the world.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It only takes a few key strokes to find out what an ******* this Qassem Soleimani was....killing thousands of innocents and planning more murders. World is a better place today as noted by Iraq celebrating his death.

Anyway I'm out on this subject...I seem to be alone on my view on this terrorist.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I didn't realize it was considered acceptable for countries to assassinate top generals of other sovereign countries.


I think it's acceptable to arrest, kill, or otherwise interfere with the activities and leadership of a terrorist organization. 

Even ignoring the fact that he was the leader of a terrorist organization, if he's launching attacks against US or US allied forces, that's reason enough for them to take him out.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> I think it's acceptable to arrest, kill, or otherwise interfere with the activities and leadership of a terrorist organization.
> 
> Even ignoring the fact that he was the leader of a terrorist organization, if he's launching attacks against US or US allied forces, that's reason enough for them to take him out.


Completely agree, MrMatt. Sheesh, the liberals need to give their heads a shake.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The situation appears to be ramping up and threatening to spin out of control. 

I often play checkers and cribbage online at the pro/expert level and often win the games.

When I play chess online I get destroyed at the pro/expert level.

Trump is playing checkers while the rest of the world is playing chess.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

sags said:


> The situation appears to be ramping up and threatening to spin out of control.
> 
> I often play checkers and cribbage online at the pro/expert level and often win the games.
> 
> ...


I think he's playing tic-tac-toe. Checkers seems above his skill level.

It's likely good that Soleimani is out of the picture. Was there an imminent threat? Probably not, and if there was, taking him out changes nothing. Did it need to be done overtly by the military, or could it has been done covertly by intelligence for a bit of deniability? Up for debate.

The article is a few years old, but very interesting read on the general.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander
Clearly not a good dude, but astute and strategic. The US has negotiated with him many times. They essentially created the Iraq presidency together.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Quick example: Saudi Arabia has been brutalizing Yemen, commiting war crimes by targeting civilians. They spread extremist, radical islam to other countries and support terrorism. But you're not going to wake up to daily news about the horrible Saudis. They are beloved friends of America & the west in general, so that theme does not get air time. My point is that you could easily have just as much news about this and many other countries, but it doesn't happen.


Can you give me a reference supporting the idea that Saudi Arabia is spreading radical Islam and supports terrorism?
What did the radicals in Yemen do to get the attention of Saudi Arabia?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

nobleea said:


> I think he's playing tic-tac-toe. Checkers seems above his skill level.
> 
> It's likely good that Soleimani is out of the picture. Was there an imminent threat? Probably not, and if there was, taking him out changes nothing. Did it need to be done overtly by the military, or could it has been done covertly by intelligence for a bit of deniability? Up for debate.
> 
> ...


And now we learn that Soleimani was acting as an envoy to lower hostilities in the region when he was killed.

So much of what goes on in the middle east is shaded from the view of the people. 

I knew a couple of Kurdish brothers who ran a pizza business here and they said all the Kurds want is to live in peace in their own designated land. 

The Kurds are probably the best "allies" to the west in Iraq and Trump betrayed them to satisfy Turkey. The Saudis were the perpetrators of 911 and killed the journalist.

The Trump administration clearly have no long term plan. They was no advance planning before the attack. US foreign policy is now being run by tweets from President Trump

While all this goes on, the Republicans sit there and say......yea but we got conservative judges. What a nightmare the situation has become.

Given the lack of leadership or accountability, the US could easily stumble into another war. Any new war could be the last war.

_“Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.”_.........JFK.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Pluto said:


> Can you give me a reference supporting the idea that Saudi Arabia is spreading radical Islam and supports terrorism?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_propagation_of_Salafism_and_Wahhabism

Although you might not fully trust Wikipedia as a primary source, the article is chock full of verifiable references. It's not all about terrorism, of course, but the Wahhabi brand attracts and fosters violent freaks -- along with being a pretty dark force on its own.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Saudi Arabia supports the extremist brand of islam and has worked hard (and spent tons of money) spreading wahhabism across the world. They do this by funding religious schools around the world which teach extremist ideology. Wealthy institutions in Saudi Arabia, as arms of the Saudi government, also fund terrorist groups. Some sources:

How Saudi Arabia exports radical Islam
Hillary Clinton acknowledges Saudi terror financing
PBS: Saudi time bomb



> Hillary Clinton writes: “… we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of *Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups* in the region.”


There are indications that a 9/11 hijacker was associated with the government of Saudi Arabia. You can see in The Intercept link (second article) that there were reports that the 9/11 hijacker had extensive contact with Saudi government people.

Let's remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudi Arabian citizens. This isn't accidental. The hijackers were not Iraqis, Afghans, or Iranians.

And yet, the USA has never gone after Saudi Arabia. These American actions against Iran aren't about terrorism. They just throw the word around. If the USA really wanted to stop the spread of radical islam, they would do something about Saudi Arabia.

The reality here is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are enemies (at war basically) and the USA has taken sides with Saudi Arabia. Don't be fooled by this talk about "terrorism"... the goal isn't stopping terrorism or making the middle east safer. The USA is supporting its beloved friend Saudi Arabia in their hostility against Iran.

The USA does what Saudi Arabia asks. The Saudis never liked the nuclear/peace deal with Iran, so the Americans withdrew the deal. Then, the Saudis whined about Iran some more and the US increased sanctions against Iran.

Trump is spineless and has been particularly quick to do whatever the Saudis want.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Worth reading this article from a few months ago:

Saudi First: Trump Wants to Start a War With Iran When MBS Gives the Order



> If a president bowing to the Saudis made conservatives mad in 2009, what do they make of a president effectively putting the Saudis in charge of the U.S. military in 2019?


Trump is basically dragging America -- and possibly the whole middle east -- into conflict based on Saudi directives. Disgusting!


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

With all Trump's rhetoric about cutting back the money America was spending to 'defend' foreign countries ( actually they're protecting American interests ), I thought this might be the beginning of the end of the American global hegemony. Seriously, do they really need 100s of military bases around the world to keep themselves safe?

Now, it looks like he's going to further destabilize the M.E. just so that he can be a strongman president, and distract from the rest of his crappy adminstration's record. There was nothing wrong with the Iran non-nuclearization deal signed by Obama, except that Trump's name wasn't on it, so it was the 'worst deal ever'. Now, possibly many will pay for his ego with their lives.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/president-trump-get-away-murder-court-902756/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think there is ample evidence that Trump's acquiescence to Russia and Saudi Arabia is tied to money.

After numerous bankruptcies and defaults to lenders and suppliers, he couldn't get a loan or credit from anywhere. 

He is involved with Russia for mortgage money and Saudi Arabia grossly overpay for Trump properties to hide what are really a trade of cash bribes for influence.

Trump and family have never been successful at business. His son in law Jared Kushner nearly bankrupted his families business overpaying for an old building in New York that bled cash.

Kushner traveled the world, including to Saudi Arabia searching for funds to bail out his bad investments. Someone must have bailed him out and it wasn't Trump.

