F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[Signals.Cpl]

You're describing anarchy. I advocate free market capitalism. There is a difference.

Not from what you are describing. You want to remove police, fire fighters and medical staff and let the average person take responsibility for those things. No law enforcement and the government cannot enforce the laws so certain areas will be peaceful and nice while others will be a war zone... and that is until someone overpowers the other petty dictators that are sure to rise and makes Canada a dictatorship, or more likely the US will move in or some other power will do so and benefit from our land and resources and all because we can't defend ourselves.

And to add to that you want to let the people who benefit from little to no regulation set up the rules... Isn't it kinda the reason for our last round of economic problems?

[wyly]

Neutrals like Switzerland are needed during wars. Often, they provide the only means of exchange and comunication between the waring parties. Aside from the obvious strategic advantages of posessing Canada, geographic and resources, are you maintaining that Canada has that sort of value in large enough importance to offset its strategic value?

the swiss(friendly) were irrelevant they were of no strategic importance to Germany or the allies...sweden no strategic importance, no invasion...spain was neutral/fascist no invasion,...Iceland, neutral invaded by allies for strategic importance...

were getting into that silly resources argument again...wars/invasions/occupations are hideously expensive, no country is going to invade when you're quite happy to sell your resources to them.....

[Signals.Cpl]

Citizens can help rescue people too, and they do. You're not the government's pet. You're asking people to help themselves, yet at the same time you're advocating in favour of people in government making decisions for you? Which is it? Personal responsibility and accountability, or the nanny state?

You are so narrow minded that to you its either black or white, either we have a many state or anarchy no in-between. Right now Canada has a good system going, not perfect but its good and what you are advocating is to give it up and leave it in the hands of the people willing to use force against anyone and everyone else... apparently you cannot see past your nose.

[Signals.Cpl]

and I'm quite sure Bombardier could do that....

No they can't, there is a slight difference between the civilian and military technology.

[Wilber]

Developing the components for an aerospace industry is an investment. Also our needs are very simple... the F35 program was about developing a fighter than can do everything... We just need a rangey interceptor/patrol craft.

Piece of cake, whatever a rangey interceptor/patrol craft is.

[wyly]

200 F-35s in Canada would present a challenge to anyone but the United States. They are far from pigs and it would be very hard for any country to send 200 fighters our way.

a rifle without ammunition is a club...a plane without ground support, fuel, ammo, runway is scrap-metal...

[Smallc]

And that's not all we need anyway. We've used our F/A - 18 A/B aircraft for their full range of rolls.

[Smallc]

a rifle without ammunition is a club...a plane without ground support, fuel, ammo, runway is scrap-metal...

It's not like we'd be blindsided by such an attack, or that we'd have no defence. As I said, you're oversimplifying.

[Wilber]

the swiss(friendly) were irrelevant they were of no strategic importance to Germany or the allies...sweden no strategic importance, no invasion...spain was neutral/fascist no invasion,...Iceland, neutral invaded by allies for strategic importance...

were getting into that silly resources argument again...wars/invasions/occupations are hideously expensive, no country is going to invade when you're quite happy to sell your resources to them.....

Why buy them when you can just take them. Why pay 15 billion for Nexen when they know we are just a bunch of pussies who won't and can't do anything if they just come and take it and the rest of the oil sands.

[kward]

I am still waiting for the example as to where this worked.

It doesn't have to already exist in order for it to work when tried. The world progresses fueled by inventions never before seen.

By your own admission it will still be out of reach, just not far out of reach... unfortunately close is not good enough.

Generalizing...what are you talking about specifically? How poor, how many poor? Define poor. How much is the health care in this scenario? How much is the person earning? Why are they poor?

Sure because we see so many of the rich are very charitable right?

Obviously, more than you realize. Also, how charitable is someone going to feel when they already have a good chunk of their earning confiscated to pay for services for everyone else? Will everyone be charitable with their money? No. But don't lump everyone into the same category.

No you are right, they stay the same...the same Facebook advocate, you know post something on your wall, congratulate yourself for your courage and watch a movie.

Wow, well at least you're not cynical.

Probably but not certainly, you want people to move from a system where they are guaranteed a certain level of treatment and protection to a system where they are guaranteed none at all on the hope that people will become more charitable rather than less so?

It's amazing how you manage to twist what I've said into something else.

