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

[kward]

Nations don't have friends...

The smart ones do.

[kward]

What exactly are we going to blow up? Buy a nuke and threaten to destroy Canada if they come? They had something the Germans needed and they used it against them, the Germans needed iron ore right then and there so losing that source for six months, a year or 2 was out of the question... How would you suggest we pull of the same thing? Nuke the oil fields? Nuke the Arctic?

You stated it beautifully..."they had something the Germans needed and they used it against them"

Canada is nothing if not loaded with resources other nations need. You find the pressure points, and you exploit them. You don't waste everyone's money on a never-ending parade of toys.

[kward]

How do you have them by the balls if they can just come and take your gold?

With what...invisible ninjas? They try and take it, we destroy it. Sure we won't have it to use, but neither will they...you find their weaknesses, and you exploit them. A far more cost effective policy than wasting untold millions and billions arming to the teeth.

[Signals.Cpl]

Remove inefficient bureaucratic policing yes. Remove any kind of policing no. See the difference?

And here you have argued about removing all policing and letting citizens form their own police forces...

I'm not proposing anarchy at all. How many times do I have to say that government has a role, albeit as limited as possible? Turn off your selective sight.

What you are proposing will shortly thereafter lead to anarchy therefore your position is to promote anarchy.

Contract enforcement is necessary at a government level, otherwise we take a step toward anarchy...which if you've been paying attention, is not what I advocate.

So essentially you would like to hire mercenaries to police the country? They will not be loyal to the government after they realize that they can get their funds from "taxing" the people and the government can do nothing about it therefore they skip getting the funds from the government and tax their people.

Hold on...why can't they do anything about it?

Because you just removed the military and police two institutions loyal to the government be it municipal, provincial or federal and hired mercenaries who are loyal to whoever provides money and supplies at which point they will realize they can get whatever they want without the government.

Not via an income tax you don't. That's essentially theft. But not all taxation is bad, taxing consumption is a viable option. Tariffs are another.

Great, who is going to stop them? The government with no police or military forces to do so or the government with a token force that can do nothing but use stern language?

People who want to do away with all government are anarchists. For the millionth time...I do not advocate zero government. I recognize it has a function, but it should be kept to a minimum.

You advocate eliminating the power of the government to enforce the laws and placing that power in private hands, which would lead to the government becoming irrelevant and dozens of warlords from popping out all over the country.

If you knew the difference you wouldn't say that.

You are suggesting removing the arm of the government that protects the people and enforces the law and replacing it with essentially a mob which would promptly ignore the direction of the government because they quickly find other sources of income and the leader of that mob is his own boss and won't have to listen to a government with no power.

I have not suggested anarchy, i.e. no government...not once.

Place the weapons out of the governments hands and arm the citizens while letting private citizens form their own militia's means that the government has no means of protecting the people or enforcing the law... which will lead to anarchy and quickly in to dozens of city states with petty warlords fighting over other city states to increase their power.

I'm not sure why you cling to the belief that I support anarchy.

Because historically if anyone has tried to do as you suggest it would lead to anarchy and quickly to a dictator who grabs power.

Maybe because you've realized the virtues of a free market capitalist society, but you just don't want to admit it out of some point of pride?

Fortunately I have a brain and have common sense so not much danger of me getting an idiotic idea like that.

I don't know. Just a guess. Otherwise why would you continue to mischaracterize what I am saying as being something else? Perhaps you still don't understand the difference?

Because you suggest a, which would lead to be(anarchy), which leads to c(dictatorship/warlords) which leads to d(war). Your mistaken belief might be that what will happen is free market but it will go down the path of any previous attempts and will be an abysmal failure only on a larger level.

Why wouldn't they be able to enforce?

Because mercenaries are notoriously unreliable, highest bidder gets their loyalty.

No, I am for property owners arming themselves if they'd like.

AKA private militias.

But I think building a widespread form of defense is probably best left to the government - albeit, it'd have to keep spending as low as it could. Billions wasted on fighter jets would be too much.

You are for wasting money? Because you either invest properly or you don't invest at all, spending a few million to a billion to keep a coupe of thousand soldiers in the army will help no one, it will just be a waste of resources.