Ivanka Trump wrapped up her clothing and perfume business suddenly. The Trump business would have already fallen apart were it not for foreign money propping it up.

Public interest in golf has taken a downturn and there are many places for the wealthy to choose to go. Trump's golf courses are losing money every year.

Some day it will all be revealed. It won't remain hidden forever and Donald Trump's greatest fear is that everything will be revealed to the public.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Let's hope this is unrelated to the conflict, but a passenger plane has crashed shortly after taking off from Tehran.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01...es-imam-khomeini-airport-state-media/11852504



> A Ukrainian Boeing 737 with 180 people on board has crashed due to technical problems after take-off from the Imam Khomeini airport in Tehran, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency says.
> 
> The aircraft was operated by Ukraine International Airlines.
> 
> More to come.


Hopefully this is nothing like the passenger jet that the USA shot down in 1988, after it took off from Iran. The US military killed 290 innocent civilians in that unprovoked attack.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Additionally: Iran fires more than a dozen missiles at two US bases in Iraq
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954

Can't believe Trump can be this reckless. He's putting Canadian lives at risk too.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That is already old news James. The WH has been hunkered down in the sit room for hours.

May be deciding how and when to hit back. Remember it was Iran that fired the first shots through their proxies.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Apparently everyone (170 people) died in that Tehran 737-800 passenger jet crash tonight. Oh man, I hope that wasn't related to all this.

I took a look at the 737 crash history and fatal crashes do happen reasonably frequently, at least every year or two. There are a lot of 737s out there in the world and this may be within normal, statistically.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

swiss cheese model?

aviation industry relies on many layers of safety.. major events disrupt the layers and potential holes in the layers start to line up

all cdn military were reported safe tonight. cdn c-17s have been evacuating cdn and coalition to kuwait (open source)


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Let's hope this is unrelated to the conflict, but a passenger plane has crashed shortly after taking off from Tehran.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01...es-imam-khomeini-airport-state-media/11852504
> 
> ...


63 Canadians. What's with all the Canadians in Iran. Obviously they were leaving, but 63 ? No wonder we have so few people in our Country. Everyone must have left. I will still take this country, in January, over anything they offer in the middle east.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

sags said:


> The situation appears to be ramping up and threatening to spin out of control.
> 
> I often play checkers and cribbage online at the pro/expert level and often win the games.
> 
> ...


 Trump is an independent thinker i.e., he does not fall for the BS that he can control the climate to with in.5 degrees & stop storms from happening. He is playing against some of the dumbest people ever i.e., who believe in all the Allah none sense


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_all cdn military were reported safe tonight. cdn c-17s have been evacuating cdn and coalition to kuwait (open source) _

I only heard about that on Fox News (maybe I missed it on CBC), but the host was a little snarky about it....like the Canadians have all run away to Kuwait kind of snark.

Screw Fox News and all the war mongers. You won't see Trump's "big game hunter" sons going to join the battle. They prefer to shoot something that doesn't shoot back.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Was this a Max 8? I thought they were all grounded!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

sags said:


> I only heard about that on Fox News (maybe I missed it on CBC), but the host was a little snarky about it....like the Canadians have all run away to Kuwait kind of snark.


CDS announced it late last night after the news cycle. I noticed some snarky/uninformed comments on US news about european response as well



andrewf said:


> Was this a Max 8? I thought they were all grounded!


Still grounded but some news are mentioning it as if it's the same - original 737 has a very good track record


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

andrewf said:


> Was this a Max 8? I thought they were all grounded!


No, it was not. It was a 737-800.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/how-to-differentiate-boeing-737s/


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> 63 Canadians. What's with all the Canadians in Iran. Obviously they were leaving, but 63 ? No wonder we have so few people in our Country. Everyone must have left. I will still take this country, in January, over anything they offer in the middle east.


It appears that most of the 'Canadians' were dual passport holders. ie. Iranian/Canadian. I'm guessing that given the situation there, a lot of people who can get out are getting out. Canada has advised all Canadians in Iran to leave as soon as they can and I think that is what was probably why so many Canadians were on the flight. The flight from Iran to Kiev is a known cheap way out (or in) to a known hub (Kiev) airport in Europe with good connections for onward travel. So while it seems reasonable to ask, 'why so many Canadians flying from Iran to the Ukraine', there is in fact a reasonable explanation for it.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> It appears that most of the 'Canadians' were dual passport holders. ie. Iranian/Canadian. I'm guessing that given the situation there, a lot of people who can get out are getting out. Canada has advised all Canadians in Iran to leave as soon as they can and I think that is what was probably why so many Canadians were on the flight. The flight from Iran to Kiev is a known cheap way out (or in) to a known hub (Kiev) airport in Europe with good connections for onward travel. So while it seems reasonable to ask, 'why so many Canadians flying from Iran to the Ukraine', there is in fact a reasonable explanation for it.


I just find that a 4 seater plane could go down, crossing the Congo jungle and we would find out later that at least one of those that died would end up being a Canadian.

I figured there was a reason why all the Canadians were on that plane and I suspected that there were a lot less Canadians on that plane when it landed, just before this. Still 35% Canadian still seems like a big number. I can't imagine any citizens from any other country, wanting to stay in Iran either. So how are they getting out? Again, the % of Canadians to the total number of people in this world would be a rounding error for a number. No where near 35%.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> 63 Canadians. What's with all the Canadians in Iran. Obviously they were leaving, but 63 ?


3% of those reporting Iranian descent on the 2016 Canadian census is all that huge?




OptsyEagle said:


> ... No wonder we have so few people in our Country. Everyone must have left ...


With about 37+ million, I suspect you'd need many similar planeloads to come close to 1% of Canada's population.

Even if we assume all those that reported Iranian descent are in Iran, it looks like it works out to about 0.6% ... so hardly emptying the country.




OptsyEagle said:


> ... I will still take this country, in January, over anything they offer in the middle east.


And if you grandmother, niece or other relatives are in Iran and can't get approval to travel (or don't have the means or aren't well enough to travel) - would you still stay in Canada no matter what?


Cheers


----------



## potato69 (Mar 21, 2018)

lonewolf :) said:


> Trump is an independent thinker i.e., he does not fall for the BS that he can control the climate to with in.5 degrees & stop storms from happening. He is playing against some of the dumbest people ever i.e., who believe in all the Allah none sense


Oh yea, the independent thinker who thinks he can stop hurricanes with nukes. He's a moron.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...urricanes-to-stop-them-hitting-america-report


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> It appears that most of the 'Canadians' were dual passport holders. ie. Iranian/Canadian. I'm guessing that given the situation there, a lot of people who can get out are getting out. Canada has advised all Canadians in Iran to leave as soon as they can and I think that is what was probably why so many Canadians were on the flight. The flight from Iran to Kiev is a known cheap way out (or in) to a known hub (Kiev) airport in Europe with good connections for onward travel.


Why the quotations around Canadians? The holidays just ended and many Canadian immigrants travel to visit family.

