GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Does this man give anything to back this claim up? Why on earth would the Americans agree to no penalties AND be willing to give access to Canadian firms to contracts for F-35 components? What could possibly be their motivation? Charity? Or the value they place on eternal friendship with the Canadian Liberal Party? This makes no sense at all! MAYBE we could skin out of cancellation fees but I find it impossible to believe that they would still cut Canada in on a piece of the manufacturing pie, considering we were putting diddley squat into the baking of the pie at that point! They already paid for that access via the JSF program... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) They already paid for that access via the JSF program... They paid "mice nuts"...try again. Canada is only a Tier 3 partner. That's the lowest level. Edited February 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 They paid "mice nuts"...try again. Canada is only a Tier 3 partner. That's the lowest level. Yup, therefore at the highest risk if others pull out of the program because the costs are too high... As we've discussed before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yup, therefore at the highest risk if others pull out of the program because the costs are too high... As we've discussed before... Lowest risk....not highest. Canada is always a day late and dollar short when it comes to these kind of procurements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Lowest risk....not highest. Canada is always a day late and dollar short when it comes to these kind of procurements. Well I'm sure those classic CF-101's could still get into the sky with a little TLC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) The deal isn't in Canadian Interests. Only an idiot would agree to the deal. I've made up my mind. Now watch stupidity do its thing. I was all for norad for norad --- originally but the pricetag went from 9 billion to over 21 billion - and the US took over Canada - Canada doesn't need these things anymore. Edited February 24, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... I guess we will have to, as i don't see it as a black and white issue, i do see problems on both sides of the fence, but i do see the F-35 as having a few more pluses. You see I for one am NOT willing to take the chance of Canada having to cancel when it's too late and Canada ends up with NOTHING but a few "servicable" OLD and falling apart CF-18s as you are... There will always be options available well past the roll out of the F-35, be it another American aircraft such as the F-18E/F or a euro fighter. With all the rumblings about the F-35, the US airforce has also looked at another option of starting production of upgraded versions of the F-15,F-16 and F-18, these aircraft are already seeing alternative versions put out such as a new F-15 version that has some stealth features, ie the tails fins have been modified, along with some body features to reduce signature. Nor am I willing to mortgage my grandchildrens future along with Canada's by an at any cost purchase that could easily end up costing 30 t0 50 BILLION DOLLARS just to put on a show for people who couldn't care less about Canada... I guess we should have thought about that when we started cashing in on those peace dividens after the cold war, or funding other things during the decade of darkness. now it is catching up with us and biting us in the ass,alot of equipment is well over due to be replaced and it is coming with a massive price tag....50 bil is just the tip of the ice burg.... The fact that YOU are willing to do that means that either you didn't read or fully understand that the F-35 is looking like a very untenable purchase for Canada or that YOU don't care about the Canadian Debt load and it's future implications... No i do understand , and the F-35 is starting to look untenable,and i will agree with you on that statement, but key word is starting to, not untenable just yet....and until it is why would we risk lossing a chance to own a state of the art Aircraft.... One of the prime reasons i think it has a good chance to come around is the pace at which tech is progressing, of which we both have agreed on. another major reason is the Airforce, Navy and Marines have placed all their eggs into this project, and have hundrds of billions of dollars at stake here, the government will force something to happen,to get pricing under control if it spirls to much more out of control.... I do care about debt load...as i to pay taxes...But Canadians have also made a promise and have a responsibilty to ensure their soldiers, sailors, and airmen are equiped to the best of their abilities, to perform all the tasks the public and government has assigned them.....as a trade off for our military members signing on to unlimited liablity....and if that means going into debt , then Canadians will have to make some hard choices and come to the conclusion they can't have the cake and eat it as well. either get rid of the military,and come under US rules for our protection and loss some of our identity, or cut some thing else off. Did you follow any of the links to see what I was trying to convey to you? I think not, or you would surely have come to a different conclusion, OR, as I've stated before, you are shilling for the CONS with no regard for the vast majority of Canadians... Care to have another look - I have , and i do know what you are conveying, and many issues have come to light that i was not aware of or had put any serious thought to. All that being said IF the F-35 project gets back on the rails i'd hate for Canada to make a hasty decission in regards to pulling out and miss out on what looks like a chance of a life time for our airforce... