F-35 Purchase

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

Yes, its always easy to follow international law, knowing that even if things don't go your way, you have the final say. I am proving that when it comes to one of the Security Council members, the ICJ does not have authority over them, you can huff and puff all you want but the Russian Federation can go through the proper channels, and if things don't go their way then they still have the final say. I posted evidence where it says that should one of the parties not comply, then the only options are drop the matter or go to SC where Russia has a veto.

Whatever dreamland you live in I don't care for, I live in the real world, where once money and natural resources are at stake every country will look out for their national interest. You seem to be pro ICJ even though it is a lame duck organization. This is the last time I will reply to your idiocy.

[waldo]

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?

I thought you were the 'facts guy'... that you were all about the facts! You seemed to have no difficulty in present that PBO puff-piece as the definitive de facto costs, uhhh... breakdown. It would seem to me your forceful declaration wouldn't allow you to be, presumably, trumped by the Auditor General. So... you don't have the breakdown costs, after all, hey?

I note you conveniently bypassed by reference to the "imaginary Harper Conservative contract"... you know, the "lock-in" vehicle that won't affect your "breakdown" puffery!

[Signals.Cpl]

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

The breakdown is also in the DND estimates, which I presented.

[punked]

I don't even think the F-35 is the problem. I still don't know if we need it or not. The problem is we had a national debate where one side controlled the facts as they wanted them to be instead of what they are. The public was cheated of an informed debate, if they came out with these numbers and explained them to the Canadian people the people might have been fine with them and said "yep we need these planes" and that is fine. The Canadian people as a whole are the ones who get to chose if we buy these planes or not in the end. The problem was we never got a real debate on these numbers which is what we are having right now.

[Signals.Cpl]

I thought you were the 'facts guy'... that you were all about the facts! You seemed to have no difficulty in present that PBO puff-piece as the definitive de facto costs, uhhh... breakdown. It would seem to me your forceful declaration wouldn't allow you to be, presumably, trumped by the Auditor General. So... you don't have the breakdown costs, after all, hey?

I note you conveniently bypassed by reference to the "imaginary Harper Conservative contract"... you know, the "lock-in" vehicle that won't affect your "breakdown" puffery!

I am presenting my view, I am not professing it is right, if you can present the budget breakdown that shows where the difference is, then I would say you are right but you have to present your argument, I am not going to go and search for you, if you want to back up your arguments with facts do your own leg work.

[waldo]

I posted evidence where it says that should one of the parties not comply, then the only options are drop the matter or go to SC where Russia has a veto.

Whatever dreamland you live in I don't care for, I live in the real world, where once money and natural resources are at stake every country will look out for their national interest. You seem to be pro ICJ even though it is a lame duck organization.

your so-called reality is your unfounded wishful thinking... that presumes to allow you to perpetuate a militaristic drumbeat, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps you better expand your described reality to offer similar concerns over the U.S. and it's aspirations toward Arctic natural resources - after all, as you say, "every country will look out for their national interest".

This is the last time I will reply to your idiocy.

promise?

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

According to you it is communist or not, there aren't varying degrees of communism. Cuba has small businesses and foreigners investment in their tourist industry which could own no more then 50% of the business. Cubans have bank accounts, they can own their own property, and Cubans can leave the country it costs a lot but they can still legally leave the country, which means its not communist.

[cybercoma]

I don't even think the F-35 is the problem. I still don't know if we need it or not. The problem is we had a national debate where one side controlled the facts as they wanted them to be instead of what they are. The public was cheated of an informed debate, if they came out with these numbers and explained them to the Canadian people the people might have been fine with them and said "yep we need these planes" and that is fine. The Canadian people as a whole are the ones who get to chose if we buy these planes or not in the end. The problem was we never got a real debate on these numbers which is what we are having right now.

Exactly.

[cybercoma]

According to you it is communist or not, there aren't varying degrees of communism.

There isn't, according to Marx. Either society has classes or they've been eliminated. If your society has different classes of people, then it's not Communist. Edited April 7, 2012 by cybercoma

[punked]

I am presenting my view, I am not professing it is right, if you can present the budget breakdown that shows where the difference is, then I would say you are right but you have to present your argument, I am not going to go and search for you, if you want to back up your arguments with facts do your own leg work.

