Signals.Cpl

And which communist country do you Vacation in? If you are referring to Cuba, it is not communist using your exact criteria.

Ok, what is the breakdown? All I am hearing here is that the cost is 25 billion dollars, but there is no breakdown as to how he came about that number. If you compare the number he presented to the number DND presented and the criteria for both, how different would it be? How am I perpetuating a falsehood? I am presenting you my viewpoint, and asking you for a breakdown of the costs so we can compare. Define: other costs does this include everything from fuel and the salaries of the military personnel that would be flying and maintaining the aircraft? Would it include the fuel the Aircraft would require? Would it include the maintenance of the infrastructure that is required to operate the aircraft? All of those things already budgeted for in the DND budget. If you are going for 100% of the cost then say so because being dishonest by inflating a figure and not informing the public that the extra money comes from the DND budget brings forth understandable confusion. One states We spend 400 billion on defence over the next 20 years and 14 billion on the aircraft, while the other states we spend 25 billion on the aircraft and 390 billion on defence over 20 years. Amounts to the exact same figure, just misleading criteria when the public is not informed that the extra 10 billion will come from the budget that the DND has.

Sorry I made a mistake as to who said it.

First my assessment of the UN is based on facts. United Nations resolutions are meaningless unless the US takes notice of them. The Department of Peacekeeping is nothing but a drain of resources. If China, Russia and the US don't agree the UN is powerless as the power is concentrated on 5 nations, 3 of which generally stand together and 2 of which are generally on the other side of all arguments. Now, on decisions by the world court, the ICJ makes a ruling, and say Russia does not go along with it. What would happen in this case? Well Canada can appeal to the United Nations Security council about Russia's refusal to comply with the ICJ ruling, where a permanent member of the security council can Veto the appeal, oh wait I think Russia has veto power thus we can take it to world court, we win in world court, Russia does not comply with world court decisions, we appeal to the Security council, and guess what Russia can veto any resolution that will force them to comply. Direct source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/International_Court_of_Justice.aspx Further Sources: http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/en/ifaq.pdf on pg. 39 of the document http://www.icj-cij.org/information/en/ibleubook.pdf on pg. 75 of the document http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter14.shtml http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter5 You know what, it doesn't really look that well for Canada if Russia does not comply as well we can once again bring the issue to the security council and the decision would require 9 of the 15 votes, including ALL of the permanent member states( United Kingdom, France, China, United States and Russian Federation). The only chance for us is if Russia votes for us(unlikely), or Russia abstains from the vote, which means we have to pray they boycott the SC. Just because we don't have the means to stop the submarines does not mean we should give up our ability to defend our airspace. Which part of that is wrong? The part that if Russia does not comply our only course of action is to go to the security council, where Russia has a veto power? I am sorry if this is too complicated for you, tell me if you don't understand it, I will dumb it down for you. What I am giving you is an opinion backed up by evidence, what you are replying with is wishful thinking. It does not matter how many cases it has been involved in, this is how the World Court is structured. If you don't agree with my assessment, bring some evidence to support your argument, if not just tell me you are writing fiction and I won't bother you with facts.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/arriving-estimation-eng.asp And there is the comparison between the 25 billion dollar budget that the DND presented and the 14 billion dollar subsequent budget. Overall the 25 billion dollar budget accounts for almost 11 billion dollars already accounted for in the regular budget. This includes National Defence Personnel and Operating costs as well as contingency. Stating that the cost is 25billion dollars is misleading because every fighter Canada decides to buy will have the 11 billion dollars cost which is already accounted for in the Defence Budget essentially 550 million dollars a year which would be spend regardless of the aircraft chose. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html#hd5k

You have to compare the numbers that the DND present and his budget Item by Item as the DND budget might not be counting things that already fall under the regular Defence Budget(Salaries of the Pilots and support personnel, fuel, Infrastructure etc.) Once both sides are using the same criteria then you can compare the actual price.

I clarify that, I meant politics from Canada. For Example not wanting it because the Conservatives want it, and since you dislike them then the idea is bad. I was hoping to look in the most apolitical way possible in a way look at our needs rather then who is in charge at the moment. If your argument is we don't need it period, its one thing, we don't need it because Stephen Harper wants to buy it is not. I wish for a why we need it or don't need it rather then that the party you are spurting says we don't need it because well once again the Conservatives want it.

Not at all, Im not saying its good or bad, I am saying that when you make a statement, make sure you have the basics right, you know the things that a 10 year old would know. Saying they are not communist, while one clearly is, undermines your entire position because you seem to lack basic knowledge and ability to do the most rudimentary fact checking on your argument.