Also Iranian international students. Anyone with ties to Iran would likely avoid a stopover in the US regardless of known "cheaper ways"

Trump casually mentioned hypersonic missiles in his speech. First time I know of the US has announced that capability publicly.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

I don't know which is worse, Trump or our own Moron trying to change the world climate by making us pay more taxes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

m3s said:


> Why the quotations around Canadians? The holidays just ended and many Canadian immigrants travel to visit family.
> 
> Also Iranian international students. Anyone with ties to Iran would likely avoid a stopover in the US regardless of known "cheaper ways"
> 
> Trump casually mentioned hypersonic missiles in his speech. First time I know of the US has announced that capability publicly.


Recently in the news, Iranian Canadians were being hassled at the border and kept for hours by US customs. Avoiding the US would be highly recommended.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Mechanic said:


> I don't know which is worse, Trump or our own Moron trying to change the world climate by making us pay more taxes.


We got a tax refund for the climate change taxes.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> 3% of those reporting Iranian descent on the 2016 Canadian census is all that huge?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No doubt, but still, 63 out of 176. Nothing you have said explains it except perhaps bad luck on the Canadians. I am sure there are a lot more Iranians in other countries then Canada. Perhaps I am wrong but I doubt it. I doubt we took 35% of all Iranians that have emigrated from Iran. There are currently 81 million Iranians. Even if only 10% would give a kidney to get out, there is no way we are going to take them all. Of course, whatever we do take of that number, is going to end up as a large percentage to OUR population, but compared to all the Iranian immigrants worldwide, I seriously doubt we hold 35% of them.

So we are obviously talking about rare and very bad luck. That is what I am saying. The incredibly low odds of this happening, make the mind wonder. That is all I am saying.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There are certainly a significant number of Iranian Canadians here, very noticeable in my circles (electrical & computer engineers). They are some of the sharpest, top engineers you will find anywhere. Due to the way Canada screens immigrants, we accept top ranked immigrants such as those with great academic credentials. These strong engineers I know who are of Iranian descent are a function of Canada's amazing immigration system.

For example when our country accepts some good Iranian academics (who have money + ability to generate high income) you will find that their children also end up quite well off, probably highly educated as well, with strong wealth, strong business involvement, etc.

As I posted in another thread, one of my friends wrote to me that his friend's entire family died in this crash.

I suspect what happened here is that there are certain plane routes which work out due to deals and convenience at the time. When the price gets good, and the routing is optimal, a number of people will book it... and it seems that here, people had an Alberta to Tehran routing. That might have been a flight choice of Iranian Canadians in western Canada who were visiting family.

Definitely ended up with a high % in this particular plane, but I suspect it's a reason like that (routing happenstance) and *not* representative of all Iranian air traffic at all.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> So we are obviously talking about rare and very bad luck. That is what I am saying. The incredibly low odds of this happening, make the mind wonder. That is all I am saying.


CBC interview w someone from the Canadian Iranian community said it wasn't a group trip

If you want to fly international from Canada w/o a stopover in the US you will most likely go via a major hub in Canada like Toronto.

If Tehran is a rare destination for Canadians or vice versa + avoiding US + everyone tends to think the same in terms of ideal timing, routes, prices etc


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I suspect what happened here is that there are certain plane routes which work out due to deals and convenience at the time. When the price gets good, and the routing is optimal, a number of people will book it... and it seems that in case people had an Alberta to Tehran routing. That might have been a flight choice of Iranian Canadians in western Canada who were visiting family.
> 
> Definitely ended up with a high % in this particular plane, but I suspect it's a reason like that (routing happenstance) and *not* representative of all Iranian air traffic at all.


Ukraine International airlines has a direct flight from Kiev to Toronto. So many Canadian deaths on this flight probably just had to do that this was the best flight to catch to hit that Toronto flight, and the end of the holidays.
That many Canadian deaths, this is probably top 3 deadliest accident for Canadians.
I agree about the iranians, we've had many work in our company. Very sharp, well spoken, calm, and educated. Hard working and I would take them over any other middle eastern nationality as an immigrant (along with Israeli).


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

You might be right, this could be one of the top 3 airline disaster for Canadians of all time.

I think many people here will find they are just one or two degrees of separation from people who died in this. Just at the one university I know (not disclosing for privacy sake) there are two professors who were killed.

This is sad. I've got to sign off and stop thinking about this one.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

james4beach said:


> I think many people here will find they are just one or two degrees of separation from people who died in this. Just at the one university I know (not disclosing for privacy sake) there are two professors who were killed.


No need for privacy, it was in the news here. They were two professors of Engineering at the University of Alberta.
Edmonton bore the brunt with something like 30 plus people dead on that flight.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> No doubt, but still, 63 out of 176 ... So we are obviously talking about rare and very bad luck. That is what I am saying.
> The incredibly low odds of this happening, make the mind wonder. That is all I am saying.


Then why confuse things with comments about Canada being emptied?




OptsyEagle said:


> ... Nothing you have said explains it except perhaps bad luck on the Canadians ...


Probably because my points were that Canada isn't being emptied and reasons do exist for people to visit beyond trying to avoid a Canadian winter.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> You might be right, this could be one of the top 3 airline disaster for Canadians of all time ...


It may be the fourth largest, by number of Canadians killed.

1985: Air India 182 ... 268 Canadian citizens killed.
1963: Trans-Canada Air Lines Flight 831 ... 76 from the Metro Toronto area with three foreign nationals (total of 118 people so there may be more Canadians).
1970: Air Canada Flight 621 ... 109 killed, with 22 being Air Canada employees (I'm not finding a clear indications of nationality).


Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Then why confuse things with comments about Canada being emptied?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was more of a question then a comment. Sorry if thinking 35% Canadian, with respect to people being on a flight from Tehran to Kiev was a little weird.

Hopefully that makes sense but if it doesn't, just break this post up into 15 or more sections and add your comments, if you think it would help.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

I'm wondering why there were so many Canadians on that particular flight as well ... I just don't think 63 people moves the needle on how full or empty Canada is.
Nor IMO does it tell anything about why they were in Iran.


Cheers


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Mechanic said:


> I don't know which is worse, Trump or our own Moron trying to change the world climate by making us pay more taxes.


Actually the USA has reduced its CO2 emissions more than any other country...I guess attending world climate prayer meetings don't work.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> I'm wondering why there were so many Canadians on that particular flight as well ... I just don't think 63 people moves the needle on how full or empty Canada is.
> Nor IMO does it tell anything about why they were in Iran.
> 
> 
> Cheers


It's because you misunderstood the post.

In any event, Nobleea in post #46 seems to have the best answer, assuming he is correct. He said that there is a direct flight from Kiev to Toronto and I imagine not many airports around that area would compete with that, so it probably explains why so many Canadians were on that particular airplane.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

potato69 said:


> Oh yea, the independent thinker who thinks he can stop hurricanes with nukes. He's a moron.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...urricanes-to-stop-them-hitting-america-report


Any stupider than thinking a tax can change the weather?

