Discussion:
True F-35 cost likely known by cabinet, auditor says
(too old to reply)
Cons@minority%
2012-04-05 22:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Posted: Apr 5, 2012

True F-35 cost likely known by cabinet, auditor says

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet would have known the cost of acquiring the F-35s was
estimated at $25 billion, not the $15 billion that the public was later told, the auditor
general said Thursday.

Among the revelations in Michael Ferguson's spring report tabled earlier in the week was the
finding that the Department of National Defence estimated in June 2010 that buying and
operating the planes for 20 years would cost around $25 billion. In March 2011, however, the
department responded to a report on F-35 costs by the parliamentary budget officer by saying
his estimates were wrong and the cost would be around $15 billion.



"That was the opportunity that they should have used to come forward with the full costing,
because they had that and that number was known," Ferguson said about the government when he
spoke to reporters after an appearance at the public accounts committee.



"I can't speak to individuals who knew it, but it was information that was prepared within
National Defence, and it's certainly my understanding that that would have been information
that, yes, that the government would have had."

Opposition parties are accusing Harper and his ministers of misleading Parliament and in
question period Thursday they demanded to know precisely when the prime minister knew the $25
billion cost estimate of acquiring the planes.

Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae posed the question three times, but Harper didn't answer it. He
responded that the government accepts Ferguson's recommendation that national defence refine
its cost estimate and that the government hasn't bought the planes yet.

Opposition MPs continued to push the F-35 issue in question period, demanding that someone take
responsibility for the lack of due diligence that Ferguson found in his audit, and asking for
the resignation of Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

When he spoke to reporters, Ferguson would not say that the government misled Parliament, he
said it "missed the opportunity to come forward and say, 'here's what we think the full costing
would be.'"

"I can only frame it as, they had information … they should have used that as the opportunity
to bring that forward," he said. Ferguson noted that even the $25 billion estimate has
weaknesses associated with it.

Rae's interpretation of the government's position is that if it accepts Ferguson's report, then
it accepts the fact that it misled Parliament.

"Maybe people have difficulty getting their head around $10 billion but how about getting your
head around the fact that the prime minister has been saying things to Canadians which are
simply not true, for a very long period of time," he told reporters.

*******************************************************
"We CAN look after each other better than we do today.
We CAN have a fiscally responsible government.
We CAN have a strong economy; greater equality; a clean environment.
We CAN be a force for peace in the world." - Jack Layton
Greg Carr
2012-04-05 21:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@minority%
Posted: Apr 5, 2012
True F-35 cost likely known by cabinet, auditor says
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet would have known the cost of acquiring the F-35s was
estimated at $25 billion, not the $15 billion that the public was later told, the auditor
general said Thursday.
Among the revelations in Michael Ferguson's spring report tabled earlier in the week was the
finding that the Department of National Defence estimated in June 2010 that buying and
operating the planes for 20 years would cost around $25 billion. In March 2011, however, the
department responded to a report on F-35 costs by the parliamentary budget officer by saying
his estimates were wrong and the cost would be around $15 billion.
"That was the opportunity that they should have used to come forward with the full costing,
because they had that and that number was known," Ferguson said about the government when he
spoke to reporters after an appearance at the public accounts committee.
"I can't speak to individuals who knew it, but it was information that was prepared within
National Defence, and it's certainly my understanding that that would have been information
that, yes, that the government would have had."
Opposition parties are accusing Harper and his ministers of misleading Parliament and in
question period Thursday they demanded to know precisely when the prime minister knew the $25
billion cost estimate of acquiring the planes.
Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae posed the question three times, but Harper didn't answer it. He
responded that the government accepts Ferguson's recommendation that national defence refine
its cost estimate and that the government hasn't bought the planes yet.
Opposition MPs continued to push the F-35 issue in question period, demanding that someone take
responsibility for the lack of due diligence that Ferguson found in his audit, and asking for
the resignation of Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
When he spoke to reporters, Ferguson would not say that the government misled Parliament, he
said it "missed the opportunity to come forward and say, 'here's what we think the full costing
would be.'"
"I can only frame it as, they had information … they should have used that as the opportunity
to bring that forward," he said. Ferguson noted that even the $25 billion estimate has
weaknesses associated with it.
Rae's interpretation of the government's position is that if it accepts Ferguson's report, then
it accepts the fact that it misled Parliament.
"Maybe people have difficulty getting their head around $10 billion but how about getting your
head around the fact that the prime minister has been saying things to Canadians which are
simply not true, for a very long period of time," he told reporters.
*******************************************************
"We CAN look after each other better than we do today.
We CAN have a fiscally responsible government.
We CAN have a strong economy; greater equality; a clean environment.
We CAN be a force for peace in the world."                      - Jack Layton
We should buy the F-35s they are the best bang for the buck and their
stealth technology will keep them out of harms way most of the time.
M.I. Wakefield
2012-04-05 22:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
We should buy the F-35s they are the best bang for the buck and their
stealth technology will keep them out of harms way most of the time.
No, it's becoming apparent that the F-35 is a horse designed by a committee:
a camel.

Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy ...
there's also the F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.

The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and would
lessen pilot re-training requirements.
Dave Smith
2012-04-05 22:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy
... there's also the F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and
would lessen pilot re-training requirements.
Aren't we glad that we knuckled under to US economic pressure and canned
the Arrow. Instead of having home grown state of the art aircraft whose
production benefited Canadian workers, we get to buy expensive aircraft
from the US.
Cons@minority%
2012-04-05 23:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Aren't we glad that we knuckled under to US economic pressure and canned the Arrow. Instead
of having home grown state of the art aircraft whose production benefited Canadian workers,
we get to buy expensive aircraft from the US.
That "we" would be a previous Conservative government, wouldn't it?
M.I. Wakefield
2012-04-05 22:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy
... there's also the F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and
would lessen pilot re-training requirements.
Aren't we glad that we knuckled under to US economic pressure and canned
the Arrow. Instead of having home grown state of the art aircraft whose
production benefited Canadian workers, we get to buy expensive aircraft
from the US.
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.

A brilliant piece of engineering, but with no mission once it was clear that
the Soviets had a working ICBM ... which they demonstrated to all by
launching Sputnik.
Cons@minority%
2012-04-06 00:43:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.
. . . . which were never pending or were ever a threat.
Post by M.I. Wakefield
A brilliant piece of engineering, but with no mission once it was clear that the Soviets had
a working ICBM ... which they demonstrated to all by launching Sputnik.
It had nothing to do with what the soviets were working on. It had everything to do with the
bloody Americans talking Diefenbaker into scrapping the Avro Arrow and buying their damned
Bomarc missiles instead.

If there's a Conservative government in Canada, there's American power over Canadian affairs
along with it.
________________________________

In the fall of 1958 Prime Minister Diefenbaker's Conservative government announced an agreement
with the US to deploy in Canada 2 squadrons of the American ramjet-powered "Bomarc"
antiaircraft missile. This controversial defence decision was one of many flowing from the 1957
NORAD agreement with the US. It was argued by some that the surface-to-air guided missile, with
a range of 640 km, would be an effective replacement for the manned AVRO ARROW, which was also
scrapped.
Fifty-six missiles were deployed at North Bay, Ontario, and La Macaza, Québec, under the
ultimate control of the commander in chief, NORAD. Unfortunately, the Canadian government did
not make it clear that the version to be acquired, the Bomarc-B, was to be fitted with nuclear
warheads. When this became known in 1960 it gave rise to a dispute as to whether Canada should
adopt nuclear weapons. In the end the government could not bring itself to accept nuclear
warheads for the Bomarcs, a reluctance which contributed to poor CANADIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS in
this period.

