Signals.Cpl

In many of the barracks a room that should fit 2 people has 4 or in some cases 8 people in it. The rooms with a mini fridge and a microwave were the 2 people per room and they only had two people, so for your theory to work we need to invest millions if not billions of dollars to upgrade the existing barracks CF wide to accommodate kitchens and then build more infrastructure to house the soldiers we had to remove from the barracks, so you are once again "solving" a problem that does not exist by throwing away billions to projects no one needs. That sure will help out when its -40 outside. So you wouldn't mind to live on a isolated base for 4 years eating only what you can cook on the swiss stove? They might have raised their own cows but the cooks cooked them so it kinda does not help you. And where does your kit go? I can't believe you continue to put your opinions out there when you are so obviously not in touch with reality let alone having knowledge about the military. How did you deduct that I can't feed myself? Do what all the time? Cook? In their kitchens? While you are suggesting we eliminate the kitchens and give soldiers a dinky little stove to cook their meals on. When you can walk the walk then you can talk, until then stay in your lane. Yeah, I'm sure he made his own booze on a ship... No, I'm not playing stupid, I've been there and done that so I know what I am talking about when it comes to such BASIC facts about the military. There are no trades that I can think of that are redundant , I suggest you get some life experience before you decide to give out opinions that are not based on facts. Get out of your house, go to the recruiting office sign on the dotted line spend the 3 years in some isolate base in the middle of nowhere and THEN tell me if the cooks and the mess is a waste or not, until then your opinion is worth less than a penny. I know how to cook, the whole point is that in barracks we don't have the means to cook.

Not a perk if its needed, the barracks do not allow for storage of food and most definitely do not allow stoves and such. In my years as a CF member I have been in only one barracks with a small refrigerator and a microwave... and this is not exactly the example of healthy eating. Any suggestion as to how you can feed the soldiers then? As I said the barracks don't allow for cooking and seeing as many of these bases are in somewhat isolated areas soldiers would be reduced to eating rations year round which will end up being more expensive in the long run. Where is the model of success that a democracy like Canada could follow and use, an example that the government and military has never seen since I assume if such an example were to exist and it were plausible we would be using it already. How is eating a perk? No, it works that way and that is all there is to it. Besides I would love to make my own food when on base instead of paying the ridiculous sums of money for rations but if I don't have the ability to cook in barracks, and the town is too far away to eat out as well as too expensive messes would stick around. What are you talking about? 1) not likely as even nations such as Israel and Switzerland have not managed to accomplish what you are proposing I doubt Canada can do it. 2) There is no reason for such an extreme unless we would like to compete with the US in military strength and that will just bury is in debt for no gain. You are right, its not like pilots train for years to become proficient in their field, its not like technicians and engineers work for years to get fully qualified for their jobs... we can easily replace them by FORCING people to do their job. And the older they get the more they fall, the F35 is not perfect simply because it was designed by human beings and operated and maintained by human beings and as such is susceptible to human error but the new plane is better than the 40 year old plane. That is decided by looking at our needs and the competition. Room service? Ever gone outside your mother's basement? Ever met a real soldier? What on earth are you talking about? Again, what are you talking about?

You reap what you sow, they did not care that the couple minute prank that could net them a day or two, or a week of laughs would have a negative impact on the staff members who fell for it, for the rest of their careers, they deserve to be punished and in this case they deserve to get what they were willing to deal out, the death of a career.

And the nurse that released the information probably has already paid for the release of information, my point is that those "DJ's" had the intention of hurting someone career wise, embarrassment etc... Does it say anywhere that members of the Royal Family had not called prior to this? It is your responsibility, but they held the responsibility to behave like human beings, not go out of their way to get to private information that they were not entitled to and not intentionally go out to harm another person's life(by this I mean livelihood, career etc...) which they did not do, they knew someone would be fired or disciplined one way or another and they went out of their way to commit the action that could potentially destroy someone's career and personal life. I feel no pity for them, if they get fired and lose all sorts of career opportunities in the future thats fine with me, they didn't care about another persons wellbeing why should we care about their careers and wellbeing?

