there is no point in shooting them down if they haven't done anything hostile. just warn them and escort them out, and if they refuse then the use of force is acceptable. shooting without a warning is the worst move anyone can make.

Someone hasn't forgot the cold war, and it doesn't seem to be the Russian generals.  This sort of posturing is normal, thinking that world conditions haven't changed over the years is not.  Russia IS more concerned with the Caucasus than anything else, but they need to maintain world-wide military strength for the support of their population.  It's not about keeping the cold war alive, it's about proving to their people that they are safe.  Take a ****ing poli-sci class, for god's sake.

Doesn't bother me; they're not actually going to bomb anything. A polite 'GTFO' is all that's needed, and it's sure as hell not worth starting WW3 over.

Why would the UK and France back us up along with most of NATO if not all of it. Simple Russia would be invading a soveirgn state one that is actually a member of the commonwealth. Britian always stands by the commonwealth and Canada is one of the main reasons Britain and France aren't Germany today. Plus Britain France and many of the other countries in NATO backed the US in the cold war against Russia. Think about it this way, if they invaded Russia in support of the US and Canada, they would have all the resources they wanted now wouldn't they?

Canada is known for being the peace keeping country. We do have that repuatation however that reputation is new. Back in WWII we had the third biggest Navy in the world, our army took targets even the US couldn't take. We used to be known as one of the worlds super powers and we had the respect of most of the world.

In the scenerio where Russia invades Canada, Nato and the US would side with Canada. The US out of nescessity and Europe out of fear. Right now why do you think Nato wants a missile shield so badly? Iran yes but even Putin says he believes it is for use against Russian missiles. Nato and the US would launch counter strikes and their would be all out war.

Also using nukes is highly unlikely. Russia wouldn't dare fire nukes at the US, likewise the US wouldn't dare fire nukes at Russia. Both countries have enough nukes to lay waste to the whole globe and both countries know that once the nukes start flying their will be no end. It doesn't matter how many nukes the US or Russia has both have enough nukes to whipe one another off the face of the earth.

As for my mix up of facts. I don't look this stuff up on a regular basis I go by what I hear on TV and forums. A quick Google search shows that Canada has the most freshwater lakes etc...etc.. I must have confused the facts. Not just making shit up.

But yes over one bomber being shot down, Russia would be a completely idiotic country to declare war on one of the most important countries on earth, especially America's northern neighbour and in most occasions their biggest ally (Exception of the U.K).

Also as I pointed out before I only suggested taking a bomber out as one of the options. I also listed siezing it which would likely have no negative effect on Canada.

Still not a link? Considering you mentioned this a few times..

Anyway this kind of stuff happens whole the time between countries shooting them down is like executing every American diplomats for being spies..X_X.

Look here, please!

http://war080808.com/

Always try to look at things from both sides.

What for? It really doesn't make very much sense, you shoud support your contry position unless the government act like utter idiots and bring down the economy or you're like the Quint Columna in the state you're living in. And if the latter is the case, you must get sentence.

Doesn't Russia have these cool spy planes like the US? I mean bombers? they are big... should we all shoot down those spy planes from the US? they have been over UK, Russia etc and even 1 crashlanded in China...

Not sure how discussion went from bombers to Ossetian war, but ok...

It is Georgia, spell it right at least, when you're talking about things you're absolutely ill-informed.

1) Russian peackeepers served under UN mandate in the region, therefore they were placed there by international community to keep security of the region. Together with ossetian milita they were holding Georgians back before the arrival of 58th Army. This was their mission and they've accomplished it. Would you have some respect to the people died there?

2) What NATO has to do with the conflict at all? None of NATO countries were involved (at least formally).

3) BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, which were used in first attack of Georgian army, ain't the weapon you use against sparse, scattered all over the region ossetian army focres, unless big number of civilians deaths is what you expect. Up to 1700 civilians were killed. Given reports from the place, you'd totally expect a full scale genocide unless reinforcement hasn't arrived.

FYI this was fourth Georgian attack in last 17 years, hence peackeepers. Georgians violated Sochi agreement (1992) and Moscow agreement (1994). Saakashvili made few attempts to escalate conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, such as "little war of Tliakan" in August 2004 as well as military presence of Georgian army in Kodori thus violating Moscow agreement.

4) Kosovo precedent, UN has been warned that what they've made to Kosovo will have consequences. Everything else is just hypocrisy.

5) Not being arrogant, but NATO would have been kicked out there pretty fast.

6) Look 1).

They're not causing any harm. They're not sending bombers. What's more, Russia are our allies, and we don't need to throw another country onto our increasingly large enemy list.