F-35 Purchase

[Signals.Cpl]

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"

I was born in a Warsaw pact Country, I know first hand what the belief system was in the entire region, it was not one sided conflict but was two sided, the Soviet Union and the warsaw pact, were involved in the Cold War just like Nato was.

It is all about money, if there are resources in the north, and Russia wants them, if they occupy the territory in question Canada is shit out of luck, and Russia is using the resources ad gaining the benefits of the natural resources that Canada could not protect. Russia is a superpower in the view of the Security council, the whole point here is that joker argued that if anything happened we can call on the ICJ, which unfortunately leads to the SC and since Russia would look after its own interests, we are SOL.

[punked]

I was born in a Warsaw pact Country, I know first hand what the belief system was in the entire region, it was not one sided conflict but was two sided, the Soviet Union and the warsaw pact, were involved in the Cold War just like Nato was.

It is all about money, if there are resources in the north, and Russia wants them, if they occupy the territory in question Canada is shit out of luck, and Russia is using the resources ad gaining the benefits of the natural resources that Canada could not protect. Russia is a superpower in the view of the Security council, the whole point here is that joker argued that if anything happened we can call on the ICJ, which unfortunately leads to the SC and since Russia would look after its own interests, we are SOL.

I am terrified. Know who is laying claim to the North as we speak and who has much more fire power then Russia? The US and you know who will get the North if they want the North the US. There wont be anything we can do about it, we will smile and say "Yep all that stuff actually come off Alaska's continental shelf" and let them have it. So spare me the bogeymen, I know who will win this international battle before it begins if it comes down to who has the most guns. It was never going to be Canada if that is the argument sorry.

[capricorn]

I have no idea what this means?

Not important.

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?

You really think I would bother answering this when I know your mind is already made up? At this stage, it's obvious nothing I could say would sway you.

[punked]

Not important.

You really think I would bother answering this when I know your mind is already made up? At this stage, it's obvious nothing I could say would sway you.

Not about lying to the Canadian people no. That is one of the few black and white issues in politics this was a bold faced lie, that aint right.

[Shady]

Not important.

You really think I would bother answering this when I know your mind is already made up? At this stage, it's obvious nothing I could say would sway you.

Nope. It's classic Harper Derangement Syndrome.

[punked]

Nope. It's classic Harper Derangement Syndrome.

Not even a talking point, sorry Shady. You need to check your inbox I know it is a long weekend but the Cons must have sent out the talking points by now right?

[Signals.Cpl]

I am terrified. Know who is laying claim to the North as we speak and who has much more fire power then Russia? The US and you know who will get the North if they want the North the US. There wont be anything we can do about it, we will smile and say "Yep all that stuff actually come off Alaska's continental shelf" and let them have it. So spare me the bogeymen, I know who will win this international battle before it begins if it comes down to who has the most guns. It was never going to be Canada if that is the argument sorry.

It has nothing to do with who has the most guns, but I guess thats a great argument if you live in a dream world.

[cybercoma]

It has nothing to do with who has the most guns, but I guess thats a great argument if you live in a dream world.

So we don't need the jets then?

[punked]

It has nothing to do with who has the most guns, but I guess thats a great argument if you live in a dream world.

Then what is your argument. As far as I can follow it goes like this

You:

"We need these jets to scare off Russia from taking the arctic from us because they will have jet fighters as well."

Me:

"The US is right now trying to lay claim to the arctic through Alaska and they could blow us out of the sky"

You:

"This isn't about who has fighters and who doesn't but WE NEED FIGHTER JETS!!!!"

Seriously I have no clue where our justification comes from. I am still not scared and I would rather look at this problem as one from reason then from scare tactics. Sorry.

[Argus]

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.

The Right? Excuse me, but as a member of the Left, would you like to explain why you told us that life was paradise in Soviet Russia, why you laughed away talk of gulags and slaughters and people being thrown into insane asylums for criticizing the government? Why you proclaimed the Soviets were a peace loving people who had no militaristic aims and only wished to defend themselves? Would you like to tell us why you ignored human rights abuses, not just within the Soviet Union, but in its slave states as well?

Edited April 8, 2012 by Argus

[waldo]

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?

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.

what's the point of answering your fabricated strawman BS? It's really a shame Russia isn't playing into your fabricated boogeyman scenario, hey? Your "reality" ignores everything Russia is actively doing to align with international law, while at the same time playing out your agenda that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russia claim"... and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what?