The structure is there because it works, cook is a full-time job starting from early in the morning to late at night when you have to get a meal ready for 2 or 3 thousand troops and civilian contractors. Technician of any sort is a full-time job because you need to keep your skills up to a certain standard. The military has trades because they want a SME at the workplace rather than a jack of all trades master of none. For every pilot you see there are at least 40-50 other people behind him keeping him fed, armed, in the air, with up-to-date knowledge and information as well as a means of landing. You try to give too many jobs to too few people and bad things happen. I know you have this fantasy of getting random civilians and forcing them to work a second job for free but this will not work in the REAL WORLD.

And in this case its neither, simply acting just because they crossed an imaginary line. In Syria, the only chance no matter how small of building a democracy is a direct military action immediately at the start of the uprising, anything else is a throw of the dice. If we let tens or hundreds of thousands of Syrians die and interfere only after either side crosses the imaginary line and become the "bad" guy we would at the same time piss off all sides. That I agree with.

1) Like the many unprovoked attacks that North Korea commits every year? 2)Why not do something to prevent the use of chemical weapons when the nation gets a hold of the weapons rather than wait till they use them? 3)When do you step in and stop a genocide? When does it stop being the civil war in Rwanda and becomes the genocide in Rwanda? When would it stop being the civil war in Syria and when would it become the genocide in Syria? Rwanda was a civil war turned genocide, when do you decide where one ends and the other begins?

And here is one for the record books: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/06/matt-gurney-ottawa-woman-launches-lamest-discrimination-claim-ever/

Yes it is qualified... we would still need the pilots and technicians, we would need the clerks and supply techs, as well as the engineers, cooks, MPs, Weapon Technicians and the dozen or so other trades that would have to do their job for the F35 to function. The add the RCAF bases the the infrastructure within those bases, the equipment needed to maintain, supply and repair the F35s and quite a lot I am forgetting about... Please stay out since you seem to be way out of your depth here...

For you I would say its a little bit of a and a little bit of b combined with c(lack of knowledge) and d(lack of situational awareness)... Which once? Aircraft that are as good or better than the F35? And aircraft that will not require the 40 years worth of manpower and infrastructure to support them? You can cut the price of the aircraft in half and that would cut a few of billion at most for an aircraft that has worse capabilities than the F35. Who would you want to buy the aircraft from? Russia? China? France? Sweden? Even if that were true, who would you want to control that "code"? Loser? What are you 12?

1) There is a difference between subcontracting a repair and maintenance contract to a Canadian company and building an aircraft from the ground up. You can take your car to the mechanic but that does not mean that mechanic can design and build a car for you. 2)Even if we had all of the designs and schematics for every component in the Avro Arrow this still leaves us with an interceptor with 1950's equipment while we need a multi role aircraft in 2012, to take this and redesign it we need to bring it up to 2012 standards while designing and incorporating new equipment in to an aircraft that was designed for one specific duty. 3)We need to control the Aspects of our national defence that are within our means of control, designing an aircraft and helicopters and tanks and LAV and pistols and rifles gets too much, the US can do it all but they have a defence budget over 30 times ours on a good year. We need to get the best equipment for the money we have rather than fantasize about a project that will never work simply because of the costs involved. We can design an aircraft as good or better than the F35, the question is at what price? Is it worth going on our own when the price per aircraft will be in the billions as opposed to being at 250million? It goes faster and higher? Great then what? It is an interceptor from 1950's and all the electronics on board is now obsolete, the US went to the moon using a computer that was significantly less powerful than even the cheapest computer of today while the Avro Arrow probably has a main computer about as powerful as my digital watch if that... Care to post the costs that the company proposes for the design, research and construction of the fighter to be as good or better than the F35? So you think we are doomed to pay more when the US build 3,000 F35's and we will pay less when we have to design and build from scratch only 65 aircraft? Research divided over 3000 aircraft or research divided upon only 65 aircraft which would be cheaper? Besides even if we assumed we would be producing only 10 aircraft a year that means we will have all fighters ready and deployed in 7 years(accounting for some delay) that still places us 33 years before the aircraft have to be replaced, now do you suggest that we invest in this industry for 33 years in order to have the next fighter ready? The main cost is not the production, the main cost is the research and development of the aircraft, just like the main cost of the F35 is not the aircraft itself but the pilot, aircrew, support staff, infrastructure etc...Setting up the production line to accommodate only our order means we will invest 100 billion or more in research and then we will split it over 65 aircraft so the total cost would be lets say 100 billion plus the 30 billion for the above mentioned cost to any aircraft we buy and suddenly the cost is at least 130 billion instead of 35 or 40 billion, what we ended up with was an aircraft that most likely will be inferior to the F35 at a much greater cost and once the research is done we shut down for what 20 years until we need to replace it? Research costs money, the more you sell the cheaper it gets... you spend 100 billion on research and sell 3,000 aircraft the research is divided on the 3,000 aircraft, if you spend 100 billion on research and development but only build 65 aircraft the cost per aircraft before the cost of building it is factored in will bring the overall cost to a little over 1.5 billion dollars per aircraft rather than spreading the cost to a little over 33million per aircraft... Ok you solved the problem who is to build it, but who will research all the components? Who will field the 100billion or more to research and develop all the components within the aircraft? At what cost? And will it be worth it? Same time frame? Great so what is their price tag? And how does it compare to the F35? We don't need a paperweight made Canada, we need an aircraft that can do a dozen different jobs if they are promising to design an aircraft based on the 1950's design at the same timeframe as the F35, either the aircraft will be obsolete and substandard by the standards of the 1970 let alone 2012 or it will be prohibitively expensive. You think that one Canadian company can research and develop an aircraft to rival the F35 in the same timeframe at a fraction of the cost for only 2.2% of the order? Is there anything to back that up or is it the claim of a company that wants our money? You keep saying this, but I have not seen how much an Avro Arrow 2.0 will cost and how it will compare to the F35, we can build a Sopwith Camel probably for 50,000 dollars a unit but would it do anything it is expected?

