F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says

cybercoma · March 29, 2012

As for the F-35...we don't really have much choice. I want to Canada to spend tons of money on new jets about as much as I want to dish out $$$$ for a new car/truck. But...I need that car...period.

I'm sure you would have a point if I was arguing that the government shouldn't be spending any money on military equipment at all.

cybercoma · March 29, 2012

You dont know what you can afford until you look at how much money you have in the bank. Clearly all western countries are going to have to reduce military spending. Policing the world with money borrowed at interest is a losers game, and we are gonna pay for all of this malinvestment.

When you look at countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, how does Canada's military stack up against the other nations that are around us on that list--Australia, Kuwait, Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Germany? I see no reason why our military should be larger or more heavily equiped than those nations.

cybercoma · March 29, 2012

Forty or fifty years?? The planet changes forever with each passing second and you have a wizard hat that allows you to see into the future 5 decades??? Do the Leafs ever win the Cup?

If that's your line of arguing, do you have a wizard hat that tells you we will need to spend billions of dollars in taxpayers' money on these things?

Oh, but we should be prepared for something that is very highly implausible: air missions that would require the most advanced fighter jet on the planet.

No one's arguing that we need to get rid of all of our fighter jets and not have an air force. The problem is the underhanded and possibly illegal way the Conservative government went about the purchasing process here. They rigged the specs on the SOR, announced their intent to buy these jets a few weeks later without an open-tender process, and now it turns out these jets don't even meet the minimum requirements.

The problem is do we absolutely need these specific jets. You or Derek keeps saying it's the only one with 5th gen. stealth. For our ongoing role as a peacekeeping, humanitarian, and security force do we even need 5th gen. stealth? While the F-35 doesn't even meet the minimum requirements, we don't even have a fair assessment of what those requirements are, since the process was a sham from the beginning.

We need a proper assessment of what our military needs based on the size of our country (both fiscally and population wise) and what our military role will be in the future. Until that conversation happens, all of this talk about needing the most advanced fighter jets in case we're outgunned in the air (under what scenario that happens is beyond me or "can you guarantee that will happen in the future") is moot.

eyeball · March 29, 2012

If that's your line of arguing, do you have a wizard hat that tells you we will need to spend billions of dollars in taxpayers' money on these things?

He uses a rear view mirror. If you'd only look you would see that Hitler himself is still chasing us.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

Oh, but we should be prepared for something that is very highly implausible: air missions that would require the most advanced fighter jet on the planet.

You see...I just don't buy your amazing ability to see 40-50 years into the future. In 1928, if you told me that in 15 years, huge four engined bombers would be reducing entire major cities to ashes, I might think that improbable, too.

No one's arguing that we need to get rid of all of our fighter jets and not have an air force. The problem is the underhanded and possibly illegal way the Conservative government went about the purchasing process here. They rigged the specs on the SOR, announced their intent to buy these jets a few weeks later without an open-tender process, and now it turns out these jets don't even meet the minimum requirements.

Open tender? :lol: Again...which aircraft did you have in mind? (like you'll have one in mind) I've already stated Canada should have dedicated organic ground support in the form of something akin to an OV-10.

cowbell: He uses a rear view mirror. If you'd only look you would see that Hitler himself is still chasing us.

Only ol' eyeballs here would think learning from one's mistakes is a bad thing. What did Santayana say about that eyeballs?

eyeball · March 29, 2012

Only ol' eyeballs here would think learning from one's mistakes is a bad thing. What did Santayana say about that eyeballs?

That it's way past high time to change your diaper.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

That it's way past high time to change your diaper.

Nope...but if your diaper needs changing, seek your wife. Not me. Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it and only the dead have seen the end of war."

Edited March 29, 2012 by DogOnPorch

cybercoma · March 29, 2012

I love how paranoid conservatives are. We need more prisons for the invisible crime that's out there and we need to dump billions into the most advanced military equipment available for the invisible enemies that are going to invade Canada. It would be hilarious, if it wasn't such a huge waste of money.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

I love how paranoid conservatives are. We need more prisons for the invisible crime that's out there and we need to dump billions into the most advanced military equipment available for the invisible enemies that are going to invade Canada. It would be hilarious, if it wasn't such a huge waste of money.

