Signals.Cpl

I agree, Iceland spend their money on butter, while Denmark spend their money on Defending Iceland. And until 2006 the defence of Iceland in case of war was the responsibility of the US.

Just to point out that the Defence of Iceland was the responsibility of Denmark, until they were occupied by Germany, at which point responsibility of Iceland's defence fell on the US Forces stationed there. Until the end of the Cold war and I think there still is a major base that the US maintains. So your suggestion is to let the US occupy us?

Read my previous post, if you don't get it, then you are just out to get the conservatives, nothing else.

The blame for what? When the military buys new trucks, do they account for the salary of the drivers? Or the fuel cost? Or Recovery? Or the fact that new soldiers have to get a Military drivers licence? What about the soap we need to wash the trucks? Or what about the price for the covered garage that is already present? The AG should either tell people the price is 14 billion dollars, or explain that the 11billion dollars added to his figure are expected to be deducted from DND's budget. What happens when we buy new rifles? There are roughly 100,000 Regular Forces and Reserve soldiers, sailors, aircrew and rangers, do we say that the price for 100,000 rifles is 200 billion dollars over 20 years because we have to account for everyone's salary? Since everyone in the military has a rifle, that means that my rifle costs 1million dollars over 20 years, and thats not even accounting for the price of the rifle. Then you add the price of the ammunition and the cleaning kits. The repairs that the Weapon Technicians , which would actually count the person twice as he operates the rifle and then fixes the rifle so all weapon techs are added together and their salaries are multiplied by 20 years to add to the total. When we are done with every piece of kit that we own, the CF would cost the military 10 trillion dollars over 20 years. Because when you put a uniform at 200 billion, and a bayonet at 200 billion it adds up. Im sure this is the most efficient way to do this.

Those documents are on the site of the DND, have been there for a long time. Besides, it was public knowledge that the DND paid for the salaries of the Pilots and Aircrew that would operate the fighters. Listen lets agree then that we need new planes and will open a bidding process. But before we even look at the planes, the price tag is 11 billion dollars then we actually add the price of the planes and cost over their lifespan. Would that make you feel better?

you seem to not understand, the AG is counting the salaries for the 1,000 pilots and support members in the price plus operating costs, while the government is not counting those, BECAUSE the DND has already accounted for them in their 20 billion dollar budget. The AG wether knowing or by accident is misleading the public that the project costs an extra 11 billion dollars. If he tells the public that 11billion is to be added to the price tag, then he should inform the public that the budget is debited for the 11billion over the 20 years. Because now it seems that the cost of the plane plus the budget is 425billion over the next 20 years while it is only 414billion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/07/pol-the-house-f35s.html?cmp=rss So then the government should state that the DND budget would be 11 billion dollars less over the next 20 years as that money is already accounted for in the purchasing price. That 11 billion dollars is irrelevant as it will happen wether we keep the CF-18 buy the F-35s or any other plane. It is simply the AG adding figures that are already accounted for, as those personnel are present, trained and operational with the CF-18's and will be operations and present for any of the aircraft. This is just a case of the government saying we are giving the DND a budget of 20 billion a year for 20 years which means 400 billion plus 14billion for the planes, while the AG says the planes cost 25 billion while neglecting to inform the public that the budget for the DND would drop by 11billion over 20 years it would be 389billion for 20 years plus 25billion for the price. 400+14=414 389+25=414 Seems like the AG is unintentionally misleading the public, making them think that the extra money will have to be paid out on top of what is already given.

Listen, why are you so convinced that someone is lying? Just because the numbers came out different does not mean anyone is lying, it could simply be that they are using different criteria. DND says 14billion and 25billion, the difference is that 11 billion is already assigned in the regular budget so it is irrelevant it would cost the same no matter what aircraft we purchase. The belief that the government is lying because. I posted a ling from the DND that gave both figures a breakdown, using the 25 billion dollar figure could be misleading if the AG is using different criteria.

Do you think the price is significantly different than planes of similar abilities, or even more specialized aircraft?

The change that Russia is experiencing is bringing its military more in line with those of Western nations. During the cold war, the professionals in their military were officers, while most of the non commissioned members were conscripts, while now they are creating a professional force of NCMs with a sizeable force of conscripts to reinforce the military. If anything, they are increasing the efficiency of the military while cutting the size.

Ok, so we have the debate and the government says we need a plane that meets the following requirements: a,b,c,d,e and f. Those are the exact specifications for the F-35, so if we are debating and we accomplish nothing but waste time and money with the whole circus. I think we need to have a consensus from all parties about defence in general and what the Canadian People expect the military to be capable of doing so that the military can plan with as much certainty as possible to what the people of Canada want. Defence should be apolitical because it touches everyone and thats why there should be as little disruption as possible. The fact is from government to government, there is no consistency. For example the government said we don't need chinook helicopters, and so we sold them to the Netherlands, 14 years later after the government sends the military to Afghanistan they realize that we actually need to buy some, so we sold them for cheap and then had to buy them from a different source which is more expensive. The irony is that when the CF was in Afghanistan we had to catch a ride with the Dutch who were flying the Helicopters we sold them. If we can develop a consistent list of requirements for the military then we can ask the Chief of Defence staff to develop a list of what is needed to achieve those tasks that the government has laid out. So we can debate once and solve the problem for the next 20 years barring any major political changes. Until now we have had inconsistencies where the military is starved of funds, denied proper equipment and cut in numbers while send on more and more peacekeeping mission that tax its resources to the maximum. Then you send a force that is equipped for peacekeeping to fight a war, soldiers needlessly die, and the government has to go on a massive sending spree to bring the military to the minimum equipment requirements, this is an expensive and irresponsible way of managing your nations defence.