Thats the problem, we might decide to do so now but in 5 years someone will cry that we are peacekeepers not warmongers and the whole thing will be shut down. My personal view is that the US has the expertise but also the consistency something we need to be able to rely on, in 20 years we will be able to get the same spare parts and expert support something we cannot guarantee in Canada because of the misguided beliefs of some political parties and of many people.

Hense the substantial investment of time and money, something that might be worth it if we were to say pursue this as a business opportunity but knowing Canada we would throw a hundred billion down the drain and some politician will swoop in and say we are peacekeepers and we don't need to be making weapons and the project will be closed. I think we could do it but it will mean that each aircraft might be over a billion if not two billion since we are starting from scratch.

We can build one, with substantial investment of both time and money and end up with an obsolete aircraft as soon as its coming out of the production line only this time it will have cost over a billion to build 1 aircraft and thats before upkeep.

His father got Canadian citizenship Right or wrong? His son was born in Canada but lives most of his life outside right or wrong? One of his sons was injured in I believe the same incident where the father died and is now in Canada because our healthcare is better than Both Pakistan and Afghanistan right or wrong? Omar Khadr used his Canadian Citizenship as a get out of jail free card, if he was an Afghan citizen or a Pakistani Citizen he would still rotting in Guantanamo bay for at least another 30 years Right or Wrong? What I have seen about this animals is that they use Canadian citizenship to move throughout the world and fight against us and our allies only to run to Canada when they need to be bailed out. 5 sons, 1 is crippled, another has admitted to buying weapons for al-Quida, Omar POS Khadr killed a US soldier while fighting against NATO and Canada, another son worked for terrorists and now is apparently American informant or something and 1 son has been using Canadian healthcare since birth. Did I miss anything? From Canada they have taken everything and given nothing, they only use Canada as a safe haven for medical treatment or when one of them gets caught...