I didn't vote for Mr Harper. Nice try, though.

cybercoma · March 29, 2012

I didn't vote for Mr Harper. Nice try, though.

I never said you did. Quite frankly it doesn't matter who you vote for, you can still be conservative. That's lowercase 'c', as opposed to being a member of the party, in which case I would have used an uppercase 'C'.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

I never said you did. Quite frankly it doesn't matter who you vote for, you can still be conservative. That's lowercase 'c', as opposed to being a member of the party, in which case I would have used an uppercase 'C'.

Sorry...I'm not a small 'c' one, either. Just a history/aviation fan. But, I appreciate how you've admited defeat by conducting personal jabs like eyeballs rather than telling me what your big plan for the air force is.

eyeball · March 29, 2012

Sorry...I'm not a small 'c' one, either. Just a history/aviation fan. But, I appreciate how you've admited defeat by conducting personal jabs like eyeballs rather than telling me what your big plan for the air force is.

I've told you my plans before and you've proven to be just as much or more of a jabber as anyone around here.

In any case, try learning a lesson from nature and consider the nesting habits of great blue herons. In some cases heron colonies will set up near an eagle's nest. The eagles in that nest may take the occasional heron hatchling but they offer far more protection to the colony by driving and keeping all the other eagles away.

Considering our relationship with the US it's the strategy we've been using for years and seems to work just fine. So far the only hatchling we've lost to the US is Omar Khadr but look, now we're about to get him back.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

I've told you my plans before and you've proven to be just as much or more of a jabber as anyone around here.

In any case, try learning a lesson from nature and consider the nesting habits of great blue herons. In some cases heron colonies will set up near an eagle's nest. The eagles in that nest may take the occasional heron hatchling but they offer far more protection to the colony by driving and keeping all the other eagles away.

Considering our relationship with the US it's the strategy we've been using for years and seems to work just fine. So far the only hatchling we've lost to the US is Omar Khadr but look, now we're about to get him back.

Not bad. You didn't mention aircraft once.

eyeball · March 29, 2012

Not bad. You didn't mention aircraft once.

Notice I also didn't spend a single penny.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

Notice I also didn't spend a single penny.

Oh, don't worry. They don't let fishermen buy the aircraft. Good thing, too.

eyeball · March 29, 2012

Oh, don't worry. They don't let fishermen buy the aircraft. Good thing, too.

Maybe they should. Fishermen are practical - they make do with what they've got.

But you'd rather leave it up to the people that manage fishermen? Have you seen the state of our country's fisheries lately?

As I often say, if the rest of our government's departments, agencies and ministry's are even half as bad as our fisheries management then you shouldn't let them so much as manage a fish barbecue never mind defend us.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

Maybe they should. Fishermen are practical - they make do with what they've got.

It has to fly...not catch fish.

But you'd rather leave it up to the people that manage fishermen? Have you seen the state of our country's fisheries lately?

As I often say, if the rest of our government's departments, agencies and ministry's are even half as bad as our fisheries management then you shouldn't let them so much as manage a fish barbecue never mind defend us.

Hardly...I'd rather the RCAF pick their own aircraft. Your pals in the Harper government are too freaky and weird for my liking. Allowing a 7 Day Creationist to be Science Minister? Not too bright there.

eyeball · March 29, 2012

It has to fly...not catch fish.

Hardly...I'd rather the RCAF pick their own aircraft.

Right, they'd have us building a fleet of aircraft carriers too, probably with down-riggers.

Your pals in the Harper government are too freaky and weird for my liking. Allowing a 7 Day Creationist to be Science Minister? Not too bright there.

Excuse me but my pals? Now that's freaky.

BTW and just out of morbid curiosity, what right-wing freak-show did you vote for if not the Conservatives?

MACKER · March 29, 2012

It has to fly...not catch fish.

Hardly...I'd rather the RCAF pick their own aircraft. Your pals in the Harper government are too freaky and weird for my liking. Allowing a 7 Day Creationist to be Science Minister? Not too bright there.

And why must science trump religion?

Fact is Canada cannot defend against an attack by a major country. That is all there is too it.

Canada is Israel without nuclear weapons, and Arabs with Nuclear weapons.

