CdnFox Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 2 hours ago, John Stone said: All this debate is reminiscent of the Ross rifle debate, WWI Canadian Corp. The Ross, although a fine sporting rifle was woefully inadequate for the rigours of trench warfare - largely due to it's tendency to jam at the most inopportune moment? Canada's minister of defense at the time, Sir Sam Hughes- seated thousands of miles away from the battlefield, argued that the rifle was being unfairly vilified ............... by those Canadian Division soldiers tasked with using it and dying in droves. Cost, politics notwithstanding - there is really only one voice that should be listened to and that is those that are the most knowledgeable. Political hacks / industry are not the most knowledgeable, gentlemen. Trump will not be in power forever, on the other hand it is reasonable to expect that as limited as our defense contribution has been, Canada WILL be allied with the US military - NATO or not? Listen to the experts! Yes, they are self-serving - their men? I applaud their willingness to talk truth to power! For the senior brass at the Royal Canadian Air Force, there is no question that they want the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning as the replacement for their aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighter planes. They have wanted the F-35, and only the F-35, since this fifth-generation stealth strike fighter was first on the drawing board in 1997. I shudder to think how political the River Class Destroyers will become - Oh, Canada! I would remind you that Carney just hired his banker buddy for 800,000 a year plus expenses and benefits (i'll be over a million) to be in charge of procurement and the guy's never served a day in his life. So the gov't would seem to disagree with you They don't feel the military is sufficiently capable. And to be honest there's always political considerations whether the military likes it or not. Just like every other department of gov't be it medical or diplomatic, it doesn't exist in a vacuum and there are political, social and economical considerations. There's a GREAT deal to be said for NOT relying on the US for our military hardware, even if they've got the best for now. Seriously, if china had the best fighter would you suggest we should buy from them? Like it or not that relationship is broken. And while we may buy some from them for reasons, it may be economically better to establish relations with a european manufacturer and in the long run it may be a better alliance too. Europe produces some top quality fighters. And for the missions it seems likely we'll get into we may be better off with having more planes that are easier to maintain than not enough of the good ones. Oh, and in the end we won ww1 btw. 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 14 hours ago, TreeBeard said: American track record of new futuristic military technology is really bad lately. The F-35 could go the way of their new ships. State of the art is fine, if it has a proven track record. Otherwise, like the F-35 currently, it’s just the best on paper. The F-35s are an expensive risk. It has been used in combat dozens of times, including attacking Iran in one of the worlds most heavily contested air space...By the US and Israel...perhaps you can show us what proven track record the gripen has... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 6 minutes ago, Army Guy said: It has been used in combat dozens of times, including attacking Iran in one of the worlds most heavily contested air space...By the US and Israel...perhaps you can show us what proven track record the gripen has... Absolutely not one of the world's most highly contestant air spaces. I agree it's a tried and tested platform but come on. Everybody bombs Iran. And just to be clear your logic if applied at the time would have said that nobody should ever buy the F-35 and should only buy eagles because the eagle had been tested in combat but the F-35 never had. It's not a particularly valid argument. It may be the F-35 is the best choice, I have my doubts that it should be our only fighter, but you could make the argument that it should be if you wish. But the ability to bomb Iran and the fact record against Iran is not sufficient reason one way or another 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
John Stone Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 27 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I would remind you that Carney just hired his banker buddy for 800,000 a year plus expenses and benefits (i'll be over a million) to be in charge of procurement and the guy's never served a day in his life. So the gov't would seem to disagree with you They don't feel the military is sufficiently capable. And to be honest there's always political considerations whether the military likes it or not. Just like every other department of gov't be it medical or diplomatic, it doesn't exist in a vacuum and there are political, social and economical considerations. There's a GREAT deal to be said for NOT relying on the US for our military hardware, even if they've got the best for now. Seriously, if china had the best fighter would you suggest we should buy from them? Like it or not that relationship is broken. And while we may buy some from them for reasons, it may be economically better to establish relations with a european manufacturer and in the long run it may be a better alliance too. Europe produces some top quality fighters. And for the missions it seems likely we'll get into we may be better off with having more planes that are easier to maintain than not enough of the good ones. Oh, and in the end we won ww1 btw. Nobody won WWI ........... if it was a win it was pyrrhic.........very! 26 minutes ago, Army Guy said: It has been used in combat dozens of times, including attacking Iran in one of the worlds most heavily contested air space...By the US and Israel...perhaps you can show us what proven track record the gripen has... To be fair, the IDF had destroyed Iran's air defense capability before the attack went in? Quote