Yes and as soon as we start designing our own aircraft we will already be 5 decades behind the competition, by the time we design, build and are able to field an aircraft comparable to the F35 our aircraft will be obsolete because the 7th generation aircraft will be out and we would need to rebuild the Air Force from the ground up because our planes have been falling out of the sky in ever increasing numbers. But you will be willing to pay 100 billion to design and build 65 aircraft and then add the other 30 tho 40 billion for upkeep? Instead of paying 35 or 40 billion throughout the life of the aircraft we will end up paying 3 or 4 times as much with no noticeable benefit. Most of the people complaining don't complain because of the cost of the aircraft itself but of the upkeep cost something that would not change for the better if we designed our own aircraft. And we spend 10 to 15 years researching, designing and testing this aircraft and then what? We buy our 65 planes and shut down production? By investing 100 billion or more to set up, research and develop the aircraft before the cost of the aircraft and upkeep for the next 40 years? Instead of paying 9 billion for the total package you thing spending 100+ billion is saving money... What happens when we get our fighters and no one wants to purchase our overpriced product? How would investing virtually the entire DND budget for new equipment in a replacement aircraft build national pride? We would end up with shiny new planes that serve no purpose because they are obsolete before we even get them delivered, then we have this infrastructure and manpower that we don't need anymore what happens then? You think this would unite us? This is an issue used by the opposition to show how bad the conservatives are never mind that they are lying and twisting in order to "prove" that. Building the fighters in Canada means that we will invest 2 to 3 times the money in research and development realize that maybe it is not going to work out and buy an American made aircraft anyway. For what purpose would you want to invest billions of dollars in to an industry that will likely collapse in 10 years if not earlier? Paying 9 billion for the aircraft as a package v. paying 100+ billion for the aircraft as a package...hmmmm I wonder which is the fair value for the tax paying citizen. Should we wait for a fire to invest in a fire truck? So? Should we maintain obsolete equipment so that we can purchase the next generation aircraft and receive it about the same time it becomes obsolete? And it took quite the investment to do it...right? No WRONG! The F35 costs 40 billion WITH upkeep and manpower the aircraft themselves cost less than 9 billion dollars, so unless you know someone who can design and build a comparable aircraft for less than 9 billion then we are SOL and need the F35s. We can design the aircraft and then we will still need to maintain it and operate it and thats where the 30 billion comes in. You should familiarize yourself with the cost of the aircraft before you suggest we sink hundreds of billions on an adventure we don't need. Because we can't save money buying from inside Canada unless someone has come up with a way to build and design a comparable aircraft to the F35 for less then 9 billion... hell for less than 20 billion and it might still be worth considering but anything above that is not worth consideration. The whole F35 investment spend by us to build 65 planes or we buy 65 planes from the US, invest some more of the money we would use to build domestic aircraft on improving military equipment and then throw the other hundred or so billion in to social programs, healthcare or paying downy he debt... Unfortunately you are suggesting we spend many times the cost of the F35 in order to build our own aircraft... something not worth doing if it is only for our 65 planes.

Care to explain where I am wrong?

I know the definition of genocide, but it seems to me few others know it especially those in power. In Rwanda they spend 100 days defining what was happening and when he genocide was over they spend another 100 days trying to figure out who to blame for the failure to act. You can act all superior but my question is will this definition hold when action is needed or will we sit on the sidelines debating if it is or is not genocide and what genocide means. Ok so lets say we ban all firearms, do you go after the person you know has an illegal firearm when they get it or do you wait for them to use it to arrest them? Seeing as Syria is a non-participant what then? It was ok for them to have the weapons as long as they did not use them? You either interfere when people are dying, or you don't interfere at all... it seems pretty stupid to draw the line at HOW you kill people rather than just killing people. So you are saying we will not bother any dictator who wants to slaughter his people as long as they are using approved means of slaughter... if they use one of the no-no weapons then and only then will we care. You are trying to twist something to fit your agenda, my issue is not with how many died but rather your point on how they died. What happens if Syria smuggled chemical weapons in to the Gaza strip and the Palestinians used it against Israel? Should we move in and occupy the Gaza strip? There is a government military, there was a rebel military. The government used less sophisticated means of destruction while the Syrian government has more sophisticated means of destruction. The RGF slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people the Syrians slaughtered tens of thousands of people most of them innocent civilians. And what then? Sit by and let the terrorists roam free because they have human shields? Let them kill your people so you don't kill theirs? Tell me again why nothing was done BEFORE THEY USE THEM rather than waiting for them to USE THEM? If you are to enforce this make sure to enforce it when it matter rather than enforcing it after thousands of people die. Get them at the first sign that they have the illegal weapons or don't bother at all. Who are you to decide which people should die and which should live based exclusively on the means of their death and the label put on the action. You are trying to justify action based on the method of death(biological and chemical) as well as the reason for death(genocide). So for a dictator to avoid action from the rest of the world he has to do several things, use "legal" means of executing his people, don't pick on specific religious, ethic or national groups...just kill everyone equally and he will be free and clear. You mean the indiscriminate shelling of a city was not slaughter? Or bombing civilian targets was not slaughter? Really? We need to be involved from the beginning or not at all, using the chemical weapons as the line in the sand means we will end up with a lot of pissed of Syrians because we spend a year or two watching them get slaughtered and then only interfered once the chemical weapons slaughtered even more people. What happens when Assad realizes that it is all lost? They have chemical weapons, that is one way to resolve problems and that falls in the "whatever means they have" category...right? Depends if you want to go in or not kinda the same problem that the world faced in Rwanda.