He also got the Democrats to publicly defend MS13 and terrorists. I guess they're even stupider than he is. You're probably calling the wrong people morons.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Prairie Guy said:


> Any stupider than thinking a tax can change the weather?
> 
> He also got the Democrats to publicly defend MS13 and terrorists. I guess they're even stupider than he is. You're probably calling the wrong people morons.


+1

ltr


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Eclectic12 said:


> I'm wondering why there were so many Canadians on that particular flight as well


https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadians-plane-crash-iran-1.5419076



> The end of winter break for schools as well as limited travel options between Iran and Canada contributed to the loss of Canadian lives on board a flight bound for Kyiv


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

james4beach said:


> Quick example: Saudi Arabia has been brutalizing Yemen, commiting war crimes by targeting civilians. They spread extremist, radical islam to other countries and support terrorism. But you're not going to wake up to daily news about the horrible Saudis. They are beloved friends of America & the west in general, so that theme does not get air time. My point is that you could easily have just as much news about this and many other countries, but it doesn't happen.


When I wrote this, I had forgotten the most recent example: Saudi soldiers visiting US airbases. One Saudi soldier a couple weeks ago (member of the *Saudi Arabian military*) went on a shooting rampage, shot 11 people on the Florida base and killed 3 American soldiers. A shocking terrorist attack on US soil.

Many Saudi visitors were investigated as a result, and expelled from the USA. The investigators also found linkages to extremist movements among the others.

Imagine how ridiculous this is. America _pretends_ to hate terrorism, then invites soldiers of their radical islamist ally (Saudi Arabia) to come visit their bases. Where they immediately go on shooting rampages and kill Americans. That is, if they aren't busy training how to do a 9/11 hijacking.

This is a great example of the highly selective use of the "terrorism" label by the USA, and how hypocritical they are. Saudi Arabia is, by all indications, a nation that breeds terrorism and spreads it around the world. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. This guy a couple weeks ago was a Saudi terrorist and they found more terrorists among the other Saudi Arabian soldiers.

And yet, because the US decides to be allies with Saudi Arabia, they ignore these incidents and downplay them, while playing up (largely fictitious) threats about Iran. Hell, the Iranian general they killed was actually at the forefront of stopping ISIS before the US made any effort to.

Is the USA really against terrorism? I am very skeptical. Instead, I think they keep using "terrorism" as a justification to do whatever it is they want to do.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Although it seems trendy to criticize the USA, just look at the words of our own idiot in chief, they are all that stands between us and trouble. Canada no longer can defend or even patrol itself. Think I'll invite an American over for boat tacos.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Trump's reckless war mongering and assassination in the middle east has collateral damage ... you can decide if these are positive or negative effects

1. Trump started a firefight that resulted in a plane full of Canadians crashing (57 Canadians dead)
2. the entire middle east is furious at America, with renewed passion
3. the western world now faces more terrorism danger due to #2
4. Iraq is furious too and wants the Americans gone
5. even allies like Canadians, are asking if it's wise to be aligned with the USA
6. Saudi Arabia, a hot bed of extremism and terrorism, is gaining strength

I would say these are negative effects. As if a plane load of civilians isn't bad enough, Iraq turning its back on the USA has serious implications. Not to mention Trump destroying good will and steps towards peace that Obama had set in place with Iran.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Yes. But it did distract CNN for a few days from running their 24 hour _Trump Impeachment Network._


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Trump's reckless war mongering and assassination in the middle east has collateral damage ... you can decide if these are positive or negative effects
> 
> 1. Trump started a firefight that resulted in a plane full of Canadians crashing (57 Canadians dead)
> 2. the entire middle east is furious at America, with renewed passion
> ...


So you are implying Trump caused all the problems in the middle east..I didnt know he was that old....are you that naieve to think the middle east has been some idyllic place of peace for the last few decades? Yes lets just keep blaming Trump for everything..yet Obama gets high fives for taking out Bin Laden and a nobel peace prize for the record amount of drone strikes he authorized...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Canadian government got it right.

Trump threw gas on a volatile situation and it spun out of control. It was bad judgement on his part.


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

sags said:


> The Canadian government got it right.
> 
> Trump threw gas on a volatile situation and it spun out of control. It was bad judgement on his part.


If you say so Sags...So what should Trump have done?

Given Iran 150 billion like Obama did? Do you think its a coincidence Iran went on a terror spree after they got those funds? Yes maybe a nice big hug to Soleimani and more money would have done the trick...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Gumball said:


> If you say so Sags...So what should Trump have done?


Not doing an unprovoked, unilateral assassination of a foreign government leader would have been a good first start.

Killing a foreign leader (top general) is NOT an acceptable thing to do. The United States is not at war with Iran, but that action itself was almost like a declaration of war.

It was totally reckless, and shockingly bad judgement. It's going to have a ton of collateral damage, and sets a very bad precedent.


----------



## Gumball (Dec 22, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Not doing an unprovoked, unilateral assassination of a foreign government leader would have been a good first start.
> 
> Killing a foreign leader (top general) is NOT an acceptable thing to do. The United States is not at war with Iran, but that action itself was almost like a declaration of war.
> 
> It was totally reckless, and shockingly bad judgement. It's going to have a ton of collateral damage, and sets a very bad precedent.


You may find this hard to believe James based on my earlier posts, but I do not disagree with you on the drone strikes and constant wars..where i scratch my head is the media double standard with Obama and Trump...I wish we lived in a peaceful world and the $$ spent on military could go to clean water, education, hospitals, etc I just dont know what the right answer is on how to handle these situations are...Obama gets a peace price during a time the US did the most drone strikes in history and Trump does a drone strike on one general with no other civilian casualties and even before the jetliner went down the media was up in arms about it...just a sad state of affairs regardless.

So what is the US to do? What can the United Nations or NATO do to encourage stability in the middle east?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Both GW Bush and Obama should be tried for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Both the drone strikes and the CIA torture program are unforgiveable.

I suggest watching the documentary: National Bird. I think you can watch it through PBS. And I want to watch this new documentary on the CIA torture program, called: The Report.

Still, Obama is beside the point. The issue is that the current US administration is continuing horrendous middle east policies. We're going to get more terrorism fallout from all of this too. Keep in mind that when we get terrorist attacks in Canada/US/Europe, it's precisely due to actions like what the US is doing.

Each time the US does something stupid and reckless like this, the chance of terrorist attacks on home soil goes up. Personally I do not enjoy suffering the consequences of US war mongering.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

james4beach said:


> Not doing an unprovoked, unilateral assassination of a foreign government leader would have been a good first start.
> 
> Killing a foreign leader (top general) is NOT an acceptable thing to do. The United States is not at war with Iran, but that action itself was almost like a declaration of war.
> 
> It was totally reckless, and shockingly bad judgement. It's going to have a ton of collateral damage, and sets a very bad precedent.


Totally agree.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What did the assassination accomplish ? Iran replaced the guy 15 minutes later.