Why even spend money on offensive weapons if it cannot defend itself. It is an absurd defence strategy.

Canada needs air defence systems not fighter bombers.

It is truely sad to see people put science before faith. science has no purpose without a faith to apply that knolwedge to.

Humans without faith are clueless as to purpose in life. Life is not a task of survival of the fitest, it is a task of benefiting existence with goodness.

putting money into defence spending is like paying for people to steal your property and not having insurance.

Defence policy for Canada ought to be simple.

1. Made in Canada.

2. Backed by global proliferation.

3. Nuetrility

4. Public financed, public supported militia

5. merchantile measures - merchant marine, resource gathering military - employed military in things like building public housing, infrastructure, and maning remote resource posts.

Canada ought to also move on some key issues:

1. treaty with the US creating a moritorium on activities the disputed portion of the beaufort (Canada should boycott all trade to the US if the US does not agree to this)

2. a deal with Denmark over Hans island creating a joint corporation for any use of the island which would see any profits from the island jointly shared.

3. total withdrawl of all Canadian military personnel not assigned as diplomatic attaches at all foreign sights if they are areas with states of war.

4. a warworks plan needs to be employed in the artic to reduce the 40% unemployment rate of natives in Northern Canada.

Edited March 29, 2012 by MACKER

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

Right, they'd have us building a fleet of aircraft carriers too, probably with down-riggers.

Canada once did have a modest fleet of aircraft carriers. Once we were the 3rd or 4th largest navy on the planet.

Excuse me but my pals? Now that's freaky.

Much like me wanting paper pushers managing the fishermen?

BTW and just out of morbid curiosity, what right-wing freak-show did you vote for if not the Conservatives?

The Let's Party. We're so right wing that when we chug brews, we start out looking like Howard Stern but, slowly become Karl Marx by the end of the festivities.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2012

And why must science trump religion?

When's the human sacrifice to Baal?

eyeball · March 29, 2012

Canada once did have a modest fleet of aircraft carriers. Once we were the 3rd or 4th largest navy on the planet.

That's right, just before the Tories caved to US pressure to get out of the business of defending ourselves.

Ironically the only people on the planet who could possibly ever mount an invasion against us are the Americans and the chance of that happening is about as remote as it gets. Assuming we ever did have to seriously consider that all we need to keep them at bay is a few really big nasty nukes. All these stupid planes are good for is going along for the ride when they decide to go strutting about the global stage.

Much like me wanting paper pushers managing the fishermen?

If that's what you want, you're getting it in spades.

The Let's Party. We're so right wing that when we chug brews, we start out looking like Howard Stern but, slowly become Karl Marx by the end of the festivities.

Yeah, I remember my first beer too.

MACKER · March 29, 2012

When's the human sacrifice to Baal?

God is god, I don't need paper to tell me what god is, god can do that.

Also if you didn't realize religion has been revised over time. Religion is a practice of periodic cultural practices that are adopted at any given time. Religious practice is as fluid as time.

None the less knowing the true faith and the fundamentals of religion are a rock to stand on.

It removes the failings of a distrurbed and corrupted humanity and yields sustenance and courage and acceptance.

Having a true sense of faith does not require trees.

The bible is more like a brochure among many.

Edited March 29, 2012 by MACKER

Jack Weber · March 29, 2012

Oh, don't worry. They don't let fishermen buy the aircraft. Good thing, too.

"Hoist up the John B. Sails...See how the mainsail's set..."

WAIT A MINUTE!!!

WHY IS THIS THING OUTTA CONTROL!!!!

bush_cheney2004 · March 29, 2012

Fact is Canada cannot defend against an attack by a major country. That is all there is too it.

Hence NATO/NORAD collective defense...what will Canada contribute to the team on the cheap?

Humans without faith are clueless as to purpose in life. Life is not a task of survival of the fitest, it is a task of benefiting existence with goodness.

So Canada needs more God?

Defence policy for Canada ought to be simple.

1. Made in Canada.

...by American corporations, right?

Canada ought to also move on some key issues:

1. treaty with the US creating a moritorium on activities the disputed portion of the beaufort (Canada should boycott all trade to the US if the US does not agree to this)

Start the boycott now because that ain't gonna happen. Good luck....