Get out of Pakistani jail free card, get out of American jail free card you know that sort of thing. Yeah but not every Canadian goes and fights for a terrorist organization and get themselves injured fighting essentially against their country only to run back to that country and use its healthcare system. Yeah but luckily for us Abdulkareem Khadr was taken out of the gene pool and it is almost guaranteed he will never reproduce another one of those animals. Do you support genocide like login? So he was a great man, and Omar Khadr chose to go to Afghanistan and fight the Americans? If the father was not a terrorist then Omar went against his parents wishes and thus he should be treated like an adult because he made an adult decision against his parents wishes right?

His dad came to Canada and used his citizenship as a get out of jail free card, his sons although born here are just using Canada for the same kinds of reasons...get out of jail free card and free healthcare... I doubt any of those animals have ever worked a day in their life that has in some even small and significant way benefited Canada. Canadians kill Canadians but few "Canadians" would like to kill all Canadians that don't believe in their bullshit. Thankfully nature and their own stupidity and ignorance is taking them out of the gene pool one by one...

To me they are not human beings they are less than dirt and it’s that plain and simple. They have shown no regard for any western lives, they come to Canada get citizenship and use that citizenship as a get out of jail free card twice already plus for the healthcare as well... They don’t see any of us as human being why should we give them the honor of being our equal? Do you think that they will think twice if they had a chance to kill you and your entire family for their cause if they could do so without any repercussions? No matter how much you support them as long as you are one of us and us is a wide definition of those in the west you are the enemy, a useful tool but still an enemy.

You are either Stupid and I know that is not the case, blind and I'm not so sure about that or you are so so biased that you do not want to admit you are wrong no matter what. The NDP is the driving force behind this as it is the NDP which is the main party that uses this is their hill to die on in order to fraudulently get some votes. You are a liar through omission as you feign outrage about the F35 but not the shipbuilding which use the exact same formula, nice to know you are not thinking for yourself and just regurgitating the opinions of someone else. It is hard to take you serious when you cry and cry about how the government has been dishonest and lied to the people about the true cost when the shipbuilding projects for both the CG and the RCN are using the same formula and will cost significantly more than stated. You are becoming the equivalent of Fox "news" where they take 2 things that are exactly the same and show fake outrage over one and ignore the other because it benefits their political ideology.

No you are not saying its what you are implying since you have a problem with a but not be even though they are exactly the same. If the government lied to the people you are ok with it as long as it benefits the NDP, the moment is stops benefiting the NDP suddenly the shipbuilding program becomes a target, just like the F35 is a target only as long as it does not benefit the NDP, the second it benefits the NDP they shut up and play along.

No you can go out and say that my son raped or murdered a women and that is bad so he should go to jail for 50 years but your son raped or murdered a women under the exact same circumstances yet the judge should let him go because he did nothing wrong. In this case the NDP has accused the government of everything over the F-35 because they lied and did not release the right budget but at the same time the NDP is really quiet about the ship building because they benefit from the project politically. There have been at least half a dozen big ticket items purchased for the military in the last 7 years since the Conservatives were in power and none of them used the formula used for the F35s. cybercoma, please explain to me what would happen with the position the NDP has taken if the government decided to go ahead with the F35's and gave some maintenance contract to Quebec worth 5 billion dollars in NDP ridings? Would the NDP continue their opposition to the project or would they and by extension you stop this fictitious outrage since now they and again by extension you get a piece of the pie?

Stealing is right, or its wrong...what you are essentially saying is that stealing is wrong as long as its done by them, but should it benefit you its a-ok.