There is a reason, for that. All of those nations that are sanctioning Iran are doing so in order to prevent Iran from carrying out its "Death to Israel plan". Sanctions are a means of preventing war, in this case Iran is more then responsible for the actions of the world. Nobody wants a war, thats precisely why the world uses sanctions against Iran.

Because this price hike will be nothing compared to the hike should Iran shut down the strait.

Iran is threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz because of the economic pressure put on them by the many nations that have put sanctions on Iran, supporting those already in place by the UN.

A case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black.

And what happens when Iran shuts down the Persian Gulf? Prices jump up your tax refund just went to pay for gas, or many other prices that are affected by the fuel price.

I was just pointing flaws in your argument. Stating and I quote tells me you have no idea what you are talking about as one of them is CLEARLY communist, I don't have to assume they are, China states http://www.china.org.cn/english/Political/26143.htm My answers might not be serious because your facts BS are so easily disproven its not even funny. And If China is so peaceful why has it been building up its military while the west (Except the US) has been steadily cutting theirs. We either do our part in NORAD and have a voice in Continental defence or we let the US deal with it, and then have them dictate to us about continental defence. International Organizations we belong to should not to be taken lightly, where we can quit at any time and join back up at our convenience. Think of the military as an all purpose insurance, you hope you never have to use the insurance but it feels nice that its there should you require it. Buying new military equipment now is much cheaper and more effective then cutting the budget. Keeping the old equipment which by the way costs more with every year in service above and beyond its projected lifespan means that you are putting more and more Canadian Soldiers, Sailors and Aircrew in danger by operating in some cases equipment that is obsolete as well as the fact that when you need the military it will not be armed properly and therefore another short term rebuilding effort. We can equip the military now, or just after we need it next time.

1) Stalin was Hitler's biggest trade partner, and we all know(I hope) how that one turned out. 2) You do realize China is still communist?

Wow what?

Yeah Im gonna get right on that, there are over 1000 posts on the subject I'm not going to waste my time as i don't believe you have any Idea about what your position is. You seem really confused in this thread.

Yeah you seem confused on what you want.

I know very well what the airforce does, I don't need you to tell me what the military does or does not. I am asking for your opinion, it seems to me you are talking without much knowledge on the subject. Defence is the number one priority for any military in the world, as it is for the Canadian Forces, would you prefer that they are 100% a defensive force or not? Instead of purchasing an aircraft that can meet both offensive and defensive needs, we could look in to interceptors should majority of Canadians be of the same opinion as you. Most weapons have offensive and defensive option, if you want defence, then having a force that is only capable of defence is the way to go, if you want a force that is versatile then going a different way will be require.

Defence is vague, mainly because I am asking of you what capabilities should we have in your opinion. An F-35 and say a Spitfire offer the exact same thing, defence, difference is one of them is useful, the othe is not.

Yeah but most of the budgets that are released by all parties are consistent, the problem is that the different budgets add different things. For example the military might add the cost of the aircraft, mid life refit and upgrades and repairs. While the Opposition might claim a cost of 25 billion if they included the cost of the aircraft, mid life refit, upgrades and repairs, cost of fuel, cost of manpower needed to operate the aircraft, cost of infrastructure needed to support aircraft in essence things that are already covered in the Defence budget. You might have a wild and misleading difference. Arguing about the price is irrelevant until you have the actual breakdown so you can see why the price is different.

It does not answer the question, its a vague answer. Your answer includes everything starting from a Bi-plane to an F-35 and a canoe for the navy all the way to a Super Carrier. You are opposed to buying the F-35, but you are swing we need to be able to defend Canada, What is the alternative you want to see? And if we are to work with our allies, we need comparable equipment, and Canadian governments don't have the best historical record on dealing with the military. My personal belief is that the government should list what it expects the Military to be able to accomplish and ask them to draw up what they need and give three separate lists (Best, middle ground, worst). That way the military knows what is expected, and the government knows what its getting.

That is a very broad statement and does not answer the question, mainly because that is the primary mission of almost all Militaries in history .

What is your definition of a strong and sovereign Canada? And what is your view of how we should structure the military?

Ok, please describe where you got the 30 billion figure from, and what it includes? Does it include only the Fighters themselves or does it include money that would be in the annual budget of the military(Fuel, salaries etc) It is a little misleading to say that the F-35's would cost 30 billion dollars if the actual cost is 9 billion and the rest comes from the militaries budget no matter what plane is decided.