CdnFox Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 3 minutes ago, John Stone said: Nobody won WWI ........... if it was a win it was pyrrhic.........very! Cheezy backtrack dude It can easily be argued that nobody wins any war. But at the end of the day the Canadians were victorious whether you want to call that a win or not. The germans were less victorious Quote To be fair, the IDF had destroyed Iran's air defense capability before the attack went in? Yeah. which doesn't mean the f35 isn't good of course, just that that's not a good measure. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Absolutely not one of the world's most highly contestant air spaces. I agree it's a tried and tested platform but come on. Everybody bombs Iran. And just to be clear your logic if applied at the time would have said that nobody should ever buy the F-35 and should only buy eagles because the eagle had been tested in combat but the F-35 never had. It's not a particularly valid argument. It may be the F-35 is the best choice, I have my doubts that it should be our only fighter, but you could make the argument that it should be if you wish. But the ability to bomb Iran and the fact record against Iran is not sufficient reason one way or another Well one of the best air forces in the world decided it was contested enough to use stealth air craft to bomb its nuclear facilities... then there is the Israelis who hit Iran with F-35 on several occasions...I mean if everyone could bomb Iran why not use a bunch of gen 4 aircraft...and risk fighting your way all the way to the target and then back out again... Just to be clear Canada should purchase 88 F-35....That's not my opinion but rather the Air force chain of command both past and present....The idea of floating another fleet for expeditionary fleet is well into the future, and should not be the gripen, despite all the efforts to bring them into the country... F-15EX would be a much much better choice, the US is also exploring the idea of pairing F-35 with F-15 EX to be used as a missile truck, with the F-35 being the control aircraft... The Gripen is Not a combat tested aircraft, it's main selling points is it is cheaper to maintain, WOW, research the capabilities of the F-35 and compare them it is apples to oranges...F-15 is combat tested on hundreds occasions...,104 air to air kills with zero losses....that's got to peak some interest... plus it offers more capabilities than the gripen...Not even why this is bone of contention... Just a years ago Canadians were freaking out over the price of the F-35 purchase...one of the reasons it was canceled....The air force has gone to great lengths arguing against a mixed fleet, already mentioned here, if anything why just not buy more F-35, or wait until, the Gen 6 aircraft comes out....The entire Military needs a massive rebuild , which is going to soak up bils upon bils where does the funding for this second fleet come from....I mean Carney promise to get to 5 % is a just a dream...we are not even going to get close to that... And getting in and out of a hostile nation with modern air defenses without getting spotted or engaged might not impress you, but I'm sure the pilots that fly those missions really enjoy those capabilities....which prove that many of the F-35 touted capabilities do work as advertised. We will not hear about the gripen doing such operations any time soon.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 (edited) On 11/24/2025 at 10:03 AM, CdnFox said: What are we expecting to encounter in the next 20 years that these fighters, whatever we buy, will be expected to address? Currently we can't even shoot down a balloon Given that's about the worst threat Canada has faced since a Japanese sub shelled Estevan Pt. Lighthouse in 1942 - I think they managed to hit a garden shed - and the only other time we've been attacked was in 1812. If the last 212 years or so is any indication I doubt we'll be needing to address much. Edited November 28, 2025 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
CdnFox Posted November 28, 2025 Report Posted November 28, 2025 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: Well one of the best air forces in the world decided it was contested enough to use stealth air craft to bomb its nuclear facilities... then there is the Israelis who hit Iran with F-35 on several occasions...I mean if everyone could bomb Iran why not use a bunch of gen 4 aircraft...and risk fighting your way all the way to the target and then back out again... Again, if that's your measure we should be buying f 16 and 15's, the israelis have hit them with those often enough too. In fact, they get bombed pretty regular, when was the last time they shot down any us or israeli aircraft? And i don't think you're right about the aircraft. And 'combat tested 'as i noted is utter bullshit. THe f15 wasn't either when it came out and neither was the f35. we'd never buy a new aircraft if 'must be combat tested' was the requirement. And nobody freaked out over the f35 price. Trudeau cancelled our purchase claiming that we didn't do our job researching options. In reality he didn't want to spend a nickel on the military if he could avoid it. ANd the gripens wouldn't be going to hostile nations and 'getting' anything. We need the ability to defend our airspace against incursion. which means we need lots of planes and having good uptime makes sense. And we do NOT want to be beholden to the US. Sorry but politically and strategically that just isn't acceptable. I'm sure the airforce would love to have a large fleet of f35's. I'm sure doctors would love to see an MRI machine in every hospital across canada and i'm sure the police would love to have 24 hour helicopter coverage of the city. