Signals.Cpl

Did the AG account for the Pensions? You know the people that will work for 20 years with the Fighters and then retire, did he account for their pension, or dental care or health care. Did he account that many more support the F-35's then just those that are posted in those units? Or that some of the people he counted are responsible for multiple other aircraft? Ultimately you make a statement, and Cant prove it. One website does not constitute proof when you inform us that every other major country does it that way. If they do, I would assume you should have no problem finding proof to back up your argument.

I did read that, I am asking for the proof that: The evidence provided: 1)Does not include proof that All Major countries calculate like the AG 2)Does not apply to this case. The "evidence" you provided talks about purchasing a new asset we, we are replacing an old one. If you have no proof that other countries use the same accounting methods, please don't post it as Fact.

Proof that all major countries do the "accounting" like our AG does. Not my job to prove YOUR argument.

Can you provide proof? You make some strong accusations. Please provide how the US, UK, France, Italy or Spain calculate the cost of say their Carriers. I don't think this has ever been an issue until now and if the bidding process was to be opened up the 11billion dollars will miraculously disappear from the discussion because it would already be budgeted.

What continent is England in?

What is the relevance of the college transcripts to the presidency? And if he shows you his college record, what would be the next step? High School records? If the guy who wants to be president is not paying his taxes or is cheating on his taxes I would prefer to know.(Not saying he is or is not) But if a guy does not disclose his college record that ultimately has little to no effect on my life that is unless he bought his degree.(Again not saying he did)

Cape Verde, Kenya and Rwanda. An argument could be made for all three and maybe more can't think of them right now. I know with Rwanda's history it would not be viewed as stable, but they have turned around dramatically in the last 16+year after the genocide ended.

You mean bending the rules like this? The government allows police a certain level of bending the rules due to the nature of their job. Making all of this accusations and judgements well after the fact and with all information on hand is very different then making decision with limited information and the dangerous of not acting weighing on you. Bending rigid rules under certain circumstances is allowed by the government as long as they can justify their actions using the evidence they had on hand. When looking at the G-20, we can safely assume that the arguments brought forth in an attempt to slander the police and prove how "wrong" they were all have one thing in common, much more facts on hand then what the police had at the time. When a police officer goes to work, they cannot be wondering how someone will view their actions the next day,week or year. At any given time their actions or inactions can cause people harm, and the only thing we can ask of police officers is to be within the confines of the law and can support their decision using the evidence they possessed at the time, not evidence acquired after the event.

You keep "pointing" yet you can't produce evidence. That my friend is called BS. You cannot prove that what I am stating is against the law law unless you try really hard to twist my words, or outright lie.

If you are referring to me, please provide the times where I support police breaking the law? I posted my view and presented evidence, I never claimed I support police who participate in the violence, or set up random people for crimes. I support them throwing bait, so that they can catch the perpetrators. If you are going to twist my words and try to smear my view, please use some facts to back your argument up. Its your opinion against my evidence.

Why would they invade us if they have the territory in question? They aren't threatening to invade Canada, just the valuable parts up north that they are contesting.

And North Korea has 8million reserves yet I can't see them being capable of doing much. Russian reserves have in some cases not served in 20 or more years, and the argument is not wether they can invade us, but if we can prove to the world we are independent and capable of defending ourselves. We can expect the US to assist in our defence but should be able to field our own military. What does it look like if every time we have a Russian exercise in or near our Airspace we have to run to the US to send fighters in order to show the Russians the door? The US military is not running a charity program for countries not willing to invest in their own defence.

I think you are right, but my hope is that when it comes to something so important as Defence we should have at the very least a binding agreement for the most basic level so that we know we have the means to do our job and whatever a government decides to purchase above and beyond that is up to them. In Whose War is it? Mr Granatstein presented a scenario about an earthquake along the west coast of North America and the short comings in equipment that the CF has and the problem that would be present. Unfortunately when people die, the politicians who played games with DND's budget will not be held to account for their actions.

Well we need to find a way, otherwise we will repeat the negative cycle over and over and waste money.

I understand that, and it should be open to change when events force change. The idea would be to prevent the save a penny waste a dollar approach to defence. Prevent cuts to the military to save money now and let someone else worry about it 10 years in the future when the cost drastically increase. If there is no requirement for a particular asset, and there is no reason to assume it will be required anytime in the future then by all means cut it out. Do we need super carriers? No Could we use Amphibious Assault ships? Yes Is it desperately needed? Maybe

waldo the poor guy doesn't take well to facts one little bit.

Thats why we need something binding from one government to another government.

Sources?

White paper is not binding, the government can promise the world and deliver nothing. We need something where we determine what we want from the CF, and give them the means to accomplish that mission and send the military on missions that fall within the mandate that the government has agreed on.

Did he account for the danger pay that the pilots and ground crew would receive in a war zone? Or the move costs associated with moving the pilots, ground crew and their families? What about the support staff? You know the cooks, the MP's or the medical staff? And where is the cost for the aircraft that will be supporting these aircraft? And then we go and ask, did he account for the infantry who will have to protect any base in a war zone? Anti-air weapon systems and their crews? I can go on and justify pretty much every trade as essential for the running of the F-35's or any aircraft for that matter. The price tag would jump significantly.

I don't see it that way. We are not going to acquire a new capability, getting the F-35's will not require getting new pilots and and ground support crews nor will it require any major infrastructure change. When we talk about purchasing destroyers, do we account for the salary of the crew? We are replacing one weapon system for another, same manpower requirements, same infrastructure requirements. Operational cost is also irrelevant as how does the AG come to that conclusion? Did he account for a possible war where the fighters will see much more use? If we use this criteria now, we have to use it every time. If the conservatives bow to pressure and decide to open the project to bidding, the price tag would be 11billion right of the bat, without even looking at a plane.

Then the AG should have informed the people where the other 11billion dollars are coming from. It is misleading to let people believe that it is 11 billion over and above the 14billion and the budget.

The problem is that when someone states that 25 billion is the price tag, people are not aware that the 11billion is already coming out of the general budget of the DND. I don't see the 14billion price tag as a lie, I see it as a logical calculation since adding the operating cost confuses the situation and then would open up the calculation of expected pay raises over the next 20 years which could further bring up the cost of the plane, when the money is coming in from a different budget.

I wonder, how did this work in his mind before he did it? What was he actually attempting?

Nope, I find it hilarious.