F-35 Purchase

[GostHacked]

I was attempting to go the other way, I wish to separate politics from the purchase. Something along the lines of wether its a good idea or not rather then making it political. Subjects like this should transcend politics.

You cannot get into this dicussion without bringing politics into it. Politics is the reason they are being purchased in the first place.

[Signals.Cpl]

Who cares? Is there an inherent problem with Communism?

Not at all, Im not saying its good or bad, I am saying that when you make a statement, make sure you have the basics right, you know the things that a 10 year old would know.

Saying they are not communist, while one clearly is, undermines your entire position because you seem to lack basic knowledge and ability to do the most rudimentary fact checking on your argument.

[waldo]

Yeah seems pretty fair to me. Everyone in this discussion has casually thrown out bogus numbers. Im just the only one willing to admit it. Nobody knows what the number. Not the DND and not the government.

for what it's worth... your $30 billion number fits quite well with PBO Kevin Pages' $29 billion number.

[Signals.Cpl]

You cannot get into this dicussion without bringing politics into it. Politics is the reason they are being purchased in the first place.

I clarify that, I meant politics from Canada. For Example not wanting it because the Conservatives want it, and since you dislike them then the idea is bad. I was hoping to look in the most apolitical way possible in a way look at our needs rather then who is in charge at the moment. If your argument is we don't need it period, its one thing, we don't need it because Stephen Harper wants to buy it is not. I wish for a why we need it or don't need it rather then that the party you are spurting says we don't need it because well once again the Conservatives want it.

[waldo]

Arguing about the price is irrelevant until you have the actual breakdown so you can see why the price is different.

talk to the Harper hand... the one that refused Parliament full and complete disclosure on requirements/cost... your, "actual breakdown".

[Signals.Cpl]

for what it's worth... your $30 billion number fits quite well with PBO Kevin Pages' $29 billion number.

You have to compare the numbers that the DND present and his budget Item by Item as the DND budget might not be counting things that already fall under the regular Defence Budget(Salaries of the Pilots and support personnel, fuel, Infrastructure etc.) Once both sides are using the same criteria then you can compare the actual price.

[Signals.Cpl]

talk to the Harper hand... the one that refused Parliament full and complete disclosure on requirements/cost... your, "actual breakdown".

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/arriving-estimation-eng.asp

And there is the comparison between the 25 billion dollar budget that the DND presented and the 14 billion dollar subsequent budget. Overall the 25 billion dollar budget accounts for almost 11 billion dollars already accounted for in the regular budget. This includes National Defence Personnel and Operating costs as well as contingency. Stating that the cost is 25billion dollars is misleading because every fighter Canada decides to buy will have the 11 billion dollars cost which is already accounted for in the Defence Budget essentially 550 million dollars a year which would be spend regardless of the aircraft chose.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html#hd5k

[cybercoma]

Saying they are not communist, while one clearly is, undermines your entire position because you seem to lack basic knowledge and ability to do the most rudimentary fact checking on your argument.

What the hell are you talking about? Who said the Chinese aren't Communist?

[waldo]

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

hey now, should I look to quote UN specifics from that MLW thread concerning the illegal U.S. war against Iraq... oh wait, sorry... the U.S. crafted their own domestic law to self-declare it "legal"!

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

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? But hey now... if you really have concerns about airspace, what kind of missile defense could we strike up as an alternative to F-35s? Cost???

First my assessment of the UN is based on facts. United Nations resolutions are meaningless unless the US takes notice of them. The Department of Peacekeeping is nothing but a drain of resources. If China, Russia and the US don't agree the UN is powerless as the power is concentrated on 5 nations, 3 of which generally stand together and 2 of which are generally on the other side of all arguments.

Now, on decisions by the world court, the ICJ makes a ruling, and say Russia does not go along with it. What would happen in this case? Well Canada can appeal to the United Nations Security council about Russia's refusal to comply with the ICJ ruling, where a permanent member of the security council can Veto the appeal, oh wait I think Russia has veto power thus we can take it to world court, we win in world court, Russia does not comply with world court decisions, we appeal to the Security council, and guess what Russia can veto any resolution that will force them to comply.

The judgment of the ICJ is binding and (technically) cannot be appealed (arts. 59, 60) once the parties have consented to its jurisdiction and the court has rendered a decision. However, a state's failure to comply with the judgment violates the U.N. Charter, article 94(2). Noncompliance can be appealed to the U.N. Security Council, which may either make recommendations or authorize other measures by which the judgment shall be enforced. A decision by the Security Council to enforce compliance with a judgment rendered by the court is subject to the veto power of permanent members, and thus depends on the members' willingness not only to resort to enforcement measures but also to support the original judgment.