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Well I'm sure those classic CF-101's could still get into the sky with a little TLC. Interesting...CF-101's were not new production. I'll bet that saved a bundle! The Canadian Voodoos were all ex-USAF machines rather than new builds. The first deliveries of Voodoos to Canada were under Operation Queens Row. A first batch of 56 F-101Bs was delivered to the Royal Canadian Air Force (later renamed the Canadian Armed Forces) between July of 1961 and May of 1962. The first batch of Canadian Voodoos included 25 F-101B-115-MCs and 31 F-10B-120-MCs, all of them from a 1959 fiscal year production lot. In Canadian service, they were designated CF-101B. The CF-101Bs were virtually identical to the USAF F-101B, including the nose inflight refuelling probe which was never used tactically by RCAF Voodoos. http://www.f-101voodoo.com/voodoo_cf101b-f.htm Edited February 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Lowest risk....not highest. Canada is always a day late and dollar short when it comes to these kind of procurements. No, highest if this Harper purchase proceeds and Canada is on the hook via a contractual agreement to purchase... Pull out costs would apply... Not so for the other countries that have not made such a commitment prior to the F-35 going into productions... Lose - lose in all aspects... Except for LM of course, they can't lose unless the entire program gets shut down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 No, highest if this Harper purchase proceeds and Canada is on the hook via a contractual agreement to purchase... Pull out costs would apply... Not so for the other countries that have not made such a commitment prior to the F-35 going into productions... Lose - lose in all aspects... Except for LM of course, they can't lose unless the entire program gets shut down... That's a big IF...Canada has no such contract at this time. LockMart won't lose a dime either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Again, who cares what the Liberals think or say about it. They won't be winning an election in the next five years anyways. Pm Harper is right to ignore them. The Liberals are a rudderless ship with a lame duck leader who's on his way back to Harvard once he qualifies for his golden plated pension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 That's a big IF...Canada has no such contract at this time. LockMart won't lose a dime either way. Always nice when you confirm what I say... From the Right Wing American viewpoint of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I guess we will have to, as i don't see it as a black and white issue, i do see problems on both sides of the fence, but i do see the F-35 as having a few more pluses. Fair comment... I'm glad you are being somewhat open minded and now understand that indeed there are some problems... There will always be options available well past the roll out of the F-35, be it another American aircraft such as the F-18E/F or a euro fighter. With all the rumblings about the F-35, the US airforce has also looked at another option of starting production of upgraded versions of the F-15,F-16 and F-18, these aircraft are already seeing alternative versions put out such as a new F-15 version that has some stealth features, ie the tails fins have been modified, along with some body features to reduce signature. Options, yes... Good options not necessarily... For reasons that should be obvious to anyone, certainly those that have followed our discussions on this thread, the F-18E/F(G) is easily the most viable and easily the BEST yet least costly option... I guess we should have thought about that when we started cashing in on those peace dividens after the cold war, or funding other things during the decade of darkness. now it is catching up with us and biting us in the ass,alot of equipment is well over due to be replaced and it is coming with a massive price tag....50 bil is just the tip of the ice burg... Hindsight is always 20/20 and certainly not a simple equation since many needs and factors change quickly in the passage of TIME... In principle you are correct, but so was/is keeping Canada a viable country beyond just it's Military... A further thought would be that with the many, many disadvantages Canada has being situated next to the BIG Elephant next door wouldn't it just make sense to take advantage of something like the US's Military power as one of the few benefits of our location on the Globe? No i do understand , and the F-35 is starting to look untenable,and i will agree with you on that statement, but key word is starting to, not untenable just yet....and until it is why would we risk lossing a chance to own a state of the art Aircraft... I'll let this statement answer that question for me - -“It seems like all of our NATO allies are questioning the skyrocketing costs of the F-35, so why is the Canadian government alone in writing a blank cheque to Lockheed Martin with