F-35 Purchase

[capricorn]

We live in a different time.

And who's to say the world situation will not change in 10 years or so? No one can predict. What we do know is that the country must be prepared to meet all possible future challenges. It is the federal government's responsibility to defend its citizens, the country's sovereignty, our envied natural resources, and to protect our interests around the world. It is in this spirit that the feds are moving to replace the aging CF-18's.

This isn't a game of who has the biggest, it is a debate over where money in our society should be spent

It's not about being the biggest. It's about demonstrating to would-be threats that we have the capabilities of defending ourselves. It's about equipping the forces with planes enabling them to succeed in the tasks we impose on them. It's also about meeting our global commitments with our allies. The weaker we are on the defence front, the easier target we become.

About the debate over what we fund. It's not very reassuring to hear some NDP MPs in the House of Commons musing about all the social programs we could fund if we just forgot about new military acquisitions.

[Wild Bill]

Do you really think a country any country is going to attack Canada? If so do you think 45 fighter jets stationed across a country as big as ours is going to deter them if they want to? These are serious questions and your answers are not so serious. I am still remain unconvinced but my mind is by no means made up because I am no expert in this field. I will tell your answers are silly and if that is why we buy these jets then I am against it.

Punked, you seem to be forgetting something. Another country doesn't have to cross our borders in order to attack us. They can attack us halfway around the globe!

They can interfere with our trade to the point where they get rich and we get very poor. Some countries compete with productivity and expertise. Others compete from the barrel of a gun.

Suppose Iran goes nuclear. In a very short time they could impose their will on all their neighbours, including perhaps the Saudis. Only the intervention of western powers could have the strength to stop such a thing. If Iran controlled those countries they could control the price of a LOT of oil! Sure, we have the oil sands but we also desperately need the export money. Take that away and a lot of Canadians will be out of work and on the dole.

Worse yet, this sort of thing could happen far faster than our economy could adapt. We would be in for perhaps a decade or two of suffering.

Countries can rarely function in isolation. Look how well that works for North Korea! They have to use their nuclear program as blackmail for foreign aid to feed their people.

International relationships are a complicated game. Like chess, if you can only react to one or two moves deep you will lose. You must be able to weigh the consequences a goodly number of moves in sequence to win, or at least remain a player.

A nation has to be able to project its power in order to defend not just its borders but its political and economic interests. If you have no military capable of functioning at least at a reasonable level the world will not take you seriously. You will be just like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, without a captured Q-Bomb.

[cybercoma]

We live in a different time. The Red menace isn't so Red anymore, they aren't Communist and they are get this our trading partners. Our PM went to China last month, the Russian leader defended the President of United States just the other day. Attacks wont come from them they come from loosely tied groups of extremist who are often impossible to identify until after they attack and who have NO AIR POWER what so ever.

This isn't a game of who has the biggest, it is a debate over where money in our society should be spent and you have no convinced me in this new world that this is the right decision yet.

I understand it's a lot of money and every dollar spent on war machines is one less dollar that can save the life of struggling Canadians. Unfortunately, the time is now to make this decision. If we put this off 10-15 years our current jets will be scrap metal and we'll have no capabilities whatsoever. For a country this size with the amount of untapped resources we have, we need to be able to defend ourselves, especially in the Arctic, going forward. Some hold that the US would defend us, but the US doesn't recognize our claim to the Northwest Passage even. There are some issues where we need to be able to stand on our own. It's a hard decision to make, but when all of your allies are using 5th gen. jets and we crapped the bed on that one, what role will we play as international peacekeepers going forward? I would humour the idea of being isolationists, but we need to have a realistic conversation about our future capabilities.

[cybercoma]

2) You do realize China is still communist?

Who cares? Is there an inherent problem with Communism?

[eyeball]

It's not very reassuring to hear some NDP MPs in the House of Commons musing about all the social programs we could fund if we just forgot about new military acquisitions.

Okay, then just think about all the tax cuts we could have instead.

[cybercoma]

Okay, then just think about all the tax cuts we could have instead.

"Since you don't care about others, think about your own greed." haha

[Signals.Cpl]

Okay, then just think about all the tax cuts we could have instead.

And what happens when Iran shuts down the Persian Gulf? Prices jump up your tax refund just went to pay for gas, or many other prices that are affected by the fuel price.

