DogOnPorch Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 look up Indians reason for doing so, they refer to it as heavy and light fighters...India is similar in size to Canada so similar requirements... and an all-around do everything plane has never worked in the the past and this one won't either, it'll do many things ok but be great at none of them...replace the A-10 as a close ground support weapon? it'll never match the A-10's ability... Countless aircraft have provided multi-role capability at no cost in performance. The P-38 Lightning comes to mind. Not only one of the best fighters of all time, but a deadly ground attack machine as well. Not much could match it after it proceeded to the P-38G model. The P-38F, granted, was a bit of a dog...but that was due to it having different propellers than the later models. Here's a J model cranking-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 How many hours of lost production do they have when they are calling and harassing people to fill out the mandatory census. Sorry but it will get smaller. Oh please, they're going to have to INCREASE the amount of calls because no one will want to do a voluntary census. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 what I'm saying is we have no enemies...who protects Costa Rica with no armed forces? why haven't they been attacked by their neighbours or the Chinese?...if any country with the ability to invade us wanted to do so we couldn't do a thing about it, we'd be totally neutralized in a matter of days...so why spend billions on something we cannot prevent?...why would a country invade us for resources we're quite willing to sell them(and have)?...the only country likely to attack us is our neighbour and if they decided to our military airports would be neutralized within hours and all 60-70 J35's would be useless junk... We have no enemies, eh? Except the USA, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 As opposed to people claiming that we SHOULD be purchasing these planes at 140 million a pop before maintanence because these planes apparently can make hard landings? or as opposed to comparing an unproven airplane that still has a number of technical issues vs proven technology in planes already out there doing the job... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 (edited) what I'm saying is we have no enemies...who protects Costa Rica with no armed forces? why haven't they been attacked by their neighbours or the Chinese?...if any country with the ability to invade us wanted to do so we couldn't do a thing about it, we'd be totally neutralized in a matter of days...so why spend billions on something we cannot prevent?...why would a country invade us for resources we're quite willing to sell them(and have)?...the only country likely to attack us is our neighbour and if they decided to our military airports would be neutralized within hours and all 60-70 J35's would be useless junk... This whole statement is so fallacial and poorly thought out I don't even know what to say. Our safety in Canada is dependant on US force projection both on our continent and abroad. As they are our closest neighbour and ally, it would stand to reason that we should at least be willing to participate in the defence of the continent and if deemed reasonable, and if requested, outside the continent as well. We're not buying these planes from the Americans to protect us from the Americans. That whole statement was completely assinine. or as opposed to comparing an unproven airplane that still has a number of technical issues vs proven technology in planes already out there doing the job... but won't be able to do the job for the next 30-40 years like the F-35... Edited July 29, 2010 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 This whole statement is so fallacial and poorly thought out I don't even know what to say. Join the club. Beer and appies await. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 This whole statement is so fallacial and poorly thought out I don't even know what to say. Our safety in Canada is dependant on US force projection both on our continent and abroad. As they are our closest neighbour and ally, it would stand to reason that we should at least be willing to participate in the defence of the continent and if deemed reasonable, and if requested, outside the continent as well. We're not buying these planes from the Americans to protect us from the Americans. That whole statement was completely assinine. In the current security climate, no, American force projection both on the continent and overseas doesn't protect us. Dealing with supranational illegal organization isn't solved through military action but policing and security. The US doesn't attack Italy and Sicily for the importation of the Mafia, which is certainly the closest thing in terms of make up and operations as opposed to other organizations such as Al Qaeda. The mafia is certainly more deadly. I agree we need to help out with the defence of the continent, but we need to have a discussion as to what that role should be. Furthermore, I disagree. You don't know the fact that the F-35 will last 30-40 years. Neither do I. The only way we know it and the government knows it is if they do an open bidding process. Furthermore, it makes one more suspicious when reading that the government has been attempting to edit wikipedia to make it Stephen Harper friendly and have even attempted to add in insults directed to Michael Ignatieff in the wikipedia article relating to the fighter. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Wikipedia+edits+traced+Defence+computers/3335036/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 what I'm saying is we have no enemies...who protects Costa Rica with no armed forces? why haven't they been attacked by their neighbours or the Chinese? Costa Rica doesn't have an official military but they do have a security force that is more than capable of defending their country. It's a small force, but then Costa Rica is a small country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Our safety in Canada is dependant on US force projection both on our continent and abroad. No I dont buy that for a second. Most of Canadas security is geographical and stems from the fact we only have an international border with one country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 29, 2010 Report Share Posted July 29, 2010 Furthermore, it makes one more suspicious when reading that the government has been attempting to edit wikipedia to make it Stephen Harper friendly and have even attempted to add in insults directed to Michael Ignatieff in the wikipedia article relating to the fighter. