F-35 Purchase

[punked]

The Swiss seemed to get by rather well with their butter, despite the fact they had a huge military.

They spend around .8% of GDP on their military while we spend 1.5%. So I agree with you less spending on the military. Again guns or butter.

[Argus]

Doesn't matter our parliament didn't say "send us all the important documents" they said "send us all the documents". Which they didn't get.

Since you didn't challenge the statement I gather you're conceding that these costs were not important?

[punked]

It got them all, it just didn't seem to realize what it wanted. If it wanted to include the prices of the runways, hangars and pilots uniforms all it had to do was check the DND spending statements.

They didn't have to check or go hunting for anything. Our parliament asked for all the documents and didn't get them all. They didn't say "Give us all the documents accept the ones that buried somewhere" they said send them all. What part of that don't you understand?

[punked]

Since you didn't challenge the statement I gather you're conceding that these costs were not important?

Their importance doesn't matter. That isn't how parliament works. If you were in court and they said "show me all the documents" and you only gave them the ones YOU THOUGHT were important you would go to jail. Ask Conard Black about that one.

[Argus]

Just would point out Iceland has been around as a country for about 200 years and has never had an army here.

Come on. Iceland has a population smaller than your average north American city, few resources, and is mostly uninhabitable. It's invisible on the international stage, and is a virtual protectorate of NATO, with a large NATO base at Kevlavic.

[Smallc]

Just would point out Iceland has been around as a country for about 200 years and has never had an army here.

There is a rotating NATO airforce deployment there...another one of our obligations.

[punked]

There is a rotating NATO airforce deployment there...another one of our obligations.

I am sure if NATO (who used Iceland as staging area during the cold war and paid for that right) left tomorrow Iceland would be no less safe sorry.

[punked]

Come on. Iceland has a population smaller than your average north American city, few resources, and is mostly uninhabitable. It's invisible on the international stage, and is a virtual protectorate of NATO, with a large NATO base at Kevlavic.

And has a huge amount of resource wealth so why wouldn't they be the first target for the invasion that will never happen.

[Smallc]

I am sure if NATO (who used Iceland as staging area during the cold war and paid for that right) left tomorrow Iceland would be no less safe sorry.

Right now, probably, but you can't predict the future.

[punked]

Right now, probably, but you can't predict the future.

Sure but what I am saying you guys have been saying this for 200 years while Iceland spend its money on butter.

BTW I am not saying I want to be Iceland and have no military. I am just pointing out there are places very close to us who have no military so talking of a military we can afford instead of the one we want is a conversation we can have.

Edited April 8, 2012 by punked

[Argus]

They spend around .8% of GDP on their military while we spend 1.5%. So I agree with you less spending on the military. Again guns or butter.

Switzerland has a population of 7.8 million people, less than a quarter that of Canada.

Canada Armed forces 68,000

Swiss Armed Forces 120,000

Canada reserves 30,000

Swiss reserves 80,000

Swiss Air force 230 fixed and rotary wing, incl 33 F18s, 54 F5s

Canada AF 390 fixed and rotary wing inc, 77 cF18s

I don't know what games the Swiss are playing with the budget but you can clearly see they're not pacifists. And while we have a larger air force we need to patrol and protect a hugely greater area than the Swiss do. The Swiss, of course, also have no need of a navy or coast guard.

[punked]

Switzerland has a population of 7.8 million people, less than a quarter that of Canada.

Canada Armed forces 68,000

Swiss Armed Forces 120,000

Canada reserves 30,000

Swiss reserves 80,000

Swiss Air force 230 fixed and rotary wing, incl 33 F18s, 54 F5s

Canada AF 390 fixed and rotary wing inc, 77 cF18s

I don't know what games the Swiss are playing with the budget but you can clearly see they're not pacifists. And while we have a larger air force we need to patrol and protect a hugely greater area than the Swiss do. The Swiss, of course, also have no need of a navy or coast guard.

They draft people and no one cares because they never go to war. Every Male has to enlist at 18. Is that what you want for Canada?

Edited April 8, 2012 by punked

[Argus]

They didn't have to check or go hunting for anything. Our parliament asked for all the documents and didn't get them all. They didn't say "Give us all the documents accept the ones that buried somewhere" they said send them all. What part of that don't you understand?

If they're 'burying' costs in the DND estimates and cost statements then the opposition is clearly not doing its job.

My belief is the opposition knew very well about these added costs. Just as when I bought my car I knew very well about costs like parking and driveway maintenance. What they wanted was to get the government to tack these on to the actual costs of the new fighter to make it seem far higher. Big numbers allow them to oppose the purchase with more authority (see EH101) even though the numbers quoted are ridiculous, on the face of it. All of this is simply politics, without regard to what is or is not in the best interests of Canada and it's military needs.

[cybercoma]

The costs of the jets aren't a problem. We can afford the jets. What we can't afford to do, however, is destroy the federal government's fiscal capacit AND buy the jets. That's what the Conservatives have done and that's why they're terrible managers. You don't cut your hours back at work, then buy a new luxury car.

[punked]

If they're 'burying' costs in the DND estimates and cost statements then the opposition is clearly not doing its job.