[Argus]

what's the point of answering your fabricated strawman BS?

Seems to me that what you were doing was suggesting there was no conceivable threat to Canada in which fighter jets might be of use. That in itself only exposes your lack of imagination, but never mind. When presented with a very plausible scenario for such a threat you dismiss it as a 'strawman' (!), then try to reassure us all that Vladimir Putin is the most sainted world leader the world has ever known, and that there was no way he would ever violate international law.

[punked]

The Right? Excuse me, but as a member of the Left, would you like to explain why you told us that life was paradise in Soviet Russia, why you laughed away talk of gulags and slaughters and people being thrown into insane asylums for criticizing the government? Why you proclaimed the Soviets were a peace loving people who had no militaristic aims and only wished to defend themselves? Would you like to tell us why you ignored human rights abuses, but within the Soviet Union, and in its slave states?

You will have to find me some quotes on that one. I have never been for communism but I have also never thought it was a threat to my way of life either.

[waldo]

It is all about money, if there are resources in the north, and Russia wants them, if they occupy the territory in question Canada is shit out of luck, and Russia is using the resources ad gaining the benefits of the natural resources that Canada could not protect. Russia is a superpower in the view of the Security council, the whole point here is that joker argued that if anything happened we can call on the ICJ, which unfortunately leads to the SC and since Russia would look after its own interests, we are SOL.

playing nice, hey? Sorry to see you can't control yourself. Unfortunately for you there is such a thing as international law. There is an existing UN treaty in place that speaks to passage thruway in terms of distances from shore (22 miles), as well claim to underwater resources in relation to nautical distance underwater from shore (200 miles). Claims on extension to the existing natural resources underwater demarcation are a matter of UN treaty. I could give a rats-patooey how testy you get; however, I will take exception to your need to fabricate "facts/strawmen" to support your military fervour... capiche?

[waldo]

Seems to me that what you were doing was suggesting there was no conceivable threat to Canada in which fighter jets might be of use. That in itself only exposes your lack of imagination, but never mind. When presented with a very plausible scenario for such a threat you dismiss it as a 'strawman' (!), then try to reassure us all that Vladimir Putin is the most sainted world leader the world has ever known, and that there was no way he would ever violate international law.

no - nice try. The discussion centered upon you creating a Russian boogeyman actively intent on "raping and pillaging" Canadian resources. Again, unfortunately for your crafted "reality", Russia is not presently engaging you.

[waldo]

Defence is vague, mainly because I am asking of you what capabilities should we have in your opinion. An F-35 and say a Spitfire offer the exact same thing, defence, difference is one of them is useful, the other is not.

about that so-called "defence"... just how does, effectively, a F-35 light-bomber provide that, uhhh... Canadian defence? For all it's vaunted (suggested) might, everything critical I've read suggests the F-35 is a sorry match to true fighter interceptors... that much was sacrificed for the lofty (now questionable) stealth capability, notwithstanding it's limited range, AWAC and aerial fuel requirements. By the by, will Canada also have it's own AWACS and air-fuelers? Oh... who has those?

defence? Just what kind of so-called defence?

[Signals.Cpl]

Then what is your argument. As far as I can follow it goes like this

You:

"We need these jets to scare off Russia from taking the arctic from us because they will have jet fighters as well."

Me:

"The US is right now trying to lay claim to the arctic through Alaska and they could blow us out of the sky"

You:

"This isn't about who has fighters and who doesn't but WE NEED FIGHTER JETS!!!!"

Seriously I have no clue where our justification comes from. I am still not scared and I would rather look at this problem as one from reason then from scare tactics. Sorry.

If we had the rudimentary means to protect our territory we won't have anything to worry about, as Russia is not interested in fighting in North America, but if we don't have the means to defend our territory and it is already questionable wether that territory is ours or not then Russia can swoop in and we can't anything about it. That is why the current government is pushing an agenda of strengthening the Army's arctic response units, and creating a reserve unit up north aside from the Rangers. But this becomes an exercise in futility if the Russian airforce can fly in Canadian airspace with impunity, its a simple concept, though we claim a large area in the north where a number of other nations also lay claims, if we have a small but capable military we can convey that we mean business and we will defend ourselves. If we can't, should Russia Land even a token force and we can't stand up to them and we have to ask the US to tell the Russians to get out of our own backyard kinda defeats our argument that we are a sovereign nation.

[Signals.Cpl]

So we don't need the jets then?