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Wikipedia+edits+traced+Defence+computers/3335036/story.html Why not? It has been proven time and time again that Wiki is a biased source! Just try to make a post or an edit that goes against their orthodoxy and see how fast it gets zapped! Besides, if you actually read the article you'll see that there is no proof that this was sanctioned by the CPC or even that they knew it was going on! It likely was just some sympathizer who took it upon himself. Refugees from 'rubble.ca' do it with articles by climate 'deniers' all the time! Just try to prove it was officially sanctioned by any 'climate change' organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Costa Rica doesn't have an official military but they do have a security force that is more than capable of defending their country. It's a small force, but then Costa Rica is a small country. the security force has no ability to protect it from it's neighbours should they decide to roll in a force of 9-10,000 lightly armed police and para military and border patrol in a country nearly twice the size of Belgium, it has no enemies and no need of an offensive force... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 the security force has no ability to protect it from it's neighbours should they decide to roll in a force of 9-10,000 lightly armed police and para military and border patrol in a country nearly twice the size of Belgium, it has no enemies and no need of an offensive force... Costa Rica does have a basic offensive force as it has sent forces on peacekeeping missions, but most of it's forces are defensive. Hence it being known as a security force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Why not? It has been proven time and time again that Wiki is a biased source! Just try to make a post or an edit that goes against their orthodoxy and see how fast it gets zapped! Besides, if you actually read the article you'll see that there is no proof that this was sanctioned by the CPC or even that they knew it was going on! It likely was just some sympathizer who took it upon himself. Refugees from 'rubble.ca' do it with articles by climate 'deniers' all the time! Just try to prove it was officially sanctioned by any 'climate change' organization. A "biased" source? Though I agree it shouldn't be used academically due to the fact that anyone can change it, the default article has simply "Canada has purchased said aircraft." Nothing really biased about that. Furthermore, all peer reviewed research says global warming exists. I guess you don't know what peer review means and that of course 99% of the scientific community is biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 This whole statement is so fallacial and poorly thought out I don't even know what to say. you mean unlike your phantom enemy you can't name or give reasons why they would want to invade us????Our safety in Canada is dependant on US force projection both on our continent and abroad. As they are our closest neighbour and ally, it would stand to reason that we should at least be willing to participate in the defence of the continent and if deemed reasonable, and if requested, outside the continent as well. protect us from who? we do need to project our force to outside of our borders? did the americans project a force on our behest when it invaded Grenada? Vietnam? Iraq? were we in peril of invasion? We're not buying these planes from the Americans to protect us from the Americans. That whole statement was completely assinine.what's asinine is spending 16 billion defending against an enemy we don't have, what's asinine is that no one here can name or give reason why this phantom enemy would want to attack us...the most imperialistic country on the planet is right beside us, a country that has openly challenged our sovereignty, which other country has done that?...will we defend our sovereignty against our neighbour? no we will do nothing, can we do anything? no ...so why bother spending 16 billion on a plane that can not defend us against the only threat to us?we don't need a $16 billion plane to patrol the arctic against an enemy we will not attack and can not defeat... nor do we need such a plane to defend us against hijacked civilian airliners....this is the most retarded waste of money possible.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Costa Rica does have a basic offensive force as it has sent forces on peacekeeping missions, but most of it's forces are defensive. Hence it being known as a security force. defending yourself with personal weapons vs unarmed civilians is not offensive, the UN doesn't send in security forces as peacekeepers if there is a war...these are armed police nothing more.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 (edited) protect us from who? we do need to project our force to outside of our borders? did the americans project a force on our behest when it invaded Grenada? Vietnam? Iraq? were we in peril of invasion? Funny....you left out Haiti! ...the most imperialistic country on the planet is right beside us, a country that has openly challenged our sovereignty, which other country has done that? Denmark and Spain we don't need a $16 billion plane to patrol the arctic against an enemy we will not attack and can not defeat... nor do we need such a plane to defend us against hijacked civilian airliners....this is the most retarded waste of money possible.... ..but you will need them to bomb Serbs and Iraqis again. Edited July 30, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 In the current security climate, no, American force projection both on the continent and overseas doesn't protect us. Dealing with supranational illegal organization isn't solved through military action but policing and security. The US doesn't attack Italy and Sicily for the importation of the Mafia, which is certainly the closest thing in terms of make up and operations as opposed to other organizations such as Al Qaeda. The mafia is certainly more deadly. I agree we need to help out with the defence of the continent, but we need to have a discussion as to what that role should be. Furthermore, I disagree. You don't know the fact that the F-35 will last 30-40 years. Neither do I. The only way we know it and the government knows it is if they do an open bidding process. Furthermore, it makes one more suspicious when reading that the government has been attempting to edit wikipedia to make it Stephen Harper friendly and have even attempted to add in insults directed to Michael Ignatieff in the wikipedia article relating to the fighter. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Wikipedia+edits+traced+Defence+computers/3335036/story.html Holy crap did you read your article nicky, stupid stupid stupid. The UBC professor that you tried to hold to such a high stand is an ex NDP candidate. Purely political. This is too funny, the paper accuses the Conservative party if making wiki edits, but it was someone(s) inside the civil service DND. The DND wants this aircraft, its just the mealy mouthed politicians of the left who seem to always want to deny the military the resources it deserves to do the job Canadians demand of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Holy crap did you read your article nicky, stupid stupid stupid. The UBC professor that you tried to hold to such a high stand is an ex NDP candidate. Purely political. This is too funny, the paper accuses the Conservative party if making wiki edits, but it was someone(s) inside the civil service DND. The DND wants this aircraft, its just the mealy mouthed politicians of the left who seem to always want to deny the military the resources it deserves to do the job Canadians demand of it. And the crap you read in the National Post isn't? At least I can understand bias that isn't my own. Furthermore, why wouldn't one assume that the edits were done by the CPC considering they also included Ignatieff insults. It seems pretty straightforward to me. You do realize that the CPC, once in power gets to make political appointments to various departments, including DND? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Holy crap did you read your article nicky, stupid stupid stupid. The UBC professor that you tried to hold to such a high stand is an ex NDP candidate. Purely political. This is too funny, the paper accuses the Conservative party if making wiki edits, but it was someone(s) inside the civil service DND. The DND wants this aircraft, its just the mealy mouthed politicians of the left who seem to always want to deny the military the resources it deserves to do the job Canadians demand of it. There have been plenty of a$$holes on the right who have done the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 There have been plenty of a$$holes on the right who have done the same thing. So what at least the assholes on the right want to put our sons and daughters brave enough to put their lives the line for us the best equipment we can get, not just a bunch of cheap sh!t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 And the crap you read in the National Post isn't? At least I can understand bias that isn't my own. Furthermore, why wouldn't one assume that the edits were done by the CPC considering they also included Ignatieff insults. It seems pretty straightforward to me. You do realize that the CPC, once in power gets to make political appointments to various departments, including DND? Got news for you, most military personal are conservatives, or don't you realize that? They know that most liberals are two faced pricks who pretend to be concerned with the military as they gut funding, fail to replace antiquated equipment, and send them into combat ill prepared. Its no wonder most military personnel and staff have quite the disdain for both the NDP the Liberals and their leaders. You also realize that the entire staff of the DND didn't change over with appointments, just a few at the top. Your so full of BS its not even funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Holy crap did you read your article nicky, stupid stupid stupid. The UBC professor that you tried to hold to such a high stand is an ex NDP candidate. Purely political. This is too funny, the paper accuses the Conservative party if making wiki edits, but it was someone(s) inside the civil service DND. The DND wants this aircraft, its just the mealy mouthed politicians of the left who seem to always want to deny the military the resources it deserves to do the job Canadians demand of it. deny the military the resources it deserves to do the job Canadians demand of it I didnt demand they do jack shit. How about the chicken hawks that are always dying to get us into non-defensive wars pay for the fuckin planes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 So what at least the assholes on the right want to put our sons and daughters brave enough to put their lives the line for us the best equipment we can get, not just a bunch of cheap sh!t. If they could get away with it they would give the military the cheap sh!t, but with the Conservatives the DND can point that out and the Conservatives numbers would tank. While the liberals don't have to worry about that to much. Any time our military gets decent hardware you can thank the DND, not the politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted July 30, 2010 Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 you mean unlike your phantom enemy you can't name or give reasons why they would want to invade us???? protect us from who? we do need to project our force to outside of our borders? did the americans project a force on our behest when it invaded Grenada? Vietnam? Iraq? were we in peril of invasion? what's asinine is spending 16 billion defending against an enemy we don't have, what's asinine is that no one here can name or give reason why this phantom enemy would want to attack us...the most imperialistic country on the planet is right beside us, a country that has openly challenged our sovereignty, which other country has done that?...will we defend our sovereignty against our neighbour? no we will do nothing, can we do anything? no ...so why bother spending 16 billion on a plane that can not defend us against the only threat to us? we don't need a $16 billion plane to patrol the arctic against an enemy we will not attack and can not defeat... nor do we need such a plane to defend us against hijacked civilian airliners....this is the most retarded waste of money possible.... So you can see in the future can you, do you see what happens when countries need water and oil and we are sitting on most of it, we should just give up our claim on the arctic? One F-18 just crashed , russian bombers testing our airforce again yesterday. Chretien cancelled the helicopters and servicemen died in those old helicopters.General Hillier said we did'nt need tanks ever again,tell that to the boys in afghanistan, which hillier admitted to being wrong. You have no idea what the future holds, so lets not get caught with our pants down again, because we think we know what the future holds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted July 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2010 Got news for you, most military personal are conservatives, or don't you realize that? They know that most liberals are two faced pricks who pretend to be concerned with the military as they gut funding, fail to replace antiquated equipment, and send them into combat ill prepared. Its no wonder most military personnel and staff have quite the disdain for both the NDP the Liberals and their leaders. You also realize that the entire staff of the DND didn't change over with appointments, just a few at the top. Your so full of BS its not even funny. I'm full of BS? I'm not the one following a line here. I think we're also forgetting that about 90% of the new equipment the military has been using was procured pre-1996. Two faced, eh? I think we're also forgetting that the extra money the DND has been given has mostly gone to Afghanistan, which, despite whatever government was in power, would've been needed anyway. We may have different views on defence, but at least my views are consistent with reality, not some make believe narrative that liberals are weak on defence. So really, before calling anyone two faced or full of bs, or painting an entire group with one brush, you best look in the mirror, pal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.