You're guaranteed exactly what level of treatment right now? And protection? Is it good enough? Is it cheap enough? Is it readily available enough? How much money are you willing to throw away with little say in the matter? How much more personal power and personal responsibility for your own body, and your own health are you willing to give up to bureaucratic oversight that sees you as nothing more than a number on a conveyor belt?

I'm not saying everyone should go without medical treatment...just the opposite in fact. And I recognize we achieve that by making health care affordable and more quickly available to all by cutting out the middleman.

[kward]

Actually, they already have what you are talking about in some parts of the world. We call them warlords.

Yes, because somehow anarchism and free market capitalism are the same thing?

[Wilber]

Yes, because somehow anarchism and free market capitalism are the same thing?

No, because the guys with the biggest and most guns make the rules and they will dictate what constitutes a free market, not you and you can bet your ass such a market will only be free for them.

[kward]

The guy with the most rifles can make and enforce his law and that means kill or subjugate competition and everyone around them. You control the supply you can regulate how much of it goes through and how much of it does not see Somalia for example, the UN sends them food during a famine and the warlords capture the food and use it to gather support there is plenty of supply(food) but since they control it simply they ration it to their supporters only(kill the supply).

No central government to enforce any laws they create means the group with the most rifles and the smallest collective conscience wins out and to be fair anarchy won't last long, a dictator will unite all the groups soon enough by force.

By killing the competition and then charging as much as you want, since there would be no central government to create or enforce monetary policy we end up with a barter society and go back to medieval europe.

One example where it has WORKED, not theory but a concrete example.

Yes!

It does not exist because it makes no sense.

So you are saying we have to radically change our mindset as a species for your theory to work?

Well its preferable to 1 guy making the decisions for the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999999%

Or on the flip side common sense is more prevalent.

It has existed since humanity began and will exist until the day humanity seizes to exist or someone decides to genetically engineer people.

I know it is immoral, but so what I want it and I take it if you can't stop me well cry me a river.

And who is going to enforce the law? I have more people with guns I make the law, when someone has more then me they make the law.

The state that cannot enforce its laws and protect its cities seizes to exist.

All this private militias will take the power of the state and soon enough will overthrow the state.

How do you propose we protect ourselves? Fighters cost money, tanks cost money, ships cost money, troops cost money wasting money on something that is too small to help is more than useless.

I can force you, no one can enforce the law so it is survival of the strongest more armed people on my side you lose and no government to beg for help.

Sure, you have something I want it I come and take it...why waste my time negotiating when I can just take it?Give me one reason why people will negotiate when they can just take without fear of repercussion from the law...

Learn the difference between anarchy and free market capitalism. You're arguing against anarchy. I am not in support of anarchy. Learn the difference.

[wyly]

Why buy them when you can just take them. Why pay 15 billion for Nexen when they know we are just a bunch of pussies who won't and can't do anything if they just come and take it and the rest of the oil sands.

and what did the Iraq war cost the USA, 3 trillion? ...3 trillion vs 14 billion, hmmm there's a difficult decision...

[Wilber]

Learn the difference between anarchy and free market capitalism. You're arguing against anarchy. I am not in support of anarchy. Learn the difference.

How are you going to stop anarchy with no means of enforcing your utopia?

[Signals.Cpl]

What are you talking about?

I am talking about you and your simpleminded idea to remove police and expect people to behave themselves and police themselves which will not happen.

Under anarchy, yes.

You are proposing anarchy under a different name.

Contract enforcement is done through the courts.

Whoa there boy, nanny state remember no regulation.

There's a role for government there, and most likely only there.

That is a role they cannot sustain because someone will figure out that they can do as they please and the court cannot do anything about it, you want funds you "tax" the people under your control, you enforce laws you want rather than laws some lame government with no ability to enforce tells you to enforce.

You keep confusing free market capitalism for anarchism.

Well stop suggesting anarchy under a free market capitalism guise.

You really need to read up on the differences.

There is no difference in the way you are suggesting it except that we end up with a short period of anarchy before different warlords take over and form city states and start wars to expand their empires.

That's what the courts are for.

And what happens when they can't enforce a thing?

Again with the anarchism.

People forming their own little private armies is anarchy or feudalism, neither of which I advocate.