I am just going to quote the Auditor General here one of the few offices respected by almost every Canadians and one Conservatives quoted often in 2006 during Adscam

““I can’t speak to sort of an exact date, (But) at the point in time, to respond to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s office, it’s my understanding that the government had that number. That was their internal estimate and they should have used that as their opportunity to come forward with the full cost information.”

[punked]

According to you it is communist or not, there aren't varying degrees of communism. Cuba has small businesses and foreigners investment in their tourist industry which could own no more then 50% of the business. Cubans have bank accounts, they can own their own property, and Cubans can leave the country it costs a lot but they can still legally leave the country, which means its not communist.

Sorry man I don't live in our black and white world. I don't think Canada is communist because we have Social Security although because we have that type of Social welfare I do think we are closer to communist country then if we didn't have it. I also think that program is a good thing. That is not to say I would ever want to live in a communist state.

If you are asking me is Cuba more communist then say China? The answer is yes, the economy is controlled much more tightly, the distribution of wealth is much less and I have never seen one model of communism which says people can't emigrate or immigrate that is more about if Cuba is fascist or not. Again the communist love our money and I think that in the end is where communism died. When it all became about money.

[capricorn]

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.

The opposition is playing dumb just to score points against the Conservative government. The opposition, especially the long serving Liberals, know full well how the budget and estimates process works. The government is outsmarting them by quickly putting in place measures to meet the shortcomings highlighted by the AG. That's what mainstream Canadians will be looking at.

Auditor General's Report on F-35

Media are reporting that the government understated the costs of buying F-

35s. This is incorrect.

· The Department of National Defence released its full estimated costs

of buying 65 F-35s: $14.7 billion over 20 years.

· The Auditor General has said that we should have, additionally, provided

operating costs, such as jet fuel, pilot salaries, etc, that are incurred

currently with the CF-18s and would exist with any aircraft purchased by

Canada.

· The government accepts the Auditor General's conclusions and will

include these figures going forward.

Here are the facts:

1. The Auditor General sets out in Chart 2.6 the government’s estimates

of acquisition, sustainment and operating costs for the F-35 in June 2010.

2. In March 2011, the Department of National Defence responded to the

PBO report on the F-35 costs. Using the same budget elements as set out

in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report, National Defence provided estimates

of acquisition costs of $9 billion and sustainment costs of $5.7 billion

over 20 years. Sustainment costs include maintenance and software

reprogramming.

3. The response from National Defence to the PBO (set out in a detailed

chart) did not include estimates of operating and salary costs. These costs

are not unique to the F-35 program, and would be incurred regardless of

the type of fighter aircraft operated by the RCAF as noted by the Auditor

General in paragraph 2.68. These costs would include such things as jet

fuel, oil, consumables, pilot and support salaries.

4. These costs amount to approximately $9 billion over 20 years and are

reported to Parliament in the Estimates process as part of the Department

of National Defence’s A Base.

5. The Auditor General has concluded that the government should have

taken the opportunity to release its operating and salary cost estimates in

its reply to the PBO Report, even though the PBO did not appear to include

these budget elements. The government has accepted this conclusion and

has a seven point plan to respond to the Auditor General’s report.

http://f.cl.ly/items/3i0I2M2G3f2E1u3f0A2A/PMO%20statement%20April%205.pdf

[punked]

The opposition is playing dumb just to score points against the Conservative government. The opposition, especially the long serving Liberals, know full well how the budget and estimates process works. The government is outsmarting them by quickly putting in place measures to meet the shortcomings highlighted by the AG. That's what mainstream Canadians will be looking at.

http://f.cl.ly/items/3i0I2M2G3f2E1u3f0A2A/PMO%20statement%20April%205.pdf

I love how you literally post a Conservative talking points memo and expect after all this for us to talk it seriously. I get the spin I don't actually have to read the talking points they have sent out to their media guys.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Correct, but a far more relevant example would be Canada's attacks on Serbia in 1999, which also was not sanctioned by the UN. More specifically, Canada used CF-188's for bombing and CAP missions in the very same way any replacement aircraft would be used for future NATO engagements.

[Argus]

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

“Those numbers are tabled every year in Parliament as estimates and then as the final spending statement for the government"

Chris Alexander

[Argus]

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?