Direct source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/International_Court_of_Justice.aspx

Further Sources:

http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/en/ifaq.pdf

on pg. 39 of the document

http://www.icj-cij.org/information/en/ibleubook.pdf

on pg. 75 of the document

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter14.shtml

Article 27

1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=1&p3=0#Chapter5

You know what, it doesn't really look that well for Canada if Russia does not comply as well we can once again bring the issue to the security council and the decision would require 9 of the 15 votes, including ALL of the permanent member states( United Kingdom, France, China, United States and Russian Federation). The only chance for us is if Russia votes for us(unlikely), or Russia abstains from the vote, which means we have to pray they boycott the SC.

Just because we don't have the means to stop the submarines does not mean we should give up our ability to defend our airspace.

Which part of that is wrong? The part that if Russia does not comply our only course of action is to go to the security council, where Russia has a veto power? I am sorry if this is too complicated for you, tell me if you don't understand it, I will dumb it down for you. What I am giving you is an opinion backed up by evidence, what you are replying with is wishful thinking.

It does not matter how many cases it has been involved in, this is how the World Court is structured. If you don't agree with my assessment, bring some evidence to support your argument, if not just tell me you are writing fiction and I won't bother you with facts.

[punked]

What the hell are you talking about? Who said the Chinese aren't Communist?

I said they aren't and they aren't. They are capitalist through and through. They make stuff for the WORLD MARKET and sell as the WORLD MARKET demands. They run shops for world companies and let those companies have much of the over sight. They are not Communist let's be real here. How is China communist?

[Argus]

hey now, should I look to quote UN specifics from that MLW thread concerning the illegal U.S. war against Iraq... oh wait, sorry... the U.S. crafted their own domestic law to self-declare it "legal"!

And how is this a reply which rebuts my point? The U.S. doesn't always pay attention to the UN or international laws either. Satisfied? So how does that support your contention we should disarm, abandon alliances, and put ourselves behind the protection of the UN and it's laws?

[cybercoma]

I said they aren't and they aren't. They are capitalist through and through. They make stuff for the WORLD MARKET and sell as the WORLD MARKET demands. They run shops for world companies and let those companies have much of the over sight. They are not Communist let's be real here. How is China communist?

That's like saying we're not a capitalist nation because we have a mixed economy.

[Signals.Cpl]

What the hell are you talking about? Who said the Chinese aren't Communist?

Sorry I made a mistake as to who said it.

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.

[punked]

That's like saying we're not a capitalist nation because we have a mixed economy.

We aren't a pure capitalist nation. I don't see how that would be a lie.

In China a person can start their own business, they can now own land, they are allowed to have a bank account. Modern China isn't communist there are plenty of very rich people and plenty of very poor people. Does the government have control on the economy? They sure do but so did the fascist in WW2 Italy and they weren't Communists. I am just stating a fact. Just because we call the Chinese who love free trade, and encourage investment from Apple to Coke communists doesn't make it so. If we looked at the spectrum they would be just as close to capitalist as they are to Communists. Just because they are more communist then we are doesn't make them communists sorry.

[punked]

Sorry I made a mistake as to who said it.

I just said I said it and I stand by it. BTW I just want to point out just because I say they aren't communist and stick by that statement does not mean I would want them or anyone else to be communists. I am just pointing they aren't communists when you actually look at the way their economy works.

[cybercoma]

We aren't a pure capitalist nation. I don't see how that would be a lie.

In China a person can start their own business, they can now own land, they are allowed to have a bank account. Modern China isn't communist there are plenty of very rich people and plenty of very poor people. Does the government have control on the economy? They sure do but so did the fascist in WW2 Italy and they weren't Communists. I am just stating a fact. Just because we call the Chinese who love free trade, and encourage investment from Apple to Coke communists doesn't make it so. If we looked at the spectrum they would be just as close to capitalist as they are to Communists. Just because they are more communist then we are doesn't make them communists sorry.

I see your point and really you can't be just a little bit Communist, according to Marx anyway.

[waldo]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/arriving-estimation-eng.asp

And there is the comparison between the 25 billion dollar budget that the DND presented and the 14 billion dollar subsequent budget. Overall the 25 billion dollar budget accounts for almost 11 billion dollars already accounted for in the regular budget. This includes National Defence Personnel and Operating costs as well as contingency. Stating that the cost is 25billion dollars is misleading because every fighter Canada decides to buy will have the 11 billion dollars cost which is already accounted for in the Defence Budget essentially 550 million dollars a year which would be spend regardless of the aircraft chose.

this PBO propaganda does not align with the Auditor General's report... you're perpetuating a falsehood - imagine! Just weeks before the last election, the Harper Conservative government told Parliament/the public, the F-35 cost was $14.7 billion... the Auditor General's report presents an actual estimated cost of $25 billion - "which does not include estimates of ongoing maintenance and other costs".

on top of all that, we were continually assured rising costs would not affect Canada... we were "locked in" - you know, that imaginary Harper Conservative "contract", the contract Harper Conservatives now fess up and state "never existed". Say what!