With the Conservatives' fall in 1963 and the Liberals' return to power under PM Pearson, a
decision was finally made to accept nuclear warheads for Canadian nuclear-capable forces, and
the Bomarc warheads were delivered to their sites on 31 December 1963. Nevertheless, the
decision was made reluctantly, and in 1969 PM Trudeau's new Liberal government announced that
Canada would withdraw its ARMED FORCES from their nuclear roles. As part of this process the
Bomarc missile was phased out of service by 1971.
Greg Carr
2012-04-06 00:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.
 . . . . which were never pending or were ever a threat.
Post by M.I. Wakefield
A brilliant piece of engineering, but with no mission once it was clear that the Soviets had
a working ICBM ... which they demonstrated to all by launching Sputnik.
It had nothing to do with what the soviets were working on.  It had everything to do with the
bloody Americans talking Diefenbaker into scrapping the Avro Arrow and buying their damned
Bomarc missiles instead.
If there's a Conservative government in Canada, there's American power over Canadian affairs
along with it.
________________________________
In the fall of 1958 Prime Minister Diefenbaker's Conservative government announced an agreement
with the US to deploy in Canada 2 squadrons of the American ramjet-powered "Bomarc"
antiaircraft missile. This controversial defence decision was one of many flowing from the 1957
NORAD agreement with the US. It was argued by some that the surface-to-air guided missile, with
a range of 640 km, would be an effective replacement for the manned AVRO ARROW, which was also
scrapped.
Fifty-six missiles were deployed at North Bay, Ontario, and La Macaza, Québec, under the
ultimate control of the commander in chief, NORAD. Unfortunately, the Canadian government did
not make it clear that the version to be acquired, the Bomarc-B, was to be fitted with nuclear
warheads. When this became known in 1960 it gave rise to a dispute as to whether Canada should
adopt nuclear weapons. In the end the government could not bring itself to accept nuclear
warheads for the Bomarcs, a reluctance which contributed to poor CANADIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS in
this period.
With the Conservatives' fall in 1963 and the Liberals' return to power under PM Pearson, a
decision was finally made to accept nuclear warheads for Canadian nuclear-capable forces, and
the Bomarc warheads were delivered to their sites on 31 December 1963. Nevertheless, the
decision was made reluctantly, and in 1969 PM Trudeau's new Liberal government announced that
Canada would withdraw its ARMED FORCES from their nuclear roles. As part of this process the
Bomarc missile was phased out of service by 1971.
Good for Trudeau. Thanks for the post but you should have provided the
source:http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/bomarc-missile-
crisis
Cons@minority%
2012-04-06 02:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Good for Trudeau. Thanks for the post but you should have provided the
source:http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/bomarc-missile-
crisis
Good for you for looking up your own references. Time those anti-psychotic drugs proved their
value to us taxpayers.
David Johnston
2012-04-30 05:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@minority%
Post by M.I. Wakefield
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.
. . . . which were never pending or were ever a threat.
Oh please. You can't seriously think there was never any risk of war
breaking out.
M.I. Wakefield
2012-04-30 12:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by ***@minority%
Post by M.I. Wakefield
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.
. . . . which were never pending or were ever a threat.
Oh please. You can't seriously think there was never any risk of war
breaking out.
Kkkaren's air defence theories break down once the opposition's aircraft are
too high to hit with rocks and sticks.

