Signals.Cpl

But the advantage would be a consistent defence strategy and spending rather then changing the priorities every time a new government is elected.

I didn't complain about being insulted, I complained that I waste time to prove my position, while others ignore the facts and provide none to back their own ideas. You want to insult me go right ahead I have absolutely no problem with that as your opinion will neither make nor brake my day.

I'm not wrong about this. Right off the bat our friend waldo outright ignored the facts, then continued to argue even when proven wrong. Then there was this business about the government "lying" when it is pretty obvious that it was either a misunderstanding on the part of the AG, or misleading. Seems to me one side brings all the facts while the other side ignores the facts.

I came to the conclusion that since you guys don't like those pesky little things we call facts you wouldn't mind my style or grammar.

Sorry, had to dumb it down for you guys.

so when we extended the life of the CF-18's did we include the operating costs, and the salaries for the personnel involved? We either include operating cost in all purchases or none at all.

I am 100% behind you on this one, the government including all representatives regardless of party, should come together and decide what we expect of the military and then ask the military to tell us what they need to meet our requirements. The 3.5billion dollars that you speak of I would assume is for unforeseen missions or deployments eg. Haiti, disaster response in Canada etc. I believe there is a portion of the budget that is used for that, not sure if its the money you are referring to.

When Canada fails to meet its obligation to defend North America and itself, while expecting that the US should and would defend North America in General and Canada in Particular, they can rightfully decide, that if they are to defend us, might as well take them. There is a book, now I know you dont like reading, but well its a very good book that follows the downfall of the military from the end of world war 2 till the midpoint of the Afghan mission. The author makes the point that the US care about their security and since we are a key piece in their security since we are their ally and neighbour they want us to take our share of defending the continent.Over the last 60 years, Canada has maintained just enough military strength to be able to say see we can defend ourselves we take this seriously, while not enough to actually satisfy the US, and definitely not enough to satisfy the Needs of Canada, or the responsibilities that the Government tends to sign us up for. If the US deems that Canada is not taking its defence seriously and is expecting American protection without pulling its weight, the US can rightly take over Canada's defence, and dictate to us how the continent will be defended rather then take us as a partner. A lot of people think, whenever we are in trouble the US will protect us, but then we don't invest in our own defence to show the US we are serious, and badmouth them on a regular basis. And what happens if the US is just as busy with protecting their own citizens, wether its from a foreign invasion, or a natural disaster.

no, I understand the the job of the people who determine what the Military needs is to decide what it will be used for, once that becomes clear then the requirements are written up. The military gets screwed when make every little purchase all about politics. I don't think it would be any different if the Liberals had decided to buy the F-35's the only thing would be that the roles would be switched. I support what the military needs to protect Canada, I couldn't care less who presented it and why. The ignorant people who are here arguing the government(Conservatives) lied to them, would be arguing that the AG report is misleading if it were the Liberals in power rather then the Conservatives. And if the NDP were in power, I am pretty sure we can kiss the military goodbye right along with our independence from the US.

The government of Canada gives a budget to the DND, in the budget they pay for the operational costs of all aircraft and the salaries of the Crews. The government did not present the 25 billion dollar figure because it was stupid. If we start purchasing vehicles and including the salary of the drivers/operators then the cost will be disproportionate. The AG report makes it seem that the 11 billion dollars is attached to the cost of the aircraft, but its not its attached to the cost of ANY aircraft we get. As I said, from now on if we use this criteria to estimate the cost, then the 1000 trucks we get will cost over 6 billion dollars more because of the drivers, and the three uniforms that the drivers have will cost 15 billion dollars because we have to count the drivers salary 3 times, once for each uniform. What about the 5 pairs of socks? or the 1L Canteen? seeing as everyone in he military get 3 uniforms, and 1 canteen then when we purchased the uniforms we should have accounted for the salary of all the CF members because they would be wearing them thus that would mean the we will assume the uniforms will last for 20 years, 20 years times 10billion dollars a year equals 20billion dollars in uniforms.

Which is?

You mean the DND did not ask you what Canada requires in a jet? Wow such an oversight. DND says what they need, Government looks says well this is what we got to offer take it or leave it. The requirements are just that, requirements they can be changed if you change the mission requirements.

Unless you are planning on involving Canada in Mexico's borderline civil war, damn straight we have different priorities,

Yeah, because thats how we extract natural resources, through CBC programming.