no questions asked?” There is no penalty for cancelling the current deal and holding an open competition for our next fighter jet. A Liberal government would remain committed to the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding that gives Canadian industry access to F-35 contracts, without any obligation to purchase the planes. - One of the prime reasons i think it has a good chance to come around is the pace at which tech is progressing, of which we both have agreed on. another major reason is the Airforce, Navy and Marines have placed all their eggs into this project, and have hundrds of billions of dollars at stake here, the government will force something to happen, to get pricing under control if it spirls to much more out of control.... Here we somewhat disagree... The US forces are NOT putting all their eggs into the F-35 and has multiple other options to achieve it's goals and needs as YOU yourself stated earlier... ONLY Canada is preparing to put all it's eggs into the F-35 basket... I don't think that's a good idea... I do care about debt load...as i to pay taxes...But Canadians have also made a promise and have a responsibilty to ensure their soldiers, sailors, and airmen are equiped to the best of their abilities, to perform all the tasks the public and government has assigned them.....as a trade off for our military members signing on to unlimited liablity....and if that means going into debt , then Canadians will have to make some hard choices and come to the conclusion they can't have the cake and eat it as well. either get rid of the military,and come under US rules for our protection and loss some of our identity, or cut some thing else off. Again - I'll let the following statements answer for me - - Last week, Alan Williams, the former Assistant Deputy Minister of defence responsible for procurement, testified before Parliament that it was a mistake to go to a sole-source competition and that an open competition would get the best fighter at the lowest price with the most jobs. In a vitriolic response, Stephen Harper said that Mr. Williams had changed his opinion since he was in government – a charge that Mr. Williams called an “absolute lie.” “This is the single largest military procurement in Canadian history,” said Liberal Defence Critic Dominic LeBlanc. “We are deeply concerned that the government hasn’t been straight with Canadians, and that without competition, we’re not getting the right plane, the best price, or the greatest benefits for our aerospace industry.” Mr. Garneau and Mr. LeBlanc set out the following questions on the F-35 deal: 1. What are the defence priorities and the domestic and foreign mission requirements that our new fighter jets must be able to support? 2. What are the roles, capabilities and operational performance requirements that any new fighter must be able to meet in order to support these future domestic and international priorities and missions? 3. What evidence does the government have to demonstrate that their deal gets the right equipment for our Air Force while achieving the following: a. The lowest cost and best value for taxpayer dollars, with controls to prevent cost escalation; and b. Guaranteed regional benefits with a transfer of intellectual property to grow the Canadian aerospace industry, including in-service support? “Without compelling answers to each of these questions, we don’t understand why the government is sole-sourcing a plane chosen by the Pentagon,” said Mr. LeBlanc. - I have , and i do know what you are conveying, and many issues have come to light that i was not aware of or had put any serious thought to. All that being said IF the F-35 project gets back on the rails i'd hate for Canada to make a hasty decission in regards to pulling out and miss out on what looks like a chance of a life time for our airforce... Looks can be VERY deceiving when it comes to things like this... The F-35 still remains a "project" and is still a totally unproven entity... That's what concerns me most... I thank you that you took the TIME to try and understand my position on this matter and have tried to be as forthright and complete in my viewpoint as possible throughout this thread... I too have learned things in our discussions, so open debate on an important issue like this is always beneficial to all concerned... Special thanks to BC_2004 and others, who have, and hope I will continue, to have input into this matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) No, highest if this Harper purchase proceeds and Canada is on the hook via a contractual agreement to purchase... Pull out costs would apply... Not so for the other countries that have not made such a commitment prior to the F-35 going into productions... Lose - lose in all aspects... Except for LM of course, they can't lose unless the entire program gets shut down... They are con aritists I'd sue them .. the Conservative party should have to pay the fees for this imbezzlement of tax payer funds on a sole sourced contract without approval from Parliament - for non budgeted funds.. it is illegal. You can't budget 21 billion dollars without a budget approval IT IS ILLEGAL!!! The government shouldn't be obligated to oblidge a contract that was against the law. Edited February 24, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 They are con aritists I'd sue them .. the Conservative party should have to pay the fees for this imbezzlement of tax payer funds on a sole sourced contract without approval from Parliament - for non budgeted funds.. it is illegal. You can't budget 21 billion dollars without a budget approval IT IS ILLEGAL!!! The government shouldn't be obligated to oblidge a contract that was against the law. Unfortunately certain uninformed voters gave them that right.. It can be changed next election... Or not... A class action law suit can be started, or a STRONG petition, or calling MPs, but there's that same uninformed element still around supporting the CONS regardless of what they do... That's just the way it is in our system of Government... You, I, and our great grandchildren may still be paying the price... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Options, yes... Good options not necessarily... For reasons that should be obvious to anyone, certainly those that have followed our discussions on this thread, the F-18E/F(G) is easily the most viable and easily the BEST yet least costly option... And while the F-18E/F may be the best forth gen aircraft on the market, the fact when you break it all down it is an updated F-18, and i'm sure if the F-35 program ever showed serious cracks in it, those other manufactures would in very quick order put some serious funding into updates as well... Hindsight is always 20/20 and certainly not a simple equation since many needs and factors change quickly in the passage of TIME... In principle you are correct, but so was/is keeping Canada a viable country beyond just it's Military... And i'm very aware that it takes more than the green machine to keep this country in it's current postion within the globe....But are the rest of Canadians aware that there is more to running this nation than education, and health care as well it all needs to be balanced in good times and bad times it is a two way street....and the last 25 years or so it's been more a one way.....with Canadians expecting great things out of it's military, creating more and more challanges for it, alot of them far beyond it's capabilities...and while our military prides itself on making lemon aid out of cow piss, our soldiers have paid that price with our blood sweat and tears.....I think it is time we find that balance, admit our faults come up with a solution that works for everyone... Fund us so we can do what is expected of us, or cut back on the expectations and taskings , or even yet, close our military, depend on the US for protection and live with their rules, and regulations in regards to national defence, security, and sovereignty. A further thought would be that with the many, many disadvantages Canada has being situated next to the BIG Elephant next door wouldn't it just make sense to take advantage of something like the US's Military power as one of the few benefits of our location on the Globe? We've been on this magic carpet ride forever, to the piont i think it has been incorporated into our national identity....an american soldier once said to me our country is a welfare state with a caddy parked in the front yard, we like to voice our opinion and think we should be heard, ...but can't back it up....on all levels....I think we are that little kid in the school yard , you know the one that likes to be heard , but hides behind his big brother.... And really when we think about it, our military size says it all, it's the size Canadians want...and yet it has been proven that our nation can barely hold it's head above water with a sustained overseas deployment of around 3600 soldiers....And we brag about pulling more than our wieght, doing more than our share, or we complain in the next breath on not being able to help out in other areas of the world....shit comedians have made entire routines up about our military, and people laugh their asses off...yup thats us, pretty funney shit....then wonder why we can't be taken serious at the UN or at any other global table.... I think if we want a seat at the grown ups table we must be willing to pay for it, or learn to keep our opinions to ourselfs....or re org into something else, and live with the consquences...It's frustrating being on the other side of the fence, going on inter national deployments with countries that equip their militaries with a purpose. seeing comrads die because we did not have the right equipment, at the right time.... Sorry about the rant.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) And i'm very aware that it takes more than the green machine to keep this country in it's current postion within the globe....But are the rest of Canadians aware that there is more to running this nation than education, and health care as well it all needs to be balanced in good times and bad times it is a two way street....and the last 25 years or so it's been more a one way.....with Canadians expecting great things out of it's military, creating more and more challanges for it, alot of them far beyond it's capabilities...and while our military prides itself on making lemon aid out of cow piss, our soldiers have paid that price with our blood sweat and tears.....I think it is time we find that balance, admit our faults come up with a solution that works for everyone... Fund us so we can do what is expected of us, or cut back on the expectations and taskings , or even yet, close our military, depend on the US for protection and live with their