During World War 2, the German navy had a Battleship called the Tirpitz, simply by existing for over 2 years that ship tied down a much larger Royal Navy force and caused chaos throughout the convoys of the Atlantic every time there was a rumour that it was sailing to the Atlantic. The concept is called fleet in being, as long as you have the fleet(in this case fighter jets) they are a deterrent.

[punked]

During World War 2, the German navy had a Battleship called the Tirpitz, simply by existing for over 2 years that ship tied down a much larger Royal Navy force and caused chaos throughout the convoys of the Atlantic every time there was a rumour that it was sailing to the Atlantic. The concept is called fleet in being, as long as you have the fleet(in this case fighter jets) they are a deterrent.

A deterrent to who? What are we deterring? The Jets we have now wont be around forever but any jet we buy will be better then 80% of the worlds and for that other 20% almost all of them will have more f-35's then we have. Who are we deterring?

[punked]

If we had the rudimentary means to protect our territory we won't have anything to worry about, as Russia is not interested in fighting in North America, but if we don't have the means to defend our territory and it is already questionable wether that territory is ours or not then Russia can swoop in and we can't anything about it. That is why the current government is pushing an agenda of strengthening the Army's arctic response units, and creating a reserve unit up north aside from the Rangers. But this becomes an exercise in futility if the Russian airforce can fly in Canadian airspace with impunity, its a simple concept, though we claim a large area in the north where a number of other nations also lay claims, if we have a small but capable military we can convey that we mean business and we will defend ourselves. If we can't, should Russia Land even a token force and we can't stand up to them and we have to ask the US to tell the Russians to get out of our own backyard kinda defeats our argument that we are a sovereign nation.

You guys the Hawks made this arguments during the 80s. We all bought in and ponied up, we cut cut investment in education to fund war machines. Now when we look back we can easily see you were lying about the who were the Soviets then just as you are lying now. I get you want the new toys but don't make up an enemy or grossly over estimate what the rest of the world has to win an argument.

I leaned a lesson from Team B, you are still buying this crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B#Criticism

Edited April 7, 2012 by punked

[The_Squid]

as long as you have the fleet(in this case fighter jets) they are a deterrent.

So you are saying that someone is more likely to attack if we have F18's rather than then new F35's? I would suggest our deterrent to a military attack by the evil Russkies is just south of our border.

You're suggestion may have had some merit in 1977. The Cold War is over.

[punked]

So you are saying that someone is more likely to attack if we have F18's rather than then new F35's? I would suggest our deterrent to a military attack by the evil Russkies is just south of our border.

You're suggestion may have had some merit in 1977. The Cold War is over.

I just talked about team B. Even in 1977 they were lying to us about what the Red menace had so they could get bigger and bigger toys.

[Signals.Cpl]

A deterrent to who? What are we deterring? The Jets we have now wont be around forever but any jet we buy will be better then 80% of the worlds and for that other 20% almost all of them will have more f-35's then we have. Who are we deterring?

You must have ADD.

[punked]

You must have ADD.

No that is a serious question. Who are we going to deter with this jet?

[Signals.Cpl]

You guys the Hawks made this arguments during the 80s. We all bought in and ponied up, we cut cut investment in education to fund war machines. Now when we look back we can easily see you were lying about the who were the Soviets then just as you are lying now. I get you want the new toys but don't make up an enemy or grossly over estimate what the rest of the world has to win an argument.

I leaned a lesson from Team B, you are still buying this crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B#Criticism

Isn't it easy judging history almost 30 years after the event and when you have the whole story from all sides? I am not over estimating anything, I am pointing out that Russia is trying to legitimize their claim, just like the US tried to do in 2002/2003 by presenting all of their "intel" to the UN trying to prove Iraq had WMD. When the UN was not satisfied the US went along with its plans without worrying about the UN, difference is as long as we can point out we are capable of defending ourselves we know the Russians are not and will not be interested in a War because we are a member of NATO and we have the US backing us up.

You seem to put way to much faith on the ICJ, and after 10min of research I proved that the ICJ cannot do anything if one of the sides is has SC veto power. So you think that Russia will leave all those resources to us if they lose their case to the ICJ? Or would they continue doing whatever they want to do since they know it will come to a vote if we even bother, and they will shut it down. I provided evidence from the UN site the ICJ site and you cannot argue on that, yet you seem you believe that when ICJ says you lose Russia, they will turn around and go home. Sounds a little naive don't you think?