Alan Baker
2012-04-06 04:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Post by Dave Smith
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy
... there's also the F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and
would lessen pilot re-training requirements.
Aren't we glad that we knuckled under to US economic pressure and canned
the Arrow. Instead of having home grown state of the art aircraft whose
production benefited Canadian workers, we get to buy expensive aircraft
from the US.
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.
True... ...as far as it goes.
Post by M.I. Wakefield
A brilliant piece of engineering, but with no mission once it was clear that
the Soviets had a working ICBM ... which they demonstrated to all by
launching Sputnik.
Not so true. An airframe can potentially do more than one job and the
Arrow followed a pattern that future air superiority fighters would
follow: relatively low wing loading.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Dave Smith
2012-04-06 13:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Post by Dave Smith
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy
... there's also the F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and
would lessen pilot re-training requirements.
Aren't we glad that we knuckled under to US economic pressure and
canned the Arrow. Instead of having home grown state of the art
aircraft whose production benefited Canadian workers, we get to buy
expensive aircraft from the US.
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.
A brilliant piece of engineering, but with no mission once it was clear
that the Soviets had a working ICBM ... which they demonstrated to all
by launching Sputnik.
Yet we continued to have northern bases for interceptor aircraft for
many more decades. We bought American made Voodoos until the 1980s when
they were replaced by American built CF 18s.
MANITOBIAN
2012-04-30 06:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Post by Dave Smith
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy
... there's also the F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and
would lessen pilot re-training requirements.
Aren't we glad that we knuckled under to US economic pressure and
canned the Arrow. Instead of having home grown state of the art
aircraft whose production benefited Canadian workers, we get to buy
expensive aircraft from the US.
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.
A brilliant piece of engineering, but with no mission once it was clear
that the Soviets had a working ICBM ... which they demonstrated to all
by launching Sputnik.
Yet we continued to have northern bases for interceptor aircraft for
many more decades. We bought American made Voodoos until the 1980s when
they were replaced by  American built CF 18s.
And they bought the ameriKKKan Starfighter to combat
the grounded Soviet bombers...............................
or were they anti ICBM fighter aircraft?
MANITOBIAN
2012-04-30 06:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Post by Dave Smith
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy
... there's also the F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and
would lessen pilot re-training requirements.
Aren't we glad that we knuckled under to US economic pressure and canned
the Arrow. Instead of having home grown state of the art aircraft whose
production benefited Canadian workers, we get to buy expensive aircraft
from the US.
The Arrow was designed to intercept Soviet bombers.
A brilliant piece of engineering, but with no mission once it was clear that
the Soviets had a working ICBM ... which they demonstrated to all by
launching Sputnik.
And all their bombers were grounded on the day Sputnik was launched.
And the cons of 1959 bought the ameriKKKan BOMARC surface to air
missle to oppose the grounded Soviet bombers.
Or were they there to intercept the Soviet ICBMs?
The cons of 1959 bought the BOMARC in spite of the fact
that NOT ONE missle had flown. They kept blowing up on the
launch pads. Of course they said (just like steve harper) "we have
faith that the BOMARC problems will be cured!!!
Odd thing! The Arrow was the only aircraft in the world
that could fly high enough to catch the ameriKKKan
U-2 spy plane.
David Johnston
2012-04-30 05:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy
... there's also the F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and
would lessen pilot re-training requirements.
Aren't we glad that we knuckled under to US economic pressure and canned
the Arrow. Instead of having home grown state of the art aircraft whose
production benefited Canadian workers, we get to buy expensive aircraft
from the US.
It seems improbable that we would have funded generation after
generation of aircraft so that we'd have a new one ready now.
Cons@minority%
2012-04-05 23:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
a camel.
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy ... there's also the
F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and would lessen pilot
re-training requirements.
. . . . And if Canada stays out of any and all wars initiated by the U.S., NATO or the UN, we
can save ourselves upwards of 35 BILLION dollars which we could put towards healthcare and
education and pensions for our elderly.
Greg Carr
2012-04-05 23:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
a camel.
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy ... there's also the
F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and would lessen pilot
re-training requirements.
 . . . .  And if Canada stays out of any and all wars initiated by the U.S., NATO or the UN, we
can save ourselves upwards of 35 BILLION dollars which we could put towards healthcare and
education and pensions for our elderly.
Canada should not shrink from its international duty. Canada served in
Afghanistan and Libya and did a good job. If the UN moves into Syria
Canada should get involved.
M.I. Wakefield
2012-04-06 00:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Post by M.I. Wakefield
a camel.
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more
stealthy ... there's also the
F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and
would lessen pilot
re-training requirements.
. . . . And if Canada stays out of any and all wars initiated by the
U.S., NATO or the UN, we
can save ourselves upwards of 35 BILLION dollars which we could put
towards healthcare and
education and pensions for our elderly.
Canada should not shrink from its international duty. Canada served in
Afghanistan and Libya and did a good job. If the UN moves into Syria
Canada should get involved.
Kkkaren's theory of air-defence fails once the opposing aircraft is too high
to be hit by rocks and sticks.
Cons@minority%
2012-04-06 02:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Canada should not shrink from its international duty. Canada served in
Afghanistan and Libya and did a good job. If the UN moves into Syria
Canada should get involved.
Canada followed its master, the United States, under a rightwing government. It did NOTHING in
Afghanistan except kill Afghans who will always survive any invasion. And it did NOTHING in
Libya that the Libyan people shouldn't have done for themselves.