rules, and regulations in regards to national defence, security, and sovereignty. We've been on this magic carpet ride forever, to the piont i think it has been incorporated into our national identity....an american soldier once said to me our country is a welfare state with a caddy parked in the front yard, we like to voice our opinion and think we should be heard, ...but can't back it up....on all levels....I think we are that little kid in the school yard , you know the one that likes to be heard , but hides behind his big brother.... And really when we think about it, our military size says it all, it's the size Canadians want...and yet it has been proven that our nation can barely hold it's head above water with a sustained overseas deployment of around 3600 soldiers....And we brag about pulling more than our wieght, doing more than our share, or we complain in the next breath on not being able to help out in other areas of the world....shit comedians have made entire routines up about our military, and people laugh their asses off...yup thats us, pretty funney shit....then wonder why we can't be taken serious at the UN or at any other global table.... I think if we want a seat at the grown ups table we must be willing to pay for it, or learn to keep our opinions to ourselfs....or re org into something else, and live with the consquences...It's frustrating being on the other side of the fence, going on inter national deployments with countries that equip their militaries with a purpose. seeing comrads die because we did not have the right equipment, at the right time.... Sorry about the rant.... Don't be sorry, Army Guy! It needed to be said! We DO expect the US to afford us defence on the cheap while still expecting to be taken seriously on the world's stage. We are BUMS, pure and simple! Our governments, primarily Liberal, deliberately chose to make us into BUMS! We send our brave lads and lasses out with trucks whose wheel rims collapse because they're so old they've rusted through, with arctic camo for an Afghanistan campaign, with no air support, bumming rides from other countries while we dither about buying new weapons and war machinery that our troops won't see for years! It's disgraceful! While I take great pride in the bravery and quality of our troops I take no pride in how Canada has stood behind them. Bows and arrows against the lightning - and often even the bows are obsolete! Hell, even our tanks are leased, not owned! Edited February 24, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 Don't be sorry, Army Guy! It needed to be said! We DO expect the US to afford us defence on the cheap while still expecting to be taken seriously on the world's stage. We are BUMS, pure and simple! Our governments, primarily Liberal, deliberately chose to make us into BUMS! We send our brave lads and lasses out with trucks whose wheel rims collapse because they're so old they've rusted through, with arctic camo for an Afghanistan campaign, with no air support, bumming rides from other countries while we dither about buying new weapons and war machinery that our troops won't see for years! It's disgraceful! While I take great pride in the bravery and quality of our troops I take no pride in how Canada has stood behind them. Bows and arrows against the lightning - and often even the bows are obsolete! Hell, even our tanks are leased, not owned! Tanks in Afghanistan, especially since they had no air conditioning, where a WASTE of money that could have been used for some helicopters that WOULD have helped our troops 100X more than tanks... Just as 100 4th generation NEW planes NOW with supporting refuelling capability to get them to places like Afghanistan, and at 1/2 the price, is worth a LOT more than a few toys that'll sit on a runway in Canada in the future because they can't go anywhere just as our "airpower" can't go to Afghaistan today... Just sayin' Your choice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 The tanks do have AC now, and the planes will have AAR capability, one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Unfortunately certain uninformed voters gave them that right.. It can be changed next election... Or not... A class action law suit can be started, or a STRONG petition, or calling MPs, but there's that same uninformed element still around supporting the CONS regardless of what they do... That's just the way it is in our system of Government... You, I, and our great grandchildren may still be paying the price... You are deluded, where does it say they have the right to fraudulently budget non allocated funds. You are wrong. Stop posting if you can't post the truth you liar. There is something call parliamentary right to disperse public funds. Funding has to be allocated - that is why they have budgets. The government is only allowed to spend from funds allocated - also the senate cannot start such a request only the commons. Stop spreading lies. The government doesn't have the right to take money from the public without parliamentary consent. And any action by parliament has right of redress.. failure to provide it is criminal on the part of the government. Most courts are criminally corrupt already in creating barriers to redress by basis of profession. The government can't spend money it wasn't given. Entering into an agreement on that basis is fraud on the part of the government if it is