What situation? Keeping a thousand jets doesn't do anything either. And not once have I said the government should employ "a thousand soldiers". It'd have to be more than that. It's a big country.

And I never said that we should buy a thousand jets... so you propose we keep sufficient soldiers to protect Canada... so what like 200,000? 300,000? Because our army right now is not big enough to do that properly, its just big enough to make the US feel safe enough not to decide to take over our defence.

Why can't they enforce them? Why won't anyone listen to them?

Read above I will not repeat myself.

A democracy is mob rule, and a terrible way to run a society.

So lets hand it over to warlords and dictators? Look at Afghanistan circa 1960 and compare it to Afghanistan of 2001-2012 and see how good the warlords and dictators have been for that country and its people.

Move to the woods? Why? Freedom is worth fighting for...no need to remove myself from society.

Unfortunately you are proposing we disarm, let mercenaries defend us until they realize that they can just as well take from us and no one could do a thing, you are proposing we give up freedom to some dictator... not my idea of freedom.

No progress is made there. And freedom is not anarchy. And anarchy is not what I propose.

And no progress will be made when someone can go to your house and do as he pleases simply because there is no one to protect you and they are the law...

[Signals.Cpl]

Keep waiting, he doesn't like to answer when things don't fit in to his fantasy.

[kward]

do you advocate we do the same for al-quida? We let them keep their funds in Canada as long as they don't attack us?

If they're dumb enough to put their money into a Canadian owned bank and then turn around and attack Canada, they'd deserve to fall apart as an organization...and they would in that scenario. With no money they'd be scattered to the wind.

[Signals.Cpl]

The smart ones do.

Nations do not have friends, nations have allies, and nations have national interests when your national interests are contrary to my interests then we would part ways, precisely why over the last few thousand years few nations have fought side by side continuously in multiple wars, they are allies as long as it benefits both sides when one side has something to gain but the other side does not alliance is over.

We are "friends" with the US as long as it is beneficial to them, should it become contrary to their national interests to be allied with us and be our trading parter they will cut us off in a second.

[Signals.Cpl]

With what...invisible ninjas? They try and take it, we destroy it. Sure we won't have it to use, but neither will they...you find their weaknesses, and you exploit them. A far more cost effective policy than wasting untold millions and billions arming to the teeth.

Destroy what? Their gold?

You think this is 1760?

[kward]

You mean the rangy diplomat they just told to get his ass home because they are done talking?

Yes, the same diplomat who says, "oh that's too bad, I guess you won't be needing 'x'..."

[Signals.Cpl]

You stated it beautifully..."they had something the Germans needed and they used it against them"

Canada is nothing if not loaded with resources other nations need. You find the pressure points, and you exploit them. You don't waste everyone's money on a never-ending parade of toys.

Problem is they had something the Germans needed as in that moment, while Canada is loaded with resources they could use and develop at their pleasure once they have taken it. If we are to use the same tactic as Sweden we might need a couple of hundred Nuclear Warheads and be willing to kill about 35,000,000 Canadians to prevent someone from using our land and resources for at least a few hundred years... I think when all things are considered 65 F35s are not all that expensive...

[Signals.Cpl]

If they're dumb enough to put their money into a Canadian owned bank and then turn around and attack Canada, they'd deserve to fall apart as an organization...and they would in that scenario. With no money they'd be scattered to the wind.

But your theory rests in us convincing every nations on earth as well as every terrorist organization to keep their funds in Canada and our banking system in order to have leverage over them, should one terrorist organization chose to keep their money somewhere else they are not threatened by us and can attack us at will while we cannot do a thing but probably beg the UN for peacekeepers who will watch us get slaughtered and urge calm.

[kward]

And what is the difference?

I’ll bite (for now) on your pseudo free market mantra……….What were both Adam Smith’s and Milton Freidman’s stance on a standing, professional military?

Absolutely, 100% agree with Friedman here. Not sure what your point is. Like him, I don't see the need to waste money on military hardware forever and ever amen. Spend some yes. Ideally none at all...but I agree with him...there's no ideal solution for that, at least not yet. As I've said, we need some kind of minimal government that includes some form of defense. But not spending to the tune of billions just because.