3. Protected land is owned land. The cheapest way for Canada to protect the north is to sell of its "Crown" land. Let the land owners incur the expense of protecting their property. They want to buy jets, go right ahead. But don't increase everyone's taxes trying to hold onto every iceberg within Canada's political boundaries.

So you are for property owners to field their own militaries while you are against property owners fielding their own private military?

I recognize the need for a government of some kind, but it must be very minimal...as minimal as possible.

Why waste the money? Keeping a thousand soldiers is not going to change the situation one way or another.

Obviously, there is room to discuss what the government should and should not do.

According to you government does nothing but pass laws that no one will listen to and that they cannot enforce.

I'm open to that, but in the end I wouldn't advocate for the government to control very much. The more government controls the less free are its constituents.

You know if you move to the woods you can have the freedom you so desire and the rest of us can live in a democracy rather than anarchy turned dictatorship.

[kward]

What about Switzerland?

Is this where you trot out the formidable Swiss army and mountainous defendable territory as being the deterrents to invasion?

What of their banks, trade policies, gold, rail lines, economic ties? Did that perhaps have anything to do with it?

[Signals.Cpl]

Learn the difference between anarchy and free market capitalism. You're arguing against anarchy. I am not in support of anarchy. Learn the difference.

You are presenting zero difference between the two.

[Wilber]

and what did the Iraq war cost the USA, 3 trillion? ...3 trillion vs 14 billion, HM there's a difficult decision...

So instead of having a well equipped military you would prefer guerrilla warfare, IED's and car bombs in your own neighbourhoods to defend your country.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Wilber

[kward]

In Switzerland the German High Command suggested against the invasion simply because everyman was armed, and they were fighting on home soil in the Alps, and they had prepared for decades to repel and invasion. They had thousands of bunkers stocked with food, weapons and ammunition and hundreds of thousands of soldiers who were going to fight in one of the most inhospitable area on the planet, the Germans judged that they would rather keep Switzerland neutral and siphon money out to them when it became obvious they were loosing the war rather then open another front they couldn't win. Switzerland was prepared and would have given more of a fight than anyone in 1940... it would have lasted a long time and would have cost the germans a lot.

Riiiight...diplomacy, money, and trade had nothing to do with it.

[Wilber]

Is this where you trot out the formidable Swiss army and mountainous defendable territory as being the deterrents to invasion?

What of their banks, trade policies, gold, rail lines, economic ties? Did that perhaps have anything to do with it?

And your defence would be what? Standing on the border saying, you can't invade us, we're just like Switzerland.

[wyly]

Is this where you trot out the formidable Swiss army and mountainous defendable territory as being the deterrents to invasion?

What of their banks, trade policies, gold, rail lines, economic ties? Did that perhaps have anything to do with it?

ya and that they were surrounded by German and Italian forces and of no threat to axis powers or of any use to the allied powers...

[Signals.Cpl]

the swiss(friendly) were irrelevant they were of no strategic importance to Germany or the allies...sweden no strategic importance, no invasion...spain was neutral/fascist no invasion,...Iceland, neutral invaded by allies for strategic importance...

were getting into that silly resources argument again...wars/invasions/occupations are hideously expensive, no country is going to invade when you're quite happy to sell your resources to them.....

Sweden was not invaded Because the germans would have lost them as a source of iron when they needed it most. Switzerland was not invaded because the Germans realized they will lose plenty of troops for no gain. Iceland would have been taken had the Germans possess the ability to take it and take advantage.

You are talking as if you know anything about history since you seem to ignore the main point, Germany invaded plenty of countries that were really happy to sell them their resources.

[kward]

And then we ask for help from NATO, but I think few in NATO will lend us help when we were not even willing to defend ourselves. Besides I understand you think the generals in DND are idiots but they are some of the brightest Canada has to offer, I am sure there are ways to detect and defend from that... see RCN.

Oh, so in this instance you're all for relying on one's self, but you're not willing to apply that to your own body, your own health care? So, at some point there's a line where being responsible for yourself stops and someone else has to take care of you?

And, NATO...really? Alliances are wasteful, and just asking for trouble. Friendship = good. Alliances = bad.

[wyly]

So instead of having a well equipped military you would prefer guerrilla warfare, IUD's and car bombs in your own neighbourhoods to defend your country.

they're useless for defense we don't enough, we could never afford to have enough to defend the country, the country is too big to defend, a super hornet will as just as useful)zero) and much much less expensive...