binding. They have no authority to enter into treaty without parliamentary consent - or if using reserve powers the governor general or queen - however that would be clear dictatorship especially if unconstitutional. The queen and gg are there to protect constitutional rights - that is why it is a constitutional monarchy.. use of reserve powers for political purposes and contrary to parliament would be corrupt and criminal rule. Illegimate rule, rejection of rule of law, thus loss of right to governance. Then people like you come along and say the government can take my money without my permission - sorry it is illegal for them to, and if they did the case above applies. Close your mouth if you don't know what you are talking about. Contracts are suppose to come after funding is approved not before. You are an idiot if you think otherwise. Step 1. Determine needs. Step 2. Gather information Step 3. Approach other party with needs Step 4. Determine costing (get quotes) Step 5 submit project information for approval. Step 6. If approved enter into contract based on the approved project. Not step 1,2,6,3 - and 5 if the minority government changes. The government is stealing 21 billion dollars from the public (or more) Edited February 25, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 You are deluded, where does it say they have the right to fraudulently budget non allocated funds. You are wrong. Stop posting if you can't post the truth you liar. There is something call parliamentary right to disperse public funds. Funding has to be allocated - that is why they have budgets. The government is only allowed to spend from funds allocated - also the senate cannot start such a request only the commons. Stop spreading lies. The government doesn't have the right to take money from the public without parliamentary consent. And any action by parliament has right of redress.. failure to provide it is criminal on the part of the government. Most courts are criminally corrupt already in creating barriers to redress by basis of profession. The government can't spend money it wasn't given. Entering into an agreement on that basis is fraud on the part of the government if it is binding. They have no authority to enter into treaty without parliamentary consent - or if using reserve powers the governor general or queen - however that would be clear dictatorship especially if unconstitutional. The queen and gg are there to protect constitutional rights - that is why it is a constitutional monarchy.. use of reserve powers for political purposes and contrary to parliament would be corrupt and criminal rule. Illegimate rule, rejection of rule of law, thus loss of right to governance. Then people like you come along and say the government can take my money without my permission - sorry it is illegal for them to, and if they did the case above applies. Close your mouth if you don't know what you are talking about. Contracts are suppose to come after funding is approved not before. You are an idiot if you think otherwise. Step 1. Determine needs. Step 2. Gather information Step 3. Approach other party with needs Step 4. Determine costing (get quotes) Step 5 submit project information for approval. Step 6. If approved enter into contract based on the approved project. Not step 1,2,6,3 - and 5 if the minority government changes. The government is stealing 21 billion dollars from the public (or more) Why tell me? TELL THEM that they can't do it... This board isn't the Gov. of Canada website you know... Maybe you didn't judging by that rant... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 The USAF says the F-35 is getting expensive and if you read the last two paragraphs on the following article you will see that the F35 that the Tories want is going up in price because other countries are saying its too expensive and they are either cuttting the number they are buying or looking to other aircrafts. http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/USAF-Agrees-That-The-F-35-Is-Expensive-2-26-2011.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 If anyone here wants to sign a petition against the F35 check the following article of 10 reasons why the F35 is not right for Canada and the bottom is the petition. http://rabble.ca/news/2011/03/ten-reasons-f-35-stealth-fighter-wrong-canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 If anyone here wants to sign a petition against the F35 check the following article of 10 reasons why the F35 is not right for Canada and the bottom is the petition. http://rabble.ca/news/2011/03/ten-reasons-f-35-stealth-fighter-wrong-canada I wouldn't contribute to feeding orphans if "rabble" had anything to do with it! Those foul-mouthed, profane, bigoted and biased sophomoric refugees from Commie Martyrs High School likely have a scheme to divert the funds into providing them with free beer, because they are so "IMPORTANT!" Uncouth louts, every bleedin' one of them! Their manners in their postings make pigs look like Emily Post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 If anyone here wants to sign a petition against the F35 check the following article of 10 reasons why the F35 is not right for Canada and the bottom is the petition. http://rabble.ca/news/2011/03/ten-reasons-f-35-stealth-fighter-wrong-canada LoL Topaz you would be lurking around rabble.ca 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.