F-35 Purchase

[Signals.Cpl]

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

Russia the one that is trying to lay claims to territory we also claim as ours.

[punked]

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?

What you have failed and continue to fail to show is how 45 F-35 fighters will deter Russia from the evil plans you have made up in your head. I linked to Team B because what they did in the 70s and 80s is what you are doing right now. Instead of looking at the facts as they stand they made up the facts as they went along then presented them as evidence. North America and the Allies spent Trillions based on 10 guys who wet their beds at night dreaming of scary Soviets. That shouldn't be how we make informed decisions.

[punked]

Russia the one that is trying to lay claims to territory we also claim as ours.

Russia yes, as well as the US and Iceland. Iceland doesn't even have an army but the US does. Better get 45 F-35s to deter the US and Iceland as well. Again stop with the doomsday, and listen to me, if you want fear someone taking the arctic from us (which I don't think you should) fear the US. If we lose it to anyone it will be them and we will give it up with a smile on our faces and you will be saying "At least it wasn't the Russians". As if you have won some Pyrrhic victory.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... North America and the Allies spent Trillions based on 10 guys who wet their beds at night dreaming of scary Soviets. That shouldn't be how we make informed decisions.

It was not a dream for eastern Europe...it was a real nightmare. That's why such decisions were made. Canada has never had the world's best air superiority fighter or interceptor (including the AVRO Arrow).

[punked]

It was not a dream for eastern Europe...it was a real nightmare. That's why such decisions were made. Canada has never had the world's best air superiority fighter or interceptor (including the AVRO Arrow).

Give me a break. Fact is Reagan went around lying to the American public about Soviet menace and you guys ate it up, he hired almost all those team B people that were just making up numbers. Then he went on to spend all kinds of borrowed money not to enrich the country by building roads or educating the people but to build war planes and bombs. That is the historical record so this time we need to call a lie a lie and debate on real facts.

Which is what this is all about. Harper is trying to get away with lying and the left is saying "not this time". This time we want to debate the facts as they stand and if the public still wants the new toys then so be it. This time though we are going at this based on facts not on lies.

Edited April 7, 2012 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Give me a break. Fact is Reagan went around lying to the American public about Soviet menace and you guys ate it up, he hired almost all those team B people that were just making up numbers.

Were the Poles lying to us too? Or maybe the Hungarians?

Then he went on to spend all kinds of borrowed money not to enrich the country by building roads or educating the people but to build war planes and bombs. That is the historical record so this time we need to call a lie a lie and debate on real facts.

Pretty easy to do after the Soviet Union is gone.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Which is what this is all about. Harper is trying to get away with lying and the left is saying "not this time". This time we want to debate the facts as they stand and if the public still wants the new toys then so be it. This time though we are going at this based on facts not on lies.

That's fine by me...just the usual Canadian style circle-jerk that is part of any military procurement. But don't pretend that "Reagan" or anybody else makes you do it.

Hell, Chretien took Canada to war without so much as a vote in Parliament..it's not only a Harper joint.

Edited April 7, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

Were the Poles lying to us too? Or maybe the Hungarians?

I know who was Reagan was,

[bush_cheney2004]

I know who was Reagan was,

So do Eastern Europeans. Canada was part of that effort, and that meant tactical aircraft deployed to Europe.

Edited April 7, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Signals.Cpl]

Russia yes, as well as the US and Iceland. Iceland doesn't even have an army but the US does. Better get 45 F-35s to deter the US and Iceland as well. Again stop with the doomsday, and listen to me, if you want fear someone taking the arctic from us (which I don't think you should) fear the US. If we lose it to anyone it will be them and we will give it up with a smile on our faces and you will be saying "At least it wasn't the Russians". As if you have won some Pyrrhic victory.

Ok so lets disarm, let the US make us another 10 states, and we don't have to worry about anything.

Please tell me how you see the case that Russia is bringing to the ICJ turning out if the ICJ sides with Canada? There are billions of dollars worth of untapped natural resources in the arctic, and as supplies start to dwindle that same region with its massive reserve of resources will become much more important. You can safeguard your resources and develop them, or you can hope that no one will try to take your resources.

Ultimately it seems to me you are ignoring the evidence that ICJ is an irrelevant organization if you are dealing with one of the 5 veto powers of the SC. But do continue to place your bets on the organization that cannot protect you, just like people placed faith in the League of Nations and we all know how that turned out.

[CPCFTW]

This, like most of the vitriol coming from the left, is much ado about nothing.

$25B over 20 years.

Canada has annual revenues of over $250B.

The acquisition and service/maintenance of these jets will cost 0.5% of Canada's current revenue per year.

Put that in perspective. Lets say that you make 50k/yr, and pay about $15,000/yr in total income/sales taxes. 0.5% of that is $75 per year.

How much do people spend on home insurance? Car insurance? Life insurance?

The military is essentially "defense insurance". And we pay a hell of a lot less for it than we do for other types of insurance.

[CPCFTW]

you mean the... two bombing efforts... Bosnia and recent months Libya? Well, make it 3 since a few bombs were also dropped during Bush 41s "Gulf War 1" missive.

is it your assertion that participating in these most limited campaigns, spread across literally decades in time, is a warranted justification for the financial expenditures associated with the CF-18 aircraft?

That's more times than I've used my home, car, and life insurances combined over the last several decades... and for a lot cheaper too! Plus no deductible!

Edited April 7, 2012 by CPCFTW

[Smallc]

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?

48, and yes, because that would be too much for most countries to be on the offensive against.

[punked]

Ok so lets disarm, let the US make us another 10 states, and we don't have to worry about anything.