And if "the UN moves into Syria", it's high time that the Canada remove it's current war-loving
government and replace it with sane politicians.
Dave Smith
2012-04-06 13:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Post by ***@minority%
Post by M.I. Wakefield
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and would lessen pilot
re-training requirements.
. . . . And if Canada stays out of any and all wars initiated by the U.S., NATO or the UN, we
can save ourselves upwards of 35 BILLION dollars which we could put towards healthcare and
education and pensions for our elderly.
Canada should not shrink from its international duty. Canada served in
Afghanistan and Libya and did a good job. If the UN moves into Syria
Canada should get involved.
Why should we get dragged into the nonsense that goes on in other parts
of the world. Afghanistan is costing us billions of dollars in addition
to the lost lives of our soldiers. We have no obligation to the people
of Afghanistan. We have no political, social, cultural or economic ties.
They don't even like us. They just want our money, which usually ends up
in the hands of corrupt government officials.
Jonesie
2012-04-06 13:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Greg Carr
Post by M.I. Wakefield
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and would lessen pilot
re-training requirements.
  . . . .  And if Canada stays out of any and all wars initiated by the U.S., NATO or the UN, we
can save ourselves upwards of 35 BILLION dollars which we could put towards healthcare and
education and pensions for our elderly.
Canada should not shrink from its international duty. Canada served in
Afghanistan and Libya and did a good job. If the UN moves into Syria
Canada should get involved.
Why should we get dragged into the nonsense that goes on in other parts
of the world. Afghanistan is costing us billions of dollars in addition
to the lost lives of our soldiers. We have no obligation to the people
of Afghanistan. We have no political, social, cultural or economic ties.
They don't even like us. They just want our money, which usually ends up
in the hands of corrupt government officials.
I always found it interesting that, back in the days of the Soviet
Union and how we shared the Artic Archpelago, that they all spoke the
same languange up there, the Iniut.

Meanwhile in Canada, French in Timmins or Sudbury isn't the same as
Quebec or French in Moncton.

And most of the assholes here haven't traveled Canada enough to know.

Most Canadians are unaware that English west of the Ottawa River is
the same, while the dialects east are wonderfully diverse, vivid and
very enjoyable.

Point being, most of us don't see Canada enough. I'm lucky. My work
takes me from sea to sea, and north.

"I don't like the CBC!"

"None of them sound like me!"

Whiners.
Alan Baker
2012-04-06 04:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@minority%
Post by M.I. Wakefield
a camel.
Boeing has proposed an F-15E upgrade to make the aircraft more stealthy ...
there's also the
F/A 18E/F and the Dassault Rafale.
The F/A 18E/F Super Hornet looks to be the cheapest of the three, and would
lessen pilot
re-training requirements.
. . . . And if Canada stays out of any and all wars initiated by the U.S.,
NATO or the UN, we
can save ourselves upwards of 35 BILLION dollars which we could put towards healthcare and
education and pensions for our elderly.
So you think we should just scrap the armed forces entirely? Leave our
defense--should we need it--in the hands of others?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
M.I. Wakefield
2012-04-06 13:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ***@minority%
. . . . And if Canada stays out of any and all wars initiated by the U.S.,
NATO or the UN, we
can save ourselves upwards of 35 BILLION dollars which we could put
towards
healthcare and
education and pensions for our elderly.
So you think we should just scrap the armed forces entirely? Leave our
defense--should we need it--in the hands of others?
Karen's theory on air defence involves throwing rocks and sticks.
Jonesie
2012-04-06 13:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Post by Alan Baker
 . . . .  And if Canada stays out of any and all wars initiated by the
U.S.,
 NATO or the UN, we
can save ourselves upwards of 35 BILLION dollars which we could put
towards
healthcare and
education and pensions for our elderly.
So you think we should just scrap the armed forces entirely? Leave our
defense--should we need it--in the hands of others?
Karen's theory on air defence involves throwing rocks and sticks.
Karen lives in Nanaimo BC, bikers and indians.