Again our parliament when they ask for costs should never have to go digging. Can you imagine in if the government asked DND what for a cost break down and DND said "Go digging" how much outrage there would be. They asked for the documents and then were told the documents didn't exist, but now we know they did exist and were buried.

[Argus]

Their importance doesn't matter. That isn't how parliament works. If you were in court and they said "show me all the documents" and you only gave them the ones YOU THOUGHT were important you would go to jail. Ask Conard Black about that one.

So you're saying that I should call the police and ask them to arrest the car dealer I recently purchased my car from because he didn't include all the costs, ie, the cost of my driveway maintenance, the cost of parking at work, the cost of heating and electricity, as well as the depreciation of my garage?

[punked]

So you're saying that I should call the police and ask them to arrest the car dealer I recently purchased my car from because he didn't include all the costs, ie, the cost of my driveway maintenance, the cost of parking at work, the cost of heating and electricity, as well as the depreciation of my garage?

You aren't Parliament and your car dealer isn't the government. If the government was buying a bunch of cars and they asked for all the documents about those cars and somewhere if these costs were done for that car related purchase then yes all those documents should be given to parliament. That is what I am saying I am saying the government should never hid information form Parliament.

[Argus]

You aren't Parliament and your car dealer isn't the government. If the government was buying a bunch of cars and they asked for all the documents about those cars and somewhere if these costs were done for that car related purchase then yes all those documents should be given to parliament. That is what I am saying I am saying the government should never hid information form Parliament.

And I'm saying it wasn't hidden. It was in the estimates for operations of DND. And never before - and surely you can check this if I'm wrong - has any government in announcing the costs of military procurement included all the background operational costs such as hangars, runways, salaries of pilots, their uniforms, etc.

When the liberals congratulated them on the job they did in the naval procurement decision why didn't they damn them for not including in those costs the costs of the ports those ships had to tie up in?

[punked]

And I'm saying it wasn't hidden. It was in the estimates for operations of DND. And never before - and surely you can check this if I'm wrong - has any government in announcing the costs of military procurement included all the background operational costs such as hangars, runways, salaries of pilots, their uniforms, etc.

When the liberals congratulated them on the job they did in the naval procurement decision why didn't they damn them for not including in those costs the costs of the ports those ships had to tie up in?

Doesn't matter because they didn't say "give us only these documents in regards to the F35s". They said "give us all the documents" which the AG told us the other day they didn't do. That is hiding sorry. They had documents which pertained to the F35s and when parliament said hand them over they didn't. It is that simple.

[Signals.Cpl]

Just would point out Iceland has been around as a country for about 200 years and has never had an army here.

Just to point out that the Defence of Iceland was the responsibility of Denmark, until they were occupied by Germany, at which point responsibility of Iceland's defence fell on the US Forces stationed there. Until the end of the Cold war and I think there still is a major base that the US maintains. So your suggestion is to let the US occupy us?

[punked]

Just to point out that the Defence of Iceland was the responsibility of Denmark, until they were occupied by Germany, at which point responsibility of Iceland's defence fell on the US Forces stationed there. Until the end of the Cold war and I think there still is a major base that the US maintains. So your suggestion is to let the US occupy us?

Nope the US pays Iceland quite a bit of Money to station their Bombers there to reach Russia faster. I guess if the US made us an offer I might think about it.

Tell me more about how much the US was involved one of the few wars Iceland fought? The cod war? You claim the US protects Iceland so what did they do during the Cod war?

Edited April 8, 2012 by punked

[Signals.Cpl]

Sure but what I am saying you guys have been saying this for 200 years while Iceland spend its money on butter.

BTW I am not saying I want to be Iceland and have no military. I am just pointing out there are places very close to us who have no military so talking of a military we can afford instead of the one we want is a conversation we can have.

I agree, Iceland spend their money on butter, while Denmark spend their money on Defending Iceland. And until 2006 the defence of Iceland in case of war was the responsibility of the US.

[punked]

I agree, Iceland spend their money on butter, while Denmark spend their money on Defending Iceland. And until 2006 the defence of Iceland in case of war was the responsibility of the US.

Yet Iceland fought a war the Cod War and the US did nothing. Iceland is actually why water off a nations coast is deemed to be a countries waters. They refused to let the British steal their Cod and fought a war over it in the 50s. So what you are saying isn't true at all.

Edited April 8, 2012 by punked

[Signals.Cpl]

Nope the US pays Iceland quite a bit of Money to station their Bombers there to reach Russia faster. I guess if the US made us an offer I might think about it.

Tell me more about how much the US was involved one of the few wars Iceland fought? The cod war? You claim the US protects Iceland so what did they do during the Cod war?

What were they supposed to do? Unless the British decided to invade Iceland, the US wasn't going to do anything.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/ice001.asp

[Argus]

Yet Iceland fought a war the Cod War and the US did nothing. Iceland is actually why water off a nations coast is deemed to be a countries waters. They refused to let the British steal their Cod and fought a war over it in the 50s. So what you are saying isn't true at all.

They didn't fight a real war. They had nothing to fight a war with. And the reason the British backed down was not Icelandic naval prowess but because Iceland threatened to close the NATO base and pull out of NATO. At that time NATO figured it needed the Iceland base as a midpoint defense in any eventual war against Soviet submarines.