This whole argument is about not taking on a mountain of debt to fight a made up enemy as the US did for 30 years. How would taking on their policies so they can protect us with the army they built help us not become them? Your argument is flawed because you assume I want to have the military capacity the US does with out buying it and I am saying I understand a military costs money be it needs to be what we can afford.

[DogOnPorch]

made up enemy

Nope, the Soviet Union was quite real.

Make-believe Russians training with the SS-25 Sickle (RT-2PM Topal). Yield about 1 megatonne.

Edited April 8, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Signals.Cpl]

This whole argument is about not taking on a mountain of debt to fight a made up enemy as the US did for 30 years. How would taking on their policies so they can protect us with the army they built help us not become them? Your argument is flawed because you assume I want to have the military capacity the US does with out buying it and I am saying I understand a military costs money be it needs to be what we can afford.

Do you actually think the difference in price between the F-35 and others of similar ability is that much grater? The difference between Canada and the US, is we need 1 aircraft to do a number of different jobs while the US can specialize. They have Fighters, Interceptor, CAS, Bombers, Fighter-Bomber etc... We don't have the means to do that therefore we have to settle for the aircraft that can best do that. or purchase a number of General Purpose Fighters with a small number specialized, but that would drive up the cost more then it is now. Honestly I think the government should have the bidding and be over with it, but if the government wants the F-35 they can set up the bidding process in such a way to get the F-35 is selected with the only difference now we waste more money on a process that as decided before it even began.

[punked]

Nope, the Soviet Union was quite real.

Make-believe Russians training with the SS-25 Sickle (RT-2PM Topal). Yield about 1 megatonne.

And their forces were very over estimated. Just like these war planes. If you wanted to have a debate on the facts back then we could have, but we didn't. This time I am debating the facts about who this country should and shouldn't worry about.

[waldo]

Please tell me how you see the case that Russia is bringing to the ICJ turning out if the ICJ sides with Canada?

quit making shyte up... again:

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?

[punked]

Do you actually think the difference in price between the F-35 and others of similar ability is that much grater? The difference between Canada and the US, is we need 1 aircraft to do a number of different jobs while the US can specialize. They have Fighters, Interceptor, CAS, Bombers, Fighter-Bomber etc... We don't have the means to do that therefore we have to settle for the aircraft that can best do that. or purchase a number of General Purpose Fighters with a small number specialized, but that would drive up the cost more then it is now. Honestly I think the government should have the bidding and be over with it, but if the government wants the F-35 they can set up the bidding process in such a way to get the F-35 is selected with the only difference now we waste more money on a process that as decided before it even began.

Again we can have the debate on if this fighter is good or not good for our country. That is not what the Conservatives did though they lied. So this means we go back to square one on this purchase and have the debate again. It also means that someone screwed up so who was it and what is being done to fix this problem? That is what we are talking about.

[waldo]

$25B over 20 years.

and what about the rest of it... the massive Navy upgrade, the Coast Guard upgrade, Search & Rescue requirements, ice-breakers, etc., etc., etc. Is there an unlimited military budget in your world? Or, are you advocating the $25B with a trade-off to other 'requirements' being dropped? Where's the priority in your world? What are you willing to drop?

[waldo]

That's more times than I've used my home, car, and life insurances combined over the last several decades... and for a lot cheaper too! Plus no deductible!

an irrelevant, nonsensical comment that has no bearing on this discussion

[punked]

and what about the rest of it... the massive Navy upgrade, the Coast Guard upgrade, Search & Rescue requirements, ice-breakers, etc., etc., etc. Is there an unlimited military budget in your world? Or, are you advocating the $25B with a trade-off to other 'requirements' being dropped? Where's the priority in your world? What are you willing to drop?

Guns or Butter it was always why Russia could never build the Military the US officials in the 80s told us they had. You spend money on guys or you spend it on Butter. So let them starve they say. I pick butter then guns which is why we need this argument.

[DogOnPorch]

And their forces were very over estimated. Just like these war planes. If you wanted to have a debate on the facts back then we could have, but we didn't. This time I am debating the facts about who this country should and shouldn't worry about.

With Russia, it is always quantity over quality. The MiG-21 might not have been the F-4 Phantoms equal, but there were 100 of them for every F-4. As Vietnam showed, when in a skilled pilot's hands even a MiG-17 could be a handfull.

Only fools think Russia has changed its spots. The only change other than being somewhat smaller is what name it calls the Politb...errrr....Duma.

[Smallc]

and what about the rest of it... the massive Navy upgrade

Which is necessary because we haven't cut a new ship hull in 15 years...unless you think the countries longest coast line doesn't need a navy.

, the Coast Guard upgrade,

Las I checked, the CCG had no military duties....and vessels that were very old and only getting older.

Search & Rescue requirements, ice-breakers,

That's part of the CCG and the military.

etc., etc., etc. Is there an unlimited military budget in your world? Or, are you advocating the $25B with a trade-off to other 'requirements' being dropped? Where's the priority in your world? What are you willing to drop?

The $25B was part of the defence budget going forward.

[punked]

With Russia, it is always quantity over quality. The MiG-21 might not have been the F-4 Phantoms equal, but there were 100 of them for every F-4. As Vietnam showed, when in a skilled pilot's hands even a MiG-17 could be a handfull.

Only fools think Russia has changed its spots. The only change other than being somewhat smaller is what name it calls the Politb...errrr....Duma.

Again if your side wanted to debate real numbers back then we could have. Instead they quoted team-b numbers which happened to be made up. We now know what the numbers truly were and what they were were greatly inflated at best or made up at worst.