If Newfies purchased Hakipiks from Norway, they'd be like her.
Cons@minority%
2012-04-06 20:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Post by Alan Baker
So you think we should just scrap the armed forces entirely? Leave our
defense--should we need it--in the hands of others?
Karen's theory on air defence involves throwing rocks and sticks.
We've had 'armed forces' before we started following the war-making Americans around like dumb
minions, propping up their military and especially sharing their costs of making wars.

We have NEVER BEEN THE TARGET OF ANY COUNTRY in history - other than the U.S.A. So what the
hell have you two 'bought' from the warmongers that the majority of Canadians just don't buy?
Alan Baker
2012-04-06 20:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@minority%
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Post by Alan Baker
So you think we should just scrap the armed forces entirely? Leave our
defense--should we need it--in the hands of others?
Karen's theory on air defence involves throwing rocks and sticks.
We've had 'armed forces' before we started following the war-making Americans
around like dumb
minions, propping up their military and especially sharing their costs of making wars.
We have NEVER BEEN THE TARGET OF ANY COUNTRY in history - other than the
U.S.A. So what the
hell have you two 'bought' from the warmongers that the majority of Canadians
just don't buy?
Really? Canadian ships were targets during WWI and WWII? There weren't
attacks by the japanese on the west coast during WWII?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Greg Carr
2012-04-06 21:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@minority%
Post by M.I. Wakefield
Post by Alan Baker
So you think we should just scrap the armed forces entirely? Leave our
defense--should we need it--in the hands of others?
Karen's theory on air defence involves throwing rocks and sticks.
We've had 'armed forces' before we started following the war-making Americans around like dumb
minions, propping up their military and especially sharing their costs of making wars.
We have NEVER BEEN THE TARGET OF ANY COUNTRY in history - other than the U.S.A.  So what the
hell have you two 'bought' from the warmongers that the majority of Canadians just don't buy?
A number of Cdns died in the nine eleven attacks and a Japanese
submarine shelled a lighthouse in BC during WW2. German U-boats sank
shipping in the Gulf Of St.Lawrence.
Cons@minority#s
2012-04-07 00:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
A number of Cdns died in the nine eleven attacks and a Japanese
submarine shelled a lighthouse in BC during WW2. German U-boats sank
shipping in the Gulf Of St.Lawrence.
So we're going to spend $35 Billion taxpayer dollars because a few Canadians choose to work in
the U.S.?
Or are you saying we need them now to get even for the "shelling of a lighthouse" or sinking of
some ship during WWII?

You really ARE a nut case, aren't you, "Carr"?
Alan Baker
2012-04-06 22:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@minority#s
Post by Greg Carr
A number of Cdns died in the nine eleven attacks and a Japanese
submarine shelled a lighthouse in BC during WW2. German U-boats sank
shipping in the Gulf Of St.Lawrence.
So we're going to spend $35 Billion taxpayer dollars because a few Canadians
choose to work in
the U.S.?
No. We're going to continue to have an army, navy and air force, because
it behooves us as a sovereign nation to be capable of our own defense.
Post by ***@minority#s
Or are you saying we need them now to get even for the "shelling of a
lighthouse" or sinking of
some ship during WWII?
You're going back to the war of 1812 to talk about how the U.S. has
attacked Canada, Karen.
Post by ***@minority#s
You really ARE a nut case, aren't you, "Carr"?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Dave Smith
2012-04-06 22:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ***@minority#s
So we're going to spend $35 Billion taxpayer dollars because a few Canadians
choose to work in
the U.S.?
No. We're going to continue to have an army, navy and air force, because
it behooves us as a sovereign nation to be capable of our own defense.
Post by ***@minority#s
Or are you saying we need them now to get even for the "shelling of a
lighthouse" or sinking of
some ship during WWII?
You're going back to the war of 1812 to talk about how the U.S. has
attacked Canada, Karen.
It is somewhat ironic that the US has whined that Canada doesn't invest
enough into defense. The US is the only country that has tried to
invade us... repeatedly. They did it during the revolution, the War of
1812 and the Fenian Raids, which, while not official US aggression were
condoned by the administration.
MANITOBIAN
2012-04-30 06:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by ***@minority#s
So we're going to spend $35 Billion taxpayer dollars because a few Canadians
choose to work in
the U.S.?
No. We're going to continue to have an army, navy and air force, because
it behooves us as a sovereign nation to be capable of our own defense.
65 F-35s or Canada's current military won't have a hope in hell
against the
country that is most likely to invade Canada.
That would be ameriKKKa, the U$$A.
Their excuse to justify their noble deed would be
that the 19 hijackers came across the border
from Canada!
Do you remember Obama's head of home land security?
When she accepted that job, 8 years after the
19 re-arranged ameriKKKan geography she let it
be known that no other terrorists will enter ameriKKKa
from Canada like the 19 high jackers.
They sure are a SMART BUNCH aren't they!
And honest!
Cons@minority%
2012-04-06 02:58:28 UTC
Permalink
The problem with the F15-SE is that it's an unknown number of years away from full production
... the existing CF-18's will start to reach the "best before date" on their airframes in
2017, and they'll all be scrap/museum pieces by 2020.
. . . . Plenty of time to get rid of the rightwing government of Stephen Harper & Cons and get
Canada back to the role of peacekeeping and foreign aid that we were once so proud of.
C. A. Rotwang
2012-04-06 03:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@minority%
. . . . Plenty of time to get rid of the rightwing government of Stephen
Harper & Cons and get
Post by ***@minority%
Canada back to the role of peacekeeping and foreign aid that we were once so proud of.
Your problem with Canada is that you think anything and anybody east of
Nanaimo BC is a right wing plot.