[eyeball]

Punked, you seem to be forgetting something. Another country doesn't have to cross our borders in order to attack us. They can attack us halfway around the globe!

They can interfere with our trade to the point where they get rich and we get very poor. Some countries compete with productivity and expertise. Others compete from the barrel of a gun.

Suppose Iran goes nuclear. In a very short time they could impose their will on all their neighbours, including perhaps the Saudis. Only the intervention of western powers could have the strength to stop such a thing. If Iran controlled those countries they could control the price of a LOT of oil! Sure, we have the oil sands but we also desperately need the export money. Take that away and a lot of Canadians will be out of work and on the dole.

Worse yet, this sort of thing could happen far faster than our economy could adapt. We would be in for perhaps a decade or two of suffering.

Countries can rarely function in isolation. Look how well that works for North Korea! They have to use their nuclear program as blackmail for foreign aid to feed their people.

International relationships are a complicated game. Like chess, if you can only react to one or two moves deep you will lose. You must be able to weigh the consequences a goodly number of moves in sequence to win, or at least remain a player.

A nation has to be able to project its power in order to defend not just its borders but its political and economic interests. If you have no military capable of functioning at least at a reasonable level the world will not take you seriously. You will be just like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, without a captured Q-Bomb.

It's patently clear that right-wing paranoia causes far more wooly headed thinking than left-wing idealism could even come close to producing.

You need help, seriously.

[Signals.Cpl]

You need help, seriously.

A case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[cybercoma]

And what happens when Iran shuts down the Persian Gulf? Prices jump up your tax refund just went to pay for gas, or many other prices that are affected by the fuel price.

The only reason Iran is even humouring shutting down the Gulf is that Israel and the United States have all but formally declared war on them.

[Mr.Canada]

Canada needs a new multi role military jet. That much no one can argue with I would think. I initially liked the F35 but given the new problems I'm not so sure. I think it would be prudent to start looking at other options. Not necessarily scrapping the F35 plan altogether but lets kick the tires on a few other options while we're waiting for the F35 problems to sort out.

[eyeball]

And what happens when Iran shuts down the Persian Gulf? Prices jump up your tax refund just went to pay for gas, or many other prices that are affected by the fuel price.

Get a grip.

I haven't heard anyone suggest we bomb the crap out of someone in the face of our recent price hikes, have you?

[Signals.Cpl]

The only reason Iran is even humouring shutting down the Gulf is that Israel and the United States have all but formally declared war on them.

Iran is threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz because of the economic pressure put on them by the many nations that have put sanctions on Iran, supporting those already in place by the UN.

[Signals.Cpl]

Get a grip.

I haven't heard anyone suggest we bomb the crap out of someone in the face of our recent price hikes, have you?

Because this price hike will be nothing compared to the hike should Iran shut down the strait.

[eyeball]

Iran is threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz because of the economic pressure put on them by the many nations that have put sanctions on Iran, supporting those already in place by the UN.

Notice this is exactly what Wild Bill is afraid of. People fornicating with our economy from half way around the world. It's no surprise to me you goddamn warhacks are perfectly happy provoking others with the very things you fear the most.

[Argus]

Nothing. I say we give peace a chance.

There is no nation on Earth that could ever afford to invade us for the same reason we can't afford these jets.

The expense is just too ridiculous to even bother contemplating.

You're being short sighted, as usual. They don't have to invade us to threaten us. They could, for example, decide to drill for oil in waters we claim. They could decide they want other resources. This is particularly true of Russia, which borders us.

[Signals.Cpl]

Notice this is exactly what Wild Bill is afraid of. People fornicating with our economy from half way around the world. It's no surprise to me you goddamn warhacks are perfectly happy provoking others with the very things you fear the most.

There is a reason, for that. All of those nations that are sanctioning Iran are doing so in order to prevent Iran from carrying out its "Death to Israel plan". Sanctions are a means of preventing war, in this case Iran is more then responsible for the actions of the world. Nobody wants a war, thats precisely why the world uses sanctions against Iran.

[Argus]

No we dont. Countries can disolve these treaties any time they want. To suggest that we are permanently beholden to international buerocrats is to suggest we are not a sovereign nation. We can do EXACT what we want to do, and can afford to do. Canada could pull out of nato tomorrow and nobody could do jack shit.