If the Trump administration believes they are going to win by picking off a guy here and a guy there, they have no clue.

The accuracy of Iran's ballistic missiles surprised the US military. The base hit had no protection against such weapons. They survived by hiding in bunkers built by Hussein.

The Iranians have more than 2,000 of those weapons and many US targets in the middle east are within their range.

I would imagine the US military is doing some serious new planning to protect themselves. Even if they wanted to, the US can't invade Iran. 

It is a big country with 80 million people, a strong experienced military and plenty of modern weapons. Iran isn't like Iraq was when the US invaded.

There is no way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon except through diplomacy, which unfortunately Trump has not been capable of conducting.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> What did the assassination accomplish ? Iran replaced the guy 15 minutes later.


Yes. But this new guy has to keep looking up all the time. Must be very unsettling, being an Iranian General, when the sun is in your eyes and you hear a kind of whistling sound coming towards you.

Kidding aside, these top level Iranians always assumed that their plans would be executed by sacrificing a bunch of ideological idiots, like the ones you see in the news firing the Ak-47s in the air and burning the American flags. They had millions of those idiots to sacrifice, for such a noble cause. But that has now all changed. 

I will be interested to see how committed these leaders are when their own lives are on the line and I think it's about time. Put up or shut up.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> What did the assassination accomplish ? Iran replaced the guy 15 minutes later.
> 
> If the Trump administration believes they are going to win by picking off a guy here and a guy there, they have no clue.
> 
> ...


Trump played it right, this was a bad guy and he had to go.
He even let Iran have their response and save face.

Sure they have a replacement, hopefully the new guy won't be as good at his job.
At the very least, he might hesitate a bit on some of the more egregious acts.

Of course Iran is working on their nuclear program, diplomacy isn't going to stop them.
Diplomacy didn't stop their support of terrorism.
If you


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> Trump played it right, this was a bad guy and he had to go.


What simplistic thinking.

The King of Saudi Arabia is a really bad guy too. Links to terrorism and he even had a journalist tortured and dismembered.

Should Trump order the assassination of the king of Saudi Arabia? He's a really bad guy.

The leadership of China is pretty bad, they have concentration camps and are carrying out a form of ethnic cleansing.

Should Trump order the assassination of the Prime Minister of China?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The decision that this guy needed killing wasn't made any president...he just gave the go ahead...thats his job.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Trump played it right, this was a bad guy and he had to go.



this is a 6-year-old play cowboy response
bangbang you're dead
trump & his aging white supremacist ilk will be history soon


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> this is a 6-year-old play cowboy response
> bangbang you're dead
> trump & his aging white supremacist ilk will be history soon


Yeah, those white supremacists like Candace Owens have got to go!

Just a question, if Soleimani is such a great guy, why didn't someone like Obama take him off the hit list?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Eder said:


> The decision that this guy needed killing wasn't made any president...he just gave the go ahead...thats his job.


How do you know he gave the go ahead ? Many think he is incapable of rational thought. Maybe he thought he was saying "yes" to more ice cream.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The real challenge is that we do not know. Does anyone really think that we will get any factual information. Well, perhaps in 50 years we will but certainly not now. You cannot in all good conscience say that the US State Dept. or Trump is provided the straightforward goods on this situation do you? If so, you must believe in the tooth fairy as well.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> The real challenge is that we do not know. Does anyone really think that we will get any factual information. Well, perhaps in 50 years we will but certainly not now. You cannot in all good conscience say that the US State Dept. or Trump is provided the straightforward goods on this situation do you? If so, you must believe in the tooth fairy as well.


Funny thing is that the lefties, who don't trust the government. Want to give government all the power.
Never understood that.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

james4beach said:


> What simplistic thinking.
> 
> The King of Saudi Arabia is a really bad guy too. Links to terrorism and he even had a journalist tortured and dismembered.
> 
> ...


Soleimani's history may reveal some clues as to why Trump ordered the hit on him.

Iran was first to respond to Kurdish requests for help in fighting ISIS long before the US was interested. 

Iran supplied weapons and Soleimani was the military commander of the Iranian forces sent to Iraq.

After the US sent troops to Iraq, the US and Iran both fought against ISIS. It appears that Trump's interest in Soleimani increased after the Iranian attack on the Saudi oil field.

The Saudi's wanted Soleimani taken out and Trump obliged. The Saudis seem to have some kind of mysterious control over US Presidents. With Trump it is probably about money.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Soleimani's history may reveal some clues as to why Trump ordered the hit on him.
> 
> Iran was first to respond to Kurdish requests for help in fighting ISIS long before the US was interested.
> 
> ...


You've got to dial back your conspiracy a bit, Soleimani was desginated a terrorist years before Trump.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Soleimani survived many previous attempts on his life...too bad they didn't succeed. Would have saved many lives, but better late than never. There are many more people that deserve a drone up the butt, and I'm sure the USA will continue to step on those cockroaches as they have for decades.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We only know what Governments on either side want us to know. It could be truth, fiction, or something in between.

Remember the claim about WMD as a reason for invading Iraq. The Bush US Gov't and the Blair UK Gov't both tried to strong arm Canada into participating in that invasion. Fortunately the Cretien Gov't did not succumb to the pressure. Why....our intelligence agencies had been informally briefed by the British intel agencies. They were recognized to be the best source of intel on Iraq at that time. Their advice was that there were no WMD....the same advice that they gave to Blair. And they were proven to be correct. There were no WMD found in Iraq. It was politics over truth.

The other reason Canada said no....there was no plan by the coalition forces for a withdrawal from Iran. Guess what.....the US is still there. Can you imagine if we had spilled Canadian blood in that fiasco?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Even so we need to be grateful for our southern friends carrying the big stick. We couldn't defend ourselves against any threat alone these days...(even though we have the greatest military personnel in the world working for almost free and we give them no tools to survive). Maybe JT can issue swords made by _Hattori_ Hanzo or something.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> Soleimani survived many previous attempts on his life...too bad they didn't succeed . . . I'm sure the USA will continue to step on those cockroaches as they have for decades.


This shows an incredibly shallow understanding of the world. You talk as if this is some kind of kid's cartoon with good vs evil -- do you really see the world that way?

Security analysts are saying killing this guy is going to set back the fight against ISIS significantly. By alienating partners and seriously pissing off Iraq (US is going to get thrown out of Iraq) experts are now observing that there won't be much counterterrorism happening any more in Iraq and Syria.

This American action is almost sure to increase the levels of terrorism and likely will strengthen ISIS.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/us-iran-crisis-isis-is-the-winner-in-death-of-qasem-soleimani.html



> “The assassination was such an extreme violation of Iraqi sovereignty — done unilaterally, without Iraqi government consent — that Iraqi officials will come under tremendous political pressure to eject U.S. forces,”


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

This shows I understand the way things work. Please don't ever quote CNN again lol.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> This shows I understand the way things work. Please don't ever quote CNN again lol.