Canada has a lot of untaped natural resources that will become more valuable as the supply shrinks. Russia has claim to some of our Territory that could potentially hold a a lot of resources, naturally they want those as much as we do. Iceland is great place to have if you want to control the Atlantic, or screw with NATO in case of war, otherwise it is a not that rich in Natural resources. Comparing Canada and Iceland is useless because Canada has something many nations will want, while Iceland has something some Nations will want under specific Circumstances. This is not the 1800's when nations were after land for the sake of owning more land, now nations are after land that can be an economic asset in a world with less natural resources every day.

I have 20 trucks, I want to replace 10 of them, manager 1 tells me it will cost 2.25million to replace the trucks. 1million for the trucks 1million for lifetime repairs 250k for unforeseen costs. Manager 2 tells me that the first one is lying and that to purchase the trucks its 22.25million 10million for the operating costs(Fuel) 10million for salaries of the drivers 1million for the trucks 1million for lifetime repairs 250k for unforeseen costs. Manager 1 says that the 20 million is already budgeted and the actual cost is 2.25million while manager 2 tells you the cost is 22.25million without informing you that the personell budget is now debited 10million and operating costs are debited 10million. All I care about is how much the planes cost to buy and repay/upgrade and all the costs associated with them. I don't care how much it costs to pay for the pilots, because they are getting paid with or without the new jets.

Nope, the US stationed forces in Iceland because it was a strategic link between Europe and North America, if The link was severed then supplies and troops from North America would have been compromised. Iceland would have played the exact same role it did in World War 2.

On September 10, 2001 no one cared about a terrorist because it was over there, not over here. The US government didn't get a call from the terrorists and inform them that "Hey we are changing the rules of war so change your doctrine and structure accordingly". There was a plan to scrap Canada's Armoured forces all 100 and some tanks, then we went to Afghanistan and realized we need the Tanks and in fact bought newer and better once. The Military should not and does not prepare for THE war, the military prepares for A war. Preparing for a conventional war only, means that if an unconventional war comes along people needlessly die, likewise if we prepare for unconventional war and conventional war comes people die we lose. Canada cannot afford specialization in the military. We have to prepare to defend the North should anyone come knocking, we should prepare to defend our coast if someone decides to visit us. We should be ready to fight on our soil if we get terrorists here. We need to be ready to assist in natural disasters. The military is the versatile force that needs to meet every threat with limited resources. Stating that from now on we will only fight wars like Afghanistan means we are screwed if Russia or China pay us a visit, or we end up going to a war or Peacemaking operation where conventional wars are a necessity. The US can afford to spend money on specialization while Canada has to get the best for the money, and wether its the F-35 or another jet we need it. And the whole 11billion dollars that is added to the budget is designed to cause outrage and push for cancelation of the project. In the Mid 90's the Cf needed new helicopters, so we signed a contract to get them. When the Liberals came to office, they cancelled the contract paid a 500million dollar fine and the CF didn't get a helicopter. Fast forward to 2012 and we are still waiting for the delivery of the helicopters that the Conservatives ordered, while the helicopters we have are a flying coffin. Because the government cancelled the project Air Force Crews have died in the aircraft that came in service in 1963. We are operating an aircraft older then the pilots. An aircraft that costs more and more every year to keep it flying, so the Liberals saved a few billion in 1990's but then they cost a number of Canadian Lives, and are now costing the people of Canada more money to purchase the helicopters, and the cost of maintaining the aging helicopters well past their lifespan. We can compromise here and end up with a useless piece of equipment that serves no purpose at all or we can spend the money now and know that we are ready for whatever comes our way.

Who was out enemy on September 10 ,2001?

So answer this, the next time that the Military buys uniforms, do we have to include in the price, the people who are going to use them(wearing) and the people who will be issuing them out(Supply Technicians) and the price of the flags and rank slip-ons. Saying that the F-35 costs 25 billion dollars is misleading. If you want to say that figure you have to inform that its not extra, that it has been accounted for. Otherwise you are blaming the government for lying while you are supporting a lie.

Who is our enemy?

And there are countries with much more spending then us, and they are fine as well, Whats your point? Why don't we have 3 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines like the US?

So what do you make of the treaty the US signed with Iceland? Was Iceland ever in danger of invasion? And it was Iceland that "fired the first shot". This "war" was never anything more then Iceland giving Britain the finger and the British decided to have expensive exercises in the are.

Because Russia has no claim on Iceland? While much of our territory in the north is claimed by other nations as well. Why has no one invaded the Vatican? After all its easy right, they have 300 soldiers and billions of dollars worth of art.

What were they supposed to do? Unless the British decided to invade Iceland, the US wasn't going to do anything. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/ice001.asp