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Army Guy Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: Again, if that's your measure we should be buying f 16 and 15's, the israelis have hit them with those often enough too. In fact, they get bombed pretty regular, when was the last time they shot down any us or israeli aircraft? And i don't think you're right about the aircraft. And 'combat tested 'as i noted is utter bullshit. THe f15 wasn't either when it came out and neither was the f35. we'd never buy a new aircraft if 'must be combat tested' was the requirement. And nobody freaked out over the f35 price. Trudeau cancelled our purchase claiming that we didn't do our job researching options. In reality he didn't want to spend a nickel on the military if he could avoid it. ANd the gripens wouldn't be going to hostile nations and 'getting' anything. We need the ability to defend our airspace against incursion. which means we need lots of planes and having good uptime makes sense. And we do NOT want to be beholden to the US. Sorry but politically and strategically that just isn't acceptable. I'm sure the airforce would love to have a large fleet of f35's. I'm sure doctors would love to see an MRI machine in every hospital across canada and i'm sure the police would love to have 24 hour helicopter coverage of the city. You do know each aircraft can be used for a specific mission, ie killing air defense , fly Combat patrols, air strikes....once air defense are dealt with, air superiority is established even a guy in a para glider could drop bombs on targets...The F-35 does all of that...better than almost any other aircraft in the world... Being combat tested is one of its measures that most combat aircraft are measured against, actually it is one of the measures that most combat equipment is measured against.... You don't have to like it just is...It is not a requirement it is a measure like any other spec... Liberal party would say different, it was to expensive for the liberals....and the sticker price was priced out for 40 years which freaked out the public.....as well , history is recorded in our media... Quote Sparring erupted on the weekend when Trudeau promised to exclude the F-35 from the bidding process. Instead, he said, a Liberal government would opt for a cheaper alternative that would free up more funds for navy ships. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-f35-trudeau-harper-monday-1.3237046 The CDS and prime minister will decide where the aircraft will be used...period you or others stating what they will be used for is irrelevant. Canada has a long history sending troops into combat with inferior equipment, why do you think this aircraft would be any different... Canada has defensive agreements that it must honor as well and while the defense of Canada is the primary mission, NATO, 5 EYEs may dictate these aircraft be used in other operations. That's seems to be the crux of your argument , we don't want to deal with trump...and yet we have 3 more years of trump then what...lets cut off our nose despite its face...How many other US presidents have we had any serios issues with.....Not purchasing the best equipment available because you don't like trump is a silly argument There it is again....You and others on this forum think that those in the military just like shiny things....because they look cool...or it is the latest fad....why not just keep the f-18 do another upgrade and fly them for another 40 years, it would save bils... Combat is final you either win and live or place second place which means your remains is shipped back in a rubber body bag....hard not to want every advantage we could give them....i mean .it is only Canadian lives we are talking about...Where does this attitude come from give them sub par everything.....?..one would think that those men and women that signed on to unlimited liability, that sacrifice for this country in many ways other than willing giving up their lives as ordered...That they don't somehow deserve the best equipment money can buy....No instead we are talking about giving them sub par equipment...because it is cheaper....Why in good god reasons would any Canadian want to volunteer to serve this nation when it does not give a rats a$$ about their lives....the current state of the military is telling and reinforces everything i have said... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
CdnFox Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 4 hours ago, Army Guy said: You do know each aircraft can be used for a specific mission, ie killing air defense , fly Combat patrols, air strikes....once air defense are dealt with, air superiority is established even a guy in a para glider could drop bombs on targets...The F-35 does all of that...better than almost any other aircraft in the world... So here's my challenge. Canada mostly needs to defend it's airspace. We don't go to a lot of countries and bomb them on our own. If we do at all, and that's getting more rare, we go with other allies like the us. So while it sounds like having a squadron or two kicking around to work jointly with them and collect our 'participation' awards when the US picks a fight somewhere and the rest of us get dragged into it, it doesn't seem like we will ever deploy sufficient numbers of them to justify buying 88. It would seem that what we need most is a reliable figher in sufficient numbers to protect our airspace at home. As to trump, there is no reason to believe the next guy will be any better for us to deal with. Or the one after that or after that. The republican senate and house has backed trump in his attack on us, and many americans have promoted the 51'st state idea. And it's not the first time. a Reliance on America is no longer viable. You need to cope with that. You haven't addressed that at all other than to say "Well....MAYBE they'll start being nice to us someday". Not good enough. As to whether or not my opinion is relevant, I and the others like me who pay the taxes are the ones who are going to be putting the bill. So guess what, it's relevant. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