[Signals.Cpl]

Absolutely, 100% agree with Friedman here. Not sure what your point is. Like him, I don't see the need to waste money on military hardware forever and ever amen. Spend some yes. Ideally none at all...but I agree with him...there's no ideal solution for that, at least not yet. As I've said, we need some kind of minimal government that includes some form of defense. But not spending to the tune of billions just because.

Then what is the magic number? What Equipment do we have? how many soldiers to protect Canada?

[kward]

They won't be post ~2030.

That's just it...we spend billions and then they get old, then we have to spend billions again...and then again...and then again...it never ends. There are cheaper alternatives out there. Diplomacy, trade...they may not be the panacea, but they're a great start, and cheaper than endless amounts of toys.

[kward]

We depend on other powers to help defend us which means we should at least to make an effort to defend ourselves.

You know, around the world, this country is regarded as one of the best on the planet to live. I never cease to be amazed at the number of its citizens who put so little value on its security.

Now back to the F-35.

Define: security. And how far into debt are you willing to go to somehow reach it?

[Signals.Cpl]

That's just it...we spend billions and then they get old, then we have to spend billions again...and then again...and then again...it never ends. There are cheaper alternatives out there. Diplomacy, trade...they may not be the panacea, but they're a great start, and cheaper than endless amounts of toys.

How long does your car run before you have to buy a new one? forever?

[Signals.Cpl]

Define: security. And how far into debt are you willing to go to somehow reach it?

You define security, since you seem really elusive on it by saying we should let civilians form their own military units all the while the government will not waste money on a military but will have a military sufficient to defend Canada but without spending any money...

[kward]

Nor would it seem have you.

Anarchy = no government. What I propose = minimal government.

[Signals.Cpl]

Anarchy = no government. What I propose = minimal government.

Which would lead to no government and various petty dictators with weapons terrorizing the people, which would lead to forming of city states and larger nations until we end up with a couple of large nations with dictators.

[kward]

It's fairly clear you're not much of a student of history.

Your point?

It's funny, because from your brief posting history here you're like...the stereotypical small-town Albertan libertarian. Your naive fantasies are pretty charming.

"Stereotypical small-town Albertan libertarian"...pick that up from a road sign on the Hanlon? Or maybe some political screed on a flyer you found in front of Trappers?

Libertarian? Absolutely. Naive? Just the opposite. Charming? Sure.

[dre]

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

Thats completely debatable and a matter of opinion. I would not use our military as an instrument of global socialism. There IS the odd extremely rare case where I think its in our interests to fight some war across the pond, but we certainly shouldnt be spending billions of dollars on that.

In terms of our own security all our airforce needs to do is patrol our airspace, and Im not even sure we need manned planes for that.

[dre]

And 10 years ago the government wanted to eliminate the tanks because we wouldn't need them. Twenty years ago we sold our heavy transport helicopters to the Netherlands only to have to get transport from them in the helicopters we sold them while in Afghanistan. Then during afghanistan we bought/leased both in a short time frame and at a higher expense.

Right and where did that get us? A whole bunch of dead Canadians, a resurgent Taliban, and western powers getting ready to bugger off home with their tails between their legs after accomplishing next to nothing in a war that lasted longer than ww2, and that Canadians dont want.

And that is the crux of the matter. What do we want our military to do? Is it an instrument of global socialism, where we police the world with force, or is it about defending our soil and managing plausible threats to our sovereignty. If we could answer that question, then we could move forward and buy or build the right stuff.

[kward]

Still waiting kward

Still waiting for what? I replied, it takes a while, yes. I'm replying in order. Eventually I'll reply to them all (I hope).

[Wilber]

Yes, with their giant dumptruck that can drive across the Pacific. Or, their huge helicopters who will swoop in and carry the oil sands away...better break out the buckets. Give me a break. A bunch of pussies? This is economics. This is business...not the UFC.

No, they will build piplelines where they want and sail tankers wherever they want. Who's going to stop them? You and your buddies with their private armies? Why would they stop at just the oil sands?

[Wilber]

With what...invisible ninjas? They try and take it, we destroy it. Sure we won't have it to use, but neither will they...you find their weaknesses, and you exploit them. A far more cost effective policy than wasting untold millions and billions arming to the teeth.

Good defence. Blow yourself up. How do you destroy gold anyway?