Do you actually think the difference in price between the F-35 and others of similar ability is that much grater? The difference between Canada and the US, is we need 1 aircraft to do a number of different jobs while the US can specialize. They have Fighters, Interceptor, CAS, Bombers, Fighter-Bomber etc... We don't have the means to do that therefore we have to settle for the aircraft that can best do that. or purchase a number of General Purpose Fighters with a small number specialized, but that would drive up the cost more then it is now. Honestly I think the government should have the bidding and be over with it, but if the government wants the F-35 they can set up the bidding process in such a way to get the F-35 is selected with the only difference now we waste more money on a process that as decided before it even began.

Ok so lets disarm, let the US make us another 10 states, and we don't have to worry about anything. Please tell me how you see the case that Russia is bringing to the ICJ turning out if the ICJ sides with Canada? There are billions of dollars worth of untapped natural resources in the arctic, and as supplies start to dwindle that same region with its massive reserve of resources will become much more important. You can safeguard your resources and develop them, or you can hope that no one will try to take your resources. Ultimately it seems to me you are ignoring the evidence that ICJ is an irrelevant organization if you are dealing with one of the 5 veto powers of the SC. But do continue to place your bets on the organization that cannot protect you, just like people placed faith in the League of Nations and we all know how that turned out.

Russia the one that is trying to lay claims to territory we also claim as ours.

Isn't it easy judging history almost 30 years after the event and when you have the whole story from all sides? I am not over estimating anything, I am pointing out that Russia is trying to legitimize their claim, just like the US tried to do in 2002/2003 by presenting all of their "intel" to the UN trying to prove Iraq had WMD. When the UN was not satisfied the US went along with its plans without worrying about the UN, difference is as long as we can point out we are capable of defending ourselves we know the Russians are not and will not be interested in a War because we are a member of NATO and we have the US backing us up. You seem to put way to much faith on the ICJ, and after 10min of research I proved that the ICJ cannot do anything if one of the sides is has SC veto power. So you think that Russia will leave all those resources to us if they lose their case to the ICJ? Or would they continue doing whatever they want to do since they know it will come to a vote if we even bother, and they will shut it down. I provided evidence from the UN site the ICJ site and you cannot argue on that, yet you seem you believe that when ICJ says you lose Russia, they will turn around and go home. Sounds a little naive don't you think?

You must have ADD.

During World War 2, the German navy had a Battleship called the Tirpitz, simply by existing for over 2 years that ship tied down a much larger Royal Navy force and caused chaos throughout the convoys of the Atlantic every time there was a rumour that it was sailing to the Atlantic. The concept is called fleet in being, as long as you have the fleet(in this case fighter jets) they are a deterrent.

If we had the rudimentary means to protect our territory we won't have anything to worry about, as Russia is not interested in fighting in North America, but if we don't have the means to defend our territory and it is already questionable wether that territory is ours or not then Russia can swoop in and we can't anything about it. That is why the current government is pushing an agenda of strengthening the Army's arctic response units, and creating a reserve unit up north aside from the Rangers. But this becomes an exercise in futility if the Russian airforce can fly in Canadian airspace with impunity, its a simple concept, though we claim a large area in the north where a number of other nations also lay claims, if we have a small but capable military we can convey that we mean business and we will defend ourselves. If we can't, should Russia Land even a token force and we can't stand up to them and we have to ask the US to tell the Russians to get out of our own backyard kinda defeats our argument that we are a sovereign nation.

It has nothing to do with who has the most guns, but I guess thats a great argument if you live in a dream world.

I was born in a Warsaw pact Country, I know first hand what the belief system was in the entire region, it was not one sided conflict but was two sided, the Soviet Union and the warsaw pact, were involved in the Cold War just like Nato was. It is all about money, if there are resources in the north, and Russia wants them, if they occupy the territory in question Canada is shit out of luck, and Russia is using the resources ad gaining the benefits of the natural resources that Canada could not protect. Russia is a superpower in the view of the Security council, the whole point here is that joker argued that if anything happened we can call on the ICJ, which unfortunately leads to the SC and since Russia would look after its own interests, we are SOL.

He doesn't have an answer, his entire argument as to why Canada should not worry about Russia taking a very active role on our territory is that the ICJ will protect us. When it was proven that the ICJ cannot do anything as the final say lays in the SC and Russia has a seat there, whatever happens Russia is free to act as it wants. And that is precisely why the UN is such an abysmal failure as a world organization.

According to you it is communist or not, there aren't varying degrees of communism. Cuba has small businesses and foreigners investment in their tourist industry which could own no more then 50% of the business. Cubans have bank accounts, they can own their own property, and Cubans can leave the country it costs a lot but they can still legally leave the country, which means its not communist.

I am presenting my view, I am not professing it is right, if you can present the budget breakdown that shows where the difference is, then I would say you are right but you have to present your argument, I am not going to go and search for you, if you want to back up your arguments with facts do your own leg work.

The breakdown is also in the DND estimates, which I presented.

Yes, its always easy to follow international law, knowing that even if things don't go your way, you have the final say. I am proving that when it comes to one of the Security Council members, the ICJ does not have authority over them, you can huff and puff all you want but the Russian Federation can go through the proper channels, and if things don't go their way then they still have the final say. I posted evidence where it says that should one of the parties not comply, then the only options are drop the matter or go to SC where Russia has a veto. Whatever dreamland you live in I don't care for, I live in the real world, where once money and natural resources are at stake every country will look out for their national interest. You seem to be pro ICJ even though it is a lame duck organization. This is the last time I will reply to your idiocy.