So you see CNN figments everywhere you look? Time to get that condition checked out.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

CNBC is a business news channel and isn't owned by CNN.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Now we find out that 11 Americans were injured during the Iranian missile strike on the base in Iraq.

There were 9 injuries for possible percussion injuries (ear damage, threat of embolism) and 2 for people being cut on debris.

The US knew right away about the injuries (they immediately started to evacuate the wounded) but Trump led Americans to believe there were no deaths or injuries.

It was finally announced by the Pentagon after Iran started reporting on the US medical evacuation efforts in the media.

The Trump administration seems to hide everything until they are outed by the media. No wonder they don't like the media.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Now we find out that 11 Americans were injured during the Iranian missile strike on the base in Iraq.
> 
> There were 9 injuries for possible percussion injuries (ear damage, threat of embolism) and 2 for people being cut on debris.
> 
> ...


I think the point was that Iran intentionally missed. You cannot call it a response if you simply fire a missile into the open desert. You have to at least scare someone, don't you think? I don't think it proves someone intentionally misled because of this information.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> I think the point was that Iran intentionally missed. You cannot call it a response if you simply fire a missile into the open desert. You have to at least scare someone, don't you think? I don't think it proves someone intentionally misled because of this information.


Iran precisely hit drone operator living quarters. US has ballistic missile warning and the base also had hardened shelters built by Saddam Hussein. Not all can take shelter and the injured were mere meters from casualties. All open source.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

james4beach said:


> So you see CNN figments everywhere you look? Time to get that condition checked out.


Sorry...I thought I read CNN so skipped viewing out of habit and was too quick to complain...apologies etc.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eder said:


> Sorry...I thought I read CNN so skipped viewing out of habit and was too quick to complain...apologies etc.


Don't worry I think CNN is garbage too. Just about all this TV news is. All of it is sensationalist, fear inducing junk.

I used to enjoy the financial channels (BNN, CNBC) but they're really bad too and probably very harmful to investors.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

To me, there is no TV media news that is very worthy, some coverage of major crises excepted. But even then, it is repetitive and headline packaged. And so much of it is actually opinion pieces, especially when Skype/Facetime with supposed experts has made it all reality television.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

m3s said:


> Iran precisely hit drone operator living quarters. US has ballistic missile warning and the base also had hardened shelters built by Saddam Hussein. Not all can take shelter and the injured were mere meters from casualties. All open source.


Base security forces also had to stay outside in the perimeter to protect against any possible attack.

Personally, I think the US military and Trump in particular were surprised at how accurate the Iranian missiles were and were not prepared for it. 

They backed off further escalation until they can harden the bases and provide more protection against any new missile attacks.

The Iranians did give a "heads up" to the Iraqis, which was passed on to the Americans. It likely prevented some casualties, but the Iranians wanted to send a message of competence.

Given how accurate the Iranian missile attack was on the Saudi oil fields, the US military should have known that Iran had significant capabilities.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Opinion journalism sells. It is the most popular among viewers with Fox News leading the ratings and advertiser cash.

Unfortunately, CNN has tried to copy Fox's success and while it has good news sources during the day, it is all opinion journalism in the evenings.

Personally, I like John King at 12 noon on Inside Politics. He sits at a table with a group of journalists and they discuss all the latest news without expressing all their own opinions on it.

I am also not a big fan of the CBC "shared hosts" format, but the CBC's Power and Politics at 5 pm. every day is very good for Canadian issues.

Panel discussions in Canada are my favorite watch. CTV, CBC, TVO have those types of shows.

I have found in Canada both Liberals and Conservatives are able to discuss issues without going way off into the extremes. They even often agree with each other.

In Canada the left and right can agree on many issues but differ on how to solve them. In the US they don't agree on anything.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> I have found in Canada both Liberals and Conservatives are able to discuss issues without going way off into the extremes. They even often agree with each other.


Yes and I think we have to work hard to preserve this. We should study the Americans and understand why they have such extremes with no common ground.

I personally think that American media, especially the influence of Murdoch's Fox News, are very destructive to American society. If you watch this stuff it turns your brain to mush. Much of this American news, notably Fox & CNN, are meant to whip up people into a state of constant anxiety and panic.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau has taken the right stance with Iran on the shooting down of the aircraft and the Canadian government immediately moved forward with $25,000 for families to cover immediate expenses. As he said, the families can't wait. They need some help now and the government will provide it.

While Trudeau is taking it very seriously and working for the families and Canadians, Trump is down at his Florida resort giving his rich donors a minute by minute account of the assassination of Soleiami at a fundraising event to raise cash.

Quite a difference in demeanor between the Canadian PM and the US President. 

Imagine if Trudeau held a fundraiser and bragged about killing the general to raise money. I doubt he would be PM long. His own party would overthrow him.

Canadians wouldn't tolerate the antics of Trump and I really don't know why there is such a difference between Americans and Canadians.

Maybe the education system ? Maybe the lack of social programs in the US which keeps people in abject poverty and always looking for a savior ?

Living close to the US border, we used to cross all the time to shop in the US and hockey tournaments etc. Every time we crossed the bridge into the US it just "felt" different.

Kind of hard to explain the difference really.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Trudeau doesn't kill terrorists...he gives them millions. He also is letting Canadians rot in Chinese jails while he vacations around the world.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Yeah, giving someone else's money away is not really something that needs a pat on the back.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> Kind of hard to explain the difference really.


Not really, take a look at some of the numbers quoted in this article. https://www.salon.com/2019/07/04/independent-of-everything-is-america-too-dumb-for-democracy/

People here in Canada keep thinking Americans are much like us. They are not.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Prairie Guy said:


> Trudeau doesn't kill terrorists...he gives them millions. He also is letting Canadians rot in Chinese jails while he vacations around the world.


Its because he hates Canada.
I can't imagine why else he's acting so contrary to the best interests of Canada.

At least he's formalizing that he's going to step back and be a do nothing figurehead.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

What kind of a nut goes around saying things like the Prime Minister "hates Canada"?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Its because he [Trudeau] hates Canada.
> I can't imagine why else he's acting so contrary to the best interests of Canada.



oh for crying out loud. This ^^ is a piece of slander from a well-known cmf forum hatemonger.

history will show that the trudeau cabinet has already accomplished massive steps forward. Never before in canadian history since confederation have indigenous nations leaped forward so far & so fast as has happened in several provinces since trudeau's first election in 2015. The indigenous nation agreements with transMountain pipe are an incredible accomplishment, a win-win-win for each nation, for alberta energy, for ottawa. 

objections of the hereditary chiefs to coastal gas pipeline are now taking over the headlines. This road still stretches ahead & it looks like it will take a long time yet before accords are reached; but the trudeau approach will consistently be the same. Listen with respect, attend carefully to the fears, invite the nations in as partners, ensure the economic development plan that comes with the pipeline. This was already justin trudeau's belief & goal during his first campaign nearly five years ago. Today it's born fruit in the successful TMP II buildout. Construction is already well underway & the very last legal hurdle fell only two days ago. 

many other indigenous nations understand that partnering with canada in infrastructure development is an opportunity which their youth will only see once or twice in their lifetimes. It's been fascinating, these past 5 years, to witness the trudeau plan in action. To witness the gathering of the nations, the slow, quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiations with each individual indigenous community. 

the story isn't over yet, it's only just beginning.

in other sectors trudeau is doing well. Unemployment is way down. Eastern canada is prospering. Nobody is suffering unduly in this, one of the most admired nations on earth. The army will dig newfoundland out of the snow. Trudeau is respected abroad, has a good foreign policy in today's difficult geopolitic, deals well with the 2 large bullies - the one in washington being unhinged - who are impacting our small nation.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> What kind of a nut goes around saying things like the Prime Minister "hates Canada"?