[punked]

I see your point and really you can't be just a little bit Communist, according to Marx anyway.

It was more of an aside anyway. My point was we don't live in 1980, I don't fear the Communists I vacation with them, I enjoy their beaches and they enjoy my company. Why do I need a plane to defend me from the people I give oil to and who send back computers and MP3 players? All war would do for them is starve them, they don't want to fight me and I don't want to fight them. The people I should fear aren't scared or deterred by a plane they get them on those things to set off bombs. Those our enemy now if we have one at all so how will this plane help in anyway?

[waldo]

And how is this a reply which rebuts my point? The U.S. doesn't always pay attention to the UN or international laws either. Satisfied? So how does that support your contention we should disarm, abandon alliances, and put ourselves behind the protection of the UN and it's laws?

there is an applicable UN treaty... your premise is that Russia doesn't respect international law. Yet, for the last few years Russia has been spending significant time/effort in putting together a case to present to the UN in relation to the applicable treaty. If your boogeyman premise held any weight, why is Russia building a scientific foundation to support it's case; why has Russia formally announced intention to bring it's case/support to the UN? Why would it bother... why wouldn't they just be your boogeyman, hey?

[Signals.Cpl]

this PBO propaganda does not align with the Auditor General's report... you're perpetuating a falsehood - imagine! Just weeks before the last election, the Harper Conservative government told Parliament/the public, the F-35 cost was $14.7 billion... the Auditor General's report presents an actual estimated cost of $25 billion - "which does not include estimates of ongoing maintenance and other costs".

on top of all that, we were continually assured rising costs would not affect Canada... we were "locked in" - you know, that imaginary Harper Conservative "contract", the contract Harper Conservatives now fess up and state "never existed". Say what!

Ok, what is the breakdown? All I am hearing here is that the cost is 25 billion dollars, but there is no breakdown as to how he came about that number. If you compare the number he presented to the number DND presented and the criteria for both, how different would it be? How am I perpetuating a falsehood? I am presenting you my viewpoint, and asking you for a breakdown of the costs so we can compare.

Define: other costs

does this include everything from fuel and the salaries of the military personnel that would be flying and maintaining the aircraft? Would it include the fuel the Aircraft would require? Would it include the maintenance of the infrastructure that is required to operate the aircraft? All of those things already budgeted for in the DND budget. If you are going for 100% of the cost then say so because being dishonest by inflating a figure and not informing the public that the extra money comes from the DND budget brings forth understandable confusion.

One states We spend 400 billion on defence over the next 20 years and 14 billion on the aircraft, while the other states we spend 25 billion on the aircraft and 390 billion on defence over 20 years. Amounts to the exact same figure, just misleading criteria when the public is not informed that the extra 10 billion will come from the budget that the DND has.

[waldo]

It does not matter how many cases it has been involved in, this is how the World Court is structured. If you don't agree with my assessment, bring some evidence to support your argument, if not just tell me you are writing fiction and I won't bother you with facts.

you felt it necessary to repeat your mundane and banal references to the World Court? Again, your wishful fabricated scenario is not lining up for you... as I said in the preceding post to this, Russia is not showing any signs of aligning to your drumbeat. On the contrary, Russia is following international convention and is working within the applicable international framework and related treaty.

[Signals.Cpl]

It was more of an aside anyway. My point was we don't live in 1980, I don't fear the Communists I vacation with them, I enjoy their beaches and they enjoy my company. Why do I need a plane to defend me from the people I give oil to and who send back computers and MP3 players? All war would do for them is starve them, they don't want to fight me and I don't want to fight them. The people I should fear aren't scared or deterred by a plane they get them on those things to set off bombs. Those our enemy now if we have one at all so how will this plane help in anyway?

And which communist country do you Vacation in? If you are referring to Cuba, it is not communist using your exact criteria.

[punked]

And which communist country do you Vacation in? If you are referring to Cuba, it is not communist using your exact criteria.

Cuba is much more communist actually the China is, although I would agree with you communism is dead in the world. I was just pointing out your communist bogeyman is not scary at all. He is actually just a person like you and me and more often then not he loves my money. Often he loves my money more then I love my money. That says something about todays scary scary communist doesn't it? My the world has changed.

[cybercoma]

Ok, what is the breakdown? All I am hearing here is that the cost is 25 billion dollars, but there is no breakdown as to how he came about that number.

That's the exact criticism the Harper Conservatives received. Unlike the Harper Conservatives, the breakdown is in the AG report. Read it for yourself.