And we oughtta have a national referendum on doing just that.

There are only three options available.

1. We acquire sufficient means to protect ourselves, our territory, including our offshore territory.

2. We allow someone else, i.e, the US, to do so, at a cost to our sovereignty.

3. We throw ourselves on the collective good will of the world, hoping no one ever tries to do anything against us.

Of the three, I believe 1. is the only logical decision. But then, I read history, and I follow geopolitics, and I realize just how ruthless and uncaring a world it is we live in. Of course, since we don't wish to build a huge military, we also are involved in collective defensive pacts with other nations which also don't want to build a huge military, but which acknowledge that they alone can't defend their territory against some of the world's larger, more militarized nations. These pacts are sensible and save us a lot of money, individually. If you don't want to be in such an alliance then you commit yourself to paying far more for military defense, such as the Swedes and Swiss do.

[Argus]

your assessment of the UN is meaningless and has no bearing, particularly when you fail to recognize the prevailing treaty is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea...

Yes, and criminal nations like Russia always pay such studious attention to international laws...

[Argus]

That question has already answered itself. We have no need to be an "independant fighting force" against a foreign power. This has never happened in history and wont happen soon.

Good to see how you can read the future. How's the lottery success rate?

[Argus]

Well one question answers the other. A strong and soveriegn canada works with our allies and listens to them but doesnt make promises we might not be able to keep. And I would structure the military around DEFENSE of this nation.

The problem with this is that it would cost FAR more money. We are in alliances so we don't have to spend so much. If we're completely on our own then you don't need 65 fighters. You need 300. Want to pay for that?

[Argus]

We live in a different time. The Red menace isn't so Red anymore, they aren't Communist and they are get this our trading partners. Our PM went to China last month, the Russian leader defended the President of United States just the other day.

And just last month he threatened to move nuclear missiles to the borders of NATO if the US puts in a missile defense shield. And what was it, a couple of years ago, Chinese fighters forced down and American intelligence aircraft operating in international air space. If you think the Chinese and Russians are big friendly partners now you really know nothing about the world, or how fast things change. Remember that the Soviets, Chinese and the US were allies in 1945. Five years later they were practically at war.

[Argus]

Who cares? Is there an inherent problem with Communism?

Yeah, several. But in this particular case what you seem to be ignoring is that the men in charge don't have to have the same values as we do, and thus don't have to care about whether forcing us to back down on some issue might hurt trade, especially in the short term. The Chinese don't care about short term. They take the long view. If they can force people to back down and get their way, it's more than worth it in the long term, however much anger that generates.

[Argus]

Matt Fisher has been following the military for decades. He address this exact question in today's column, and his words seem pretty logical to me.

Let’s live in the real world. Unless Canada decides drastically to change its defence strategy and becomes pacifist and isolationist, we will continue, as we have done for a century, to commit ourselves to military alliances and partnerships to further our national interests. To be worthy allies and partners we have to be more than peacekeepers uttering platitudes — the bulwark of the Liberal defence strategy for years.

Matthew Fisher

[waldo]

your assessment of the UN is meaningless and has no bearing, particularly when you fail to recognize the prevailing treaty is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea... relative to sea surface passage from shoreline as well as the extent of resource control related to defined nautical distance from shore or possible continental shelf extensions. As I said, the Russians have been very busy in working to present a scientific founded analysis that presumes to extend their claim to portions of the Arctic... underwater portions they believe will show as extensions to their Eurasian landmass. As I stated, Russia has formally announced it's intention to bring this analysis forward to the UN... they intend to pursue possible "Arctic remapping" relative to the prevailing international treaty... the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

if you're so worried about fostering a false narrative over airspace encroachment and sovereignty, what about the decades of U.S. and Russian submarines traveling quite freely under the Arctic ice?

First my assessment of the UN is based on facts.

your banal and mundane references to the World Court are as juvenile inspired as your UN assessment... by the by, if you actually moved off your skewed viewpoint, you would realize since the 1947 inception of the World Court, Russia has been involved in only one case (as concerns Georgia/racial discrimination) - hardly bodes well for your hyperventilating and false narrative, hey?

as I said, you're fabricating a cart before the horse scenario... Russia shows all signs of following international framework/convention.