Look at his actions against the best interests of Canada, and it's pretty hard to argue he loves this country.

heck, in the middle of a "Climate Emergency" he jets off to Costa Rica for a vacation.

Just because I think Trudeau is nearly as bad as Trump doesn't mean I'm a "slanderous hatemonger".

I simply have a different opinion than you.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think our glorious leader considers Ottawa & further East as Canada and does love it to death. Us...well..not so much.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> I think our glorious leader considers Ottawa & further East as Canada and does love it to death. Us...well..not so much.


I dunno. He loves to surf off Tofino, using 2 gov't jets to get there and back. However, to give him (or Morneau and/or Carr) some credit, it appears they are finally going to look at the fiscal stabilization fund that hasn't changed since the 1980s. I am cautiously positive....


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> He loves to surf off Tofino, using 2 gov't jets to get there and back.



^^ a total fabrication. The PM did not visit tofino w 2 aircraft. He did use 2 aircraft once during the last election campaign to fly a large display that was too big for first aircraft. Liberals paid carbon credits for 2nd aircraft. It was probably a dumb idea.

altaRed is arguably one of the biggest retail consumers of jet fuel in this forum. Hawaii, vietnam, hawaii, south asia, norway, he flies. Tells us - sounds like bragging - how he has millions of air miles accumulated from air travel when working.

yet he keeps harping (falsely, as above) on & on & on & on about trudeau's modest, brief & well-deserved holidays. Tch. Quel hypocrit.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> ^^ a total fabrication. The PM did not visit tofino w 2 aircraft. He did use 2 aircraft once during the last election campaign to fly a large display that was too big for first aircraft. Liberals paid carbon credits for 2nd aircraft. It was probably a dumb idea.
> 
> altaRed is arguably one of the biggest retail consumers of jet fuel in this forum. Hawaii, vietnam, hawaii, south asia, norway, he flies. Tells us - sounds like bragging - how he has millions of air miles accumulated from air travel when working.
> 
> yet he keeps harping (falsely, as above) on & on & on & on about trudeau's modest, brief & well-deserved holidays. Tch. Quel hypocrit.


Doing extra environmental damage during an environmental emergency is simply hypocritical.
Carbon offsets only make people feel good about net CO2, and even then the offset market has serious credibility issues.
Beyond that, what about all the other environmental damage from the second jet? CO2 is a very small aspect of the massive environmental damage people engage in.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

We need to live as instructed by our overloads...only they have the right to pollute in the name of royalty.
At any rate buying carbon credits is like pissing in your friends pool but picking up a ice cream wrapper on the street to make up for it and calling it even. Your friends kid is still swallowing your piss.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Doing extra environmental damage during an environmental emergency is simply hypocritical.
> Carbon offsets only make people feel good about net CO2, and even then the offset market has serious credibility issues.
> Beyond that, what about all the other environmental damage from the second jet? CO2 is a very small aspect of the massive environmental damage people engage in.


Too bad I see HP's comments in quoted material - your fault MrMatt! They are the usual trash. I am sure I am a large user of jet fuel on a once a year plane trip somewhere in what is always a completely full plane. I do have some residual miles left from my working days pre-2006. Wish it was a million miles. Thank you very much.

Junior goes on multiple vacations per year in a private gov't aircraft. Costa Rica just recently after 2 Tofino surfing expeditions before that. That Costa Rica thing alone involved multiple flights. https://torontosun.com/news/national/streams-of-flights-cast-cloud-over-pms-costa-rica-vacation What a freaking hypocrite! Maybe he should start flying commercial like some of his counterparts especially when he seems to need multiple vacations per year.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> altaRed is arguably one of the biggest retail consumers of jet fuel in this forum. Hawaii, vietnam, hawaii, south asia, norway, he flies. Tells us - sounds like bragging - how he has millions of air miles accumulated from air travel when working.


Eder is also in Hawaii. These guys are just looking for something to complain about.

The PM is establishing systems for better carbon measures in Canada. The overall CO2 impact he makes through policy is the big factor here... makes no difference that he flies on jets himself. Any PM is going to have a larger carbon footprint than the average Canadian, obviously. A key part of their job is getting around.

The PM is doing far more regarding carbon reduction than any politician in recent history, and far more than anyone on this forum. His measures might not be as strong as the NDP wants, but fact remains that the Liberals have brought in carbon taxes, and no other party has.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Eder is also in Hawaii.


But you left out the part about how I use solar to power the boat, make water out of seawater & use mostly the wind to get where I'm going (have a small Ford on shore for Costco r

uns)...Greta would be proud. I think our idiot leader has a pretty huge footprint compared to me...(and probably you do as well so shape up!!)


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> The PM is doing far more regarding carbon reduction than any politician in recent history, and far more than anyone on this forum.


Wild conjecture and you know it. Could you please provide the statistics that says Junior has done more for reduced carbon emissions than any politician in recent history? Have you examined what every other country in the world has done? How much has his non-revenue neutral carbon tax reduced emissions so far? 

I suggest that so far, it is window dressing, but I sincerely hope carbon taxes will reduce hydrocarbon consumption some day soon. Otherwise, it is simply wealth re-distribution.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Sorry, meant the PM has done more than _Canadian_ politicians in recent history.

And yes I do believe that the disincentive system of carbon taxes will lead to changes in behaviour. A national policy that changes the behaviour of all market participants (say 20 million people) has far more impact than a couple individual people installing solar panels or buying electric cars.

Already, fuel prices are affecting my own decision of where to move, regarding proximity to transit & cycling infrastructure. This is great, and is exactly what it's meant to do.

Carbon taxes are working. They are also the recommended method according to many conservative thinkers around the world (excluding Alberta), because disincentives and penalties for destructive behaviours is a well recognized, well established system that works quite well in market based economies.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Since you did not acknowledge it, I'd suggest you to go back and read that Toronto Sun link just to see the degree of hydrocarbon excess our esteemed PM goes too on his lavish unabashed vacations. You didn't read it obviously. Why can't he fly commercial like some of his counterparts and save the planet? You know, walk the talk kind of thing? Junior is is the epitome of excess in almost everything he does and reallycan't be taken seriously with that kind of behavour. 