BeaverFever Posted November 29, 2025 Author Report Posted November 29, 2025 16 hours ago, John Stone said: All this debate is reminiscent of the Ross rifle debate, WWI Canadian Corp. The Ross, although a fine sporting rifle was woefully inadequate for the rigours of trench warfare - largely due to it's tendency to jam at the most inopportune moment? Canada's minister of defense at the time, Sir Sam Hughes- seated thousands of miles away from the battlefield, argued that the rifle was being unfairly vilified ............... by those Canadian Division soldiers tasked with using it and dying in droves. Cost, politics notwithstanding - there is really only one voice that should be listened to and that is those that are the most knowledgeable. Political hacks / industry are not the most knowledgeable, gentlemen. Trump will not be in power forever, on the other hand it is reasonable to expect that as limited as our defense contribution has been, Canada WILL be allied with the US military - NATO or not? Listen to the experts! Yes, they are self-serving - their men? I applaud their willingness to talk truth to power! For the senior brass at the Royal Canadian Air Force, there is no question that they want the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning as the replacement for their aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighter planes. They have wanted the F-35, and only the F-35, since this fifth-generation stealth strike fighter was first on the drawing board in 1997. I shudder to think how political the River Class Destroyers will become - Oh, Canada! Fun fact though: while the Ross was a terrible weapon for the everyday soldier in the trenches, it was actually preferred by army snipers due to its high accuracy and they kept the Ross after it was withdrawn from general service. So there are more dimensions to the story. But the Gripen is not the Ross rifle of fighter jets Quote
Venandi Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 (edited) 6 hours ago, CdnFox said: As to whether or not my opinion is relevant, I and the others like me who pay the taxes are the ones who are going to be putting the bill. So guess what, it's relevant. That's my default position on this as well, at the end of the day Canadians should (and ultimately will) procure what they deem to be appropriate and what they're willing to pay for. Just my opinion, but I see the discussions taking place now as part of a collective decision making process that will have long term effects. I hope Canadians look beyond the horizon and consider the size of the country vs the current (and projected) size of the military whilst keeping sovereignty top of mind. In that context I'd simply suggest that maximizing integration with the US (NORAD) and other allies (NATO) makes sense in world where stealth and seamless integration are, and will continue to be, force multipliers. While I understand (and support) the desire to maximize economic benefits for Canadians and get the concerns over US control of virtually all proprietary aspects of the F35, I hope that long term sovereignty considerations will ultimately remain in sharper focus than purely cost and economic benefits. As I see it, the analysis was already done, the decision already made and a procurement process that was already under way was stayed for purely political reasons. Not that we shouldn't do that if it's warranted, only that we shouldn't do it based on emotional reactions to Trump or a temporary trade relations dust up between neighbours. FWIW, here's a CBC article (on the site this morning) that I think is worth reading: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-fighters-submarines-national-security-9.6996946 Edited November 29, 2025 by Venandi 1 Quote
John Stone Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 6 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Fun fact though: while the Ross was a terrible weapon for the everyday soldier in the trenches, it was actually preferred by army snipers due to its high accuracy and they kept the Ross after it was withdrawn from general service. So there are more dimensions to the story. But the Gripen is not the Ross rifle of fighter jets Snipers don't determine battles. The point is that those who had real skin in the game were ignored. more trivia......... To be fair, WWI was a instance where technology and not mere numbers determined outcome...... took France a while to learn that at Verdun but the cost was absolutely stunning........ should mention the Somme and Doug Haig. The idea that a Brit was in overall command of the Canadian Corp in WWI is particularly galling. Quote
BeaverFever Posted November 29, 2025 Author Report Posted November 29, 2025 31 minutes ago, John Stone said: Snipers don't determine battles. The point is that those who had real skin in the game were ignored. Snipers are a key asset, they exist for a reason, most military assets don’t singlehandedly determine battles but are key nonetheless. They point is that the different assets all play different roles. Quote