I was actually astonished when you said how you liked Danny Williams, the
very right wing former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I recall, you wanted him to be Prime Minister, despite how he supports the
seal hunt.
Greg Carr
2012-04-06 04:19:03 UTC
Permalink
The problem with the F15-SE is that it's an unknown number of years away from full production
... the existing CF-18's will start to reach the "best before date" on their airframes in
2017, and they'll all be scrap/museum pieces by 2020.
 . . . . Plenty of time to get rid of the rightwing government of Stephen Harper & Cons and get
Canada back to the role of peacekeeping and foreign aid that we were once so proud of.
Canada had a Liberal PM when the Afghanistan mission started.
C. A. Rotwang
2012-04-06 04:25:10 UTC
Permalink
The problem with the F15-SE is that it's an unknown number of years awa
y from full production
... the existing CF-18's will start to reach the "best before date" on
their airframes in
2017, and they'll all be scrap/museum pieces by 2020.
 . . . . Plenty of time to get rid of the rightwing government of Steph
en Harper & Cons and get
Canada back to the role of peacekeeping and foreign aid that we were once
so proud of.
Canada had a Liberal PM when the Afghanistan mission started.
The deaths in Afghanistan under PM Martin were minimal. When Harper took
charge, they soard.

The reasoning was that Chretien was reluctant to be involved, so we didn't
end up like the fucking Italians who did donut duty.

We ended up with the reliable and equally as capable Dutch; who like our
troops were stationed in a very dangerous section of Afghanistan.

I see that as a reality.

The "first in"? Canada's JTF2 special forces, The US Army Special Forces,
The British SAS, The Australian SAS.

That was November 2001, minutes following 9/11.

At that time, we were doing the right thing. There was no such idea as
Iraq.
Cons@minority%
2012-04-06 20:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Canada had a Liberal PM when the Afghanistan mission started.
We also had a Liberal PM when the war in Iraq started. He was smart enough to keep us out of
that fabricated war. And he was also smart enough to send Canadians into Afghanistan as
support troops only - with a deadline for returning home.

Your HARPER would be involved in a war every day of the year if he could steal enough money
from our tax coffers to pay for F-35s and all the other billions associated with war.
Cons@minority%
2012-04-05 23:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
We should buy the F-35s they are the best bang for the buck and their
stealth technology will keep them out of harms way most of the time.
Take your anti-psychotic medications and try to refrain from entering into areas that are
foreign territory for you.

(Borrowed from Penny:)
Don’t let you mind wander - it’s far too small to be let out on its own.
MANITOBIAN
2012-04-30 06:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
We should buy the F-35s they are the best bang for the buck and their
stealth technology will keep them out of harms way most of the time.
WHAT? Aren't F-18s good enough to straffe civilians,
as in LIBYA??
Loading...