We shall see how well carbon taxes work out. The jury is out on 11 years of BC carbon taxes albeit there is reason to believe it has incentivized some behavioural change in recent years. IIRC, emissions have not gone up despite population and GDP increases, but as we all have read, several jurisdictions have reduced their emissions on a per capita, and per GDP basis as well without carbon policies. It really is a beast to measure and credit properly for the right reasons.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Sorry, meant the PM has done more than _Canadian_ politicians in recent history.
> 
> And yes I do believe that the disincentive system of carbon taxes will lead to changes in behaviour. A national policy that changes the behaviour of all market participants (say 20 million people) has far more impact than a couple individual people installing solar panels or buying electric cars.
> 
> ...


Lets see, Elizabeth May did a campaign by train, Trudeau did a campaign with 2 jets. 

I think Elizabeth May did more to reduce campaign emissions than Trudeau.
Of course he won the election and she didn't win the election, but that's because the low carbon thing is dumb, which is why Trudeau personally has such a high carbon footprint.
Low carbon lifestyles are for the plebes, not for elites like Trudeau.

That's the actual point, as an INDIVIDUAL, Trudueau has an EXTREMELY high carbon footprint. Even just considering his personal activities (like vacations) it's extremely high. 
If it really was an emergency, and he cared about the earth, or at least his own kids, he might cut back a bit.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Like my ma used to say.......as long as they are talking about me they are leaving someone else alone.

Trudeau could say the same thing. 

As long as Conservatives remain focused on the "guy with the nice hair" they aren't electing a leader or developing policies that voters will support.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Like my ma used to say.......as long as they are talking about me they are leaving someone else alone.
> 
> Trudeau could say the same thing.
> 
> As long as Conservatives remain focused on the "guy with the nice hair" they aren't electing a leader or developing policies that voters will support.


It's a good strategy, and part of why the Conservatives lost, and the Democrats in the US are setting up to lose.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Another cockroach goes to meet Allah...looks like Qassim al-Rimi (AQAP leader) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasim_al-Raymi got droned courtesy of Mr Trump. A few more years & we might be running out of bad guys.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Since you did not acknowledge it, I'd suggest you to go back and read that Toronto Sun link just to see the degree of hydrocarbon excess our esteemed PM goes too on his lavish unabashed vacations. You didn't read it obviously. Why can't he fly commercial like some of his counterparts and save the planet? You know, walk the talk kind of thing? Junior is is the epitome of excess in almost everything he does and reallycan't be taken seriously with that kind of behavour.



nobody reads alt-right toronto Sun - spawning ground of neo fascists ezra levant & faith goldy - except the aging far right contingent in cmf forum.

justin trudeau emphatically does *not* take "lavish unabashed vacations." Like everybody else in canada he's entitled to statutory vacations. Just like millions of canadians, he flies somewhere modest for short periods of time. BC coast, florida last year, costa rica this year. Anybody who would begrudge a PM or any other canadian such vacations has got a screw loose somewhere.

rules dictate that the prime minister is not allowed to fly commercial. He must use the RCAF designated plane for safety & security reasons. Same rules applied to stephen harper. Time to get over this piece of nonsense.

altaRed himself is one of the biggest jet fuel consumer hypocrits in cmf forum, if not the absolute biggest. Hawaii, south asia, hawaii, vietnam, hawaii, norway, you name it he's flying it, with his "millions" of air miles saved up from his business travels. Or so he says.

please, let's have an end to the handful of bitter seniors in cmf forum who bicker endlessly about the PM's vacations. IMHO trudeau vacations far less than most canadians. He's a hardworking head of state.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Recent PMs have been sensitive about personal executive jets. They've cut most if not all the Bombardier business jets even though the RCAF recommends keeping them - very useful for various unexpected evacuations and emergency deployment of initial planners etc When otherwise available they're used for routine military travel

The Can Force One the PM typically uses now is also used for RCAF functions most of the time like deploying troops to shovel snow in NFLD. All of the G20 uses a similar size Boeing or Airbus to transport its dignitaries. The aircrews have to fly regardless to stay proficient and the fleet also does cargo and air refueling

I mean we could start with disbanding the air force and ending globalization maybe with a historic agreement from Russia and China that we're all gonna stay in our own corners from now on. Even then we would still want aircraft for SAR and medevacs at the bare minimum.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Junior goes on multiple vacations per year in a private gov't aircraft. Costa Rica just recently after 2 Tofino surfing expeditions before that. That Costa Rica thing alone involved multiple flights. https://torontosun.com/news/national/streams-of-flights-cast-cloud-over-pms-costa-rica-vacation What a freaking hypocrite! Maybe he should start flying commercial like some of his counterparts especially when he seems to need multiple vacations per year.



oh dear more trashy falsehoods

trudeau doesn't go on "multiple" vacations a year. Only the standard 2 to which every canadian is entitled by law. Seldom lasting even as long as 1 week. 

it's false witness to pretend trudeau visited tofino twice, or visited tofino in 2 jets. 

in reality trudeau visited tofino in 2016, again in 2017, again in 2019. Evidently tofino is one of his favourite vacation spots. He'll probably visit there again, possibly even as soon as this year. He's never flown to tofino in 2 jets, a false accusation which only an addlehead would keep on repeating.

the younger trudeau is a BCer himself. His mother was born & raised in the province. His maternal grandfather james sinclair served vancouver north & capilano ridings honourably as federal MP & cabinet minister.

regulations require a canadian prime minister to fly an RCAF aircraft for safety & security reasons. There have been times when sophie & the children flew commercial flights on vacations during school breaks while the PM stayed home working. But the PM of canada himself doesn't fly commercial. Same rules were imposed on harper.

here's a factlet that will surely stoke the fury of the tiny handful of aging addleheads on here who keep fuming about the PM's modest vacations:

it's my understanding that the same Canforce One which transports the PM on official vacations has to sit on the tarmac at the vacation destination, fully staffed night & day, ready to fly in case the PM has to suddenly be called home to ottawa. OMG the horror of it all!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Conservatives can yap all they want, but the long list of Trudeau's accomplishments are impressive and cannot be denied.

If any politician deserves an occasional vacation it is Justin Trudeau. We should be imploring him to take more vacation time to avoid burnout from all the work he has done.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Conservatives can yap all they want, but the long list of Trudeau's accomplishments are impressive and cannot be denied.
> 
> If any politician deserves an occasional vacation it is Justin Trudeau. We should be imploring him to take more vacation time to avoid burnout from all the work he has done.


I'm all for giving Trudeau about 50wks of vacation a year.
The more he's on vacation the less work he can do.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It will be interesting to see which of Trudeau's "terrible" accomplishments the next Conservative leader will propose to roll back.

Will they roll back the increased child benefits ? Will they change the CPP back to what it was ? Will they add the week back onto EI waiting period ? Will they move OAS back to age 70 ?

Will they make marijuana illegal again ? Will they squash any gun regulation ? Will they approve every oil pipeline and project ? ..........voters will want to know such things.


----------