Gaétan Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 The generals, in order to recruit soldiers, say: “You will take part in peace missions and do good.” Yet yesterday they showed Israeli soldiers shooting two people who were coming out of a garage on their knees with their arms in the air, and after beating and killing them they ordered a crane operator to bring the building down on them. The generals are liars; in reality, they are teaching them to kill without scruples. Quote
User Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 3 hours ago, Gaétan said: The generals, in order to recruit soldiers, say: “You will take part in peace missions and do good.” Yet yesterday they showed Israeli soldiers shooting two people who were coming out of a garage on their knees with their arms in the air, and after beating and killing them they ordered a crane operator to bring the building down on them. The generals are liars; in reality, they are teaching them to kill without scruples. What a load of shit. These were terrorists that had refused to come out for hours and then, on video and according to soldiers, they started to crawl back inside. Then they were shot. When terrorists balk at your commands and are moving away from you… they are not surrendering anymore. 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 11 hours ago, CdnFox said: So here's my challenge. Canada mostly needs to defend it's airspace. We don't go to a lot of countries and bomb them on our own. If we do at all, and that's getting more rare, we go with other allies like the us. So while it sounds like having a squadron or two kicking around to work jointly with them and collect our 'participation' awards when the US picks a fight somewhere and the rest of us get dragged into it, it doesn't seem like we will ever deploy sufficient numbers of them to justify buying 88. It would seem that what we need most is a reliable figher in sufficient numbers to protect our airspace at home. As to trump, there is no reason to believe the next guy will be any better for us to deal with. Or the one after that or after that. The republican senate and house has backed trump in his attack on us, and many americans have promoted the 51'st state idea. And it's not the first time. a Reliance on America is no longer viable. You need to cope with that. You haven't addressed that at all other than to say "Well....MAYBE they'll start being nice to us someday". Not good enough. As to whether or not my opinion is relevant, I and the others like me who pay the taxes are the ones who are going to be putting the bill. So guess what, it's relevant. Here is the problem with your challenge, no one can guarantee what the future brings us...The CF-18 has been used in combat 4 times, so we have used our air force in combat related missions both in air patrols and bombing ....Europe is preparing for War with Russia within 5 years...That should be a red flag for Canada, China has stated it would reclaim Twain within 5 years....Looking back on our history we have always gone to war with our allies except once Iraq...My point here is you can't purchase equipment based on we will never or rarely use it for that purpose...you buy equipment for the worst case scenario...because we can not produced it fast enough, meaning the next conflict is come as you are... The number the Air force gave the government was between 130 and 150 aircraft to fulfill All of Canadas needs, meaning to protect our air space, to provide aircraft to support ground operations, and our sea lanes, and logistical routes...Canada purchased 138 CF-18's of which 3 sqns were put in Europe...and while the F-35 is more capable aircraft, the number 88 barely covers our air space...does not include support for ground operations, nor does it count in expeditionary missions...and finally it does not include any mention of aircraft crashes....to date there has been 18 F-18 crashes those numbers are not accounted for, or training aircraft, aircraft in deep maintance, or regular maintance ........not to mention everyone is forgetting the fact our next aircraft is going to be around for 40 plus years... Where do you see the gripen in 40 years, operating with gen 6 or 7 aircraft... I'm sure if you were to look at the issue with a micro scope one could justify a much larger purchase, for those reasons... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cf-18-hornets-1.1003648#:~:text=In 1991%2C the Canadian Forces,against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Reliability is a factor to be taken into consideration, but is is one of many that need to be taken into account...The primary factor should be what advantages does it give our pilots over their enemies, keeping our pilots alive is the air force most value resource as it takes years to grow and shape a fighter pilot...the F-35 specializes in killing at distance, spotting the enemy before they even know the f-35 is there...those that shot first kill first... Your 100 % right there are no guarantees in anything who knows what the next American president will bring......just like you can't guarantee we will not need these aircraft for combat... American have attacked us for good reason if you were to step back and look at what they wanted I can not remember a US president that has not asked us to get our military and other security apparatus in order, including Obama, What trump did was leave us no other options... I think the word your looking for is dependency, and thats is the US main point Canada has become dependent on the US for almost everything... to include things that give us our sovereignty, and trump has given us the nudge we needed in my opinion...I don't think both nations will be taken long hot showers with each other any time soon, but we are tied to each other for our mutual defense of North America and we need to have at least a business relationship, one that we can purchase military equipment as well as most of our other goods... To be honest Cdnfox, neither of our opinions count for much, i don't think the PM reads or even takes into account any of our opinions....So all of us here are talking into the wind....To your tax point, Yes we all pay taxes, including those men and women that have signed on to unlimited liability.....and whose sacrifice is almost never seen , heard or acknowledged when it is their lives that are on the line...Why is it we chose to ignore their voices. 