And the U.S. doesn't build similar cases, and spend money doing it? And yet you've openly crowed about how the U.S. doesn't always pay attention to the UN or international law. Are you saying Russia, a kleptocracy and dictatorship will be more restrained by international law and the UN than the US is?

[capricorn]

I love how you literally post a Conservative talking points memo and expect after all this for us to talk it seriously.

You can bet it should be taken seriously since it outlines government action in response to the AG's report.

[punked]

You can bet it should be taken seriously since it outlines government action in response to the AG's report.

It does not speak to why the government with held information from the CANADIAN PEOPLE or the people that had a MAJORITY in our elected democracy that is for sure. Parliament had a vote the speaker ruled and the government had to the table the numbers, instead they lied and said there were no other numbers. THAT IS THE PROBLEM here. It was that someone didn't respect our democracy.

[waldo]

And the U.S. doesn't build similar cases, and spend money doing it? And yet you've openly crowed about how the U.S. doesn't always pay attention to the UN or international law. Are you saying Russia, a kleptocracy and dictatorship will be more restrained by international law and the UN than the US is?

why the strawmanmen? Again, your boogeyman isn't cooperating with you... Russia is working within the international framework. The easy Iraq go-to was simply a useful counter to your boogeyman projection. Again, why is Russia bothering to expend all the time/costs to produce a scientifically founded case in support of it's Arctic aspirations? Why has Russia formally announced it's intention to bring it's case forward to the UN? Why doesn't Russia just step-up to match/meet your boogeyman wishes/declaration?

[Argus]

why the strawmanmen? Again, your boogeyman isn't cooperating with you... Russia is working within the international framework. The easy Iraq go-to was simply a useful counter to your boogeyman projection. Again, why is Russia bothering to expend all the time/costs to produce a scientifically founded case in support of it's Arctic aspirations? Why has Russia formally announced it's intention to bring it's case forward to the UN? Why doesn't Russia just step-up to match/meet your boogeyman wishes/declaration?

You didn't answer the question. The U.S. does all that to, yet ignores international law and the UN when it sees fit. Do you believe Russia will behave better than the US? Do you admire Vladimir Putin's democratic instincts and assume that a kindly man like him would never violate international law?

[capricorn]

It does not speak to why the government with held information from the CANADIAN PEOPLE

Of course it doesn't. The opposition and the media believe they are doing a fine job doing just that.

[punked]

Of course it doesn't. The opposition and the media believe they are doing a fine job doing just that.

I have no idea what this means? You think it is a good thing for a government to misled the Canadian people or to not adhere to the rules of our democracy or do you think it is a bad thing?

[Signals.Cpl]

You didn't answer the question. The U.S. does all that to, yet ignores international law and the UN when it sees fit. Do you believe Russia will behave better than the US? Do you admire Vladimir Putin's democratic instincts and assume that a kindly man like him would never violate international law?

He doesn't have an answer, his entire argument as to why Canada should not worry about Russia taking a very active role on our territory is that the ICJ will protect us. When it was proven that the ICJ cannot do anything as the final say lays in the SC and Russia has a seat there, whatever happens Russia is free to act as it wants. And that is precisely why the UN is such an abysmal failure as a world organization.

[punked]

He doesn't have an answer, his entire argument as to why Canada should not worry about Russia taking a very active role on our territory is that the ICJ will protect us. When it was proven that the ICJ cannot do anything as the final say lays in the SC and Russia has a seat there, whatever happens Russia is free to act as it wants. And that is precisely why the UN is such an abysmal failure as a world organization.

Maybe if the right hadn't told so many lies about Russia over the last 40 years you could be taken seriously. However your track record is shot and you bogeyman is a shell of its former self. I am not buying it and if we said Citation please way back when they were telling lies 30 years ago we might have saved ourselves a headache and actually improved our countries instead of making bombs and planes to bury underground and put in hangers.

Sorry

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again"

[Topaz]

I went searching for the timeline on the F-35 and I did find one. It starts in 1997 when the Liberals open the doors until 2006 when the Tory government took over and went further with the program. It seem the reason for pushing the F-35, was not because it was the right jet for Canada, which it isn't because today it doesn't meeting all the requirements, but the Tories did it for the 8 Billion in contracts, which are world -wide and no guarantees how much of those Canada will get. In 2008 when the jets prices started going up, Mackay should have taken a second and third look at this. http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/timeline+Canada+involvement+program/6418105/story.html