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 11 minutes ago, User said: What a load of shit. These were terrorists that had refused to come out for hours and then, on video and according to soldiers, they started to crawl back inside. Then they were shot. When terrorists balk at your commands and are moving away from you… they are not surrendering anymore. I see you have meet our local terrorist cheerleader, I've been trying to hook him up for a trip to middle east so he could meet his hero's in a one on one meeting... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Gaétan Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 1 hour ago, User said: What a load of shit. These were terrorists that had refused to come out for hours and then, on video and according to soldiers, they started to crawl back inside. Then they were shot. When terrorists balk at your commands and are moving away from you… they are not surrendering anymore. We know that you are a disinformer who wants to put someone more cruel than Carney as prime minister; Pierre Poilievre, they will hire you to read the news at CBC. Quote
User Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 1 minute ago, Gaétan said: We know that you are a disinformer who wants to put someone more cruel than Carney as prime minister; Pierre Poilievre, they will hire you to read the news at CBC. It’s literally on the same video you are here referencing. These are facts: Fact: Reports quoting soldiers there said they fired upon them because they moved away from soldiers back into building Fact: Video shows them moving away from soldiers back into building when they were shot Quote
Gaétan Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 3 minutes ago, User said: It’s literally on the same video you are here referencing. These are facts: Fact: Reports quoting soldiers there said they fired upon them because they moved away from soldiers back into building Fact: Video shows them moving away from soldiers back into building when they were shot The facts are that the army made a killer out of you Quote
User Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 25 minutes ago, Gaétan said: The facts are that the army made a killer out of you That is the entire point of what the military does… duh. 2 Quote
John Stone Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 On 11/28/2025 at 2:50 PM, eyeball said: Given that's about the worst threat Canada has faced since a Japanese sub shelled Estevan Pt. Lighthouse in 1942 - I think they managed to hit a garden shed - and the only other time we've been attacked was in 1812. If the last 212 years or so is any indication I doubt we'll be needing to address much. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 6 hours ago, Venandi said: That's my default position on this as well, at the end of the day Canadians should (and ultimately will) procure what they deem to be appropriate and what they're willing to pay for. Just my opinion, but I see the discussions taking place now as part of a collective decision making process that will have long term effects. I hope Canadians look beyond the horizon and consider the size of the country vs the current (and projected) size of the military whilst keeping sovereignty top of mind. In that context I'd simply suggest that maximizing integration with the US (NORAD) and other allies (NATO) makes sense in world where stealth and seamless integration are, and will continue to be, force multipliers. While I understand (and support) the desire to maximize economic benefits for Canadians and get the concerns over US control of virtually all proprietary aspects of the F35, I hope that long term sovereignty considerations will ultimately remain in sharper focus than purely cost and economic benefits. As I see it, the analysis was already done, the decision already made and a procurement process that was already under way was stayed for purely political reasons. Not that we shouldn't do that if it's warranted, only that we shouldn't do it based on emotional reactions to Trump or a temporary trade relations dust up between neighbours. FWIW, here's a CBC article (on the site this morning) that I think is worth reading: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-fighters-submarines-national-security-9.6996946 I don't see how it's possible to marry the idea of long-term sovereignty with complete dependence on the united states. In fact the opposite is true, right now the us thinks it owns our military and it's purchases. We're completely dependent. That's not sovereignty. I think we're agreed that we have to look beyond the immediate but it feels like when you do that you see closer ties to the states and i see the exact opposite as being in our best interest. The us cannot be trusted, we cannot hitch our wagon to that horse exlusviely. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
eyeball Posted November 29, 2025 Report Posted November 29, 2025 50 minutes ago, John Stone said: See any subs? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.