3900 replies to this topic

[dre]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the majority of countries that joined the EU later on after the initial group of countries had to meet criteria to join, which in many cases took them through an election, Party #1 wants to join the EU, Party #2 does not. It is not feasible for a nation to have direct democracy.How many people are informed about say the F-35 enough to be able to make a decision other then, Im a liberal the Conservatives are buying it so I don't like it, or we are peacekeepers we don't need planes for that. If you don't like the government, next election vote for someone else, if you don't like any of the choices, run for office.

If you don't like the government, next election vote for someone else, if you don't like any of the choices, run for office.

Nope. I wouldnt vote for any of the parties on the ballot. Ill throw my tiny voice behind reform and rejecting the status quo.

It is not feasible for a nation to have direct democracy.How many people are informed about say the F-35 enough to be able to make a decision

But as we now know elected beaurocrats down know anything about it either. Whats not "feasible" is the status quo. Not only doesnt the government not have money to spend 30 billion on the airforce it doesnt even have enough money to pay its own employees without borrowing from foreigners.

We need a limited government that does not spend money it doesnt have on policing the world.

[Signals.Cpl]

Yes it IS feasible. Some countries had refendums and they voted no. Other countries had referendums that were ignored. Governments that joined without putting the question to the people have no legitimacy, and hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets as a result.

And we have the EU/ECB/IMF now telling counties they arent "allowed" to have elections unless they pass EU budgets first. You are kidding yourself if you think this is going to work. Democracy depends on the electorates ability to hire and fire. They have no such right in the EU. Not one single citizen of europe voted for Herman Von Rom Poy, nor any of the central bankers, nor executives of the IMF... Yet those are the people increasingly who make the decisions.

We don't vote for the UN representatives either, nor do we vote for the ICJ judges so whats your point?

And what exactly is the European Parliament?

And we have the EU/ECB/IMF now telling counties they arent "allowed" to have elections unless they pass EU budgets first.

Any proof that the IMF Is telling government they are not allowed to have elections until they pass the EU budget?

You are kidding yourself if you think this is going to work

What exactly am I kidding myself about?

[Signals.Cpl]

Nope. I wouldnt vote for any of the parties on the ballot. Ill throw my tiny voice behind reform and rejecting the status quo.



But as we now know elected beaurocrats down know anything about it either. Whats not "feasible" is the status quo. Not only doesnt the government not have money to spend 30 billion on the airforce it doesnt even have enough money to pay its own employees without borrowing from foreigners.

We need a limited government that does not spend money it doesnt have on policing the world.

Ok, please describe where you got the 30 billion figure from, and what it includes? Does it include only the Fighters themselves or does it include money that would be in the annual budget of the military(Fuel, salaries etc) It is a little misleading to say that the F-35's would cost 30 billion dollars if the actual cost is 9 billion and the rest comes from the militaries budget no matter what plane is decided.

[dre]

I disagree strongly.

In military affairs, solidarity matters. We western, civilized countries must stand together. NATO is possibly the first step in a future genuine "United Nations", a convention of civilized societies.

-----

As to the OP, I reckon that we should choose to spend taxpayer money on military hardware according to three criteria: 1) regional economic development, 2) Canadian territory protection, 3) international military agreements.

From what I can gather, the F-35 is a bad buy. But what do I know...

I dont buy any of that. A strong and soveriegn Canada can make its own decisions. We can work with other nations, and decide what works for us on a case by case basis. We dont need to make promises to global alliances that we might not be able to keep. We dont need to police the world with money borrowed from China.

We western, civilized countries must stand together.

Fair enough. Im not an isolationist and I think we should be willing to work with our allies to solve global problems and we should contribute what we can afford. But we should not be spending 10s of billions of dollars that we dont have to support global intiatives. LIke I keep saying we have already given WAY more than we have ever gotten back.

At the end of the day this is all charity. Its nice to help other people and its a worth goal. But you give them what you have to give... You dont take out a mortgage and borrow money to give to other people unless you want to end up shit poor.

[dre]

Ok, please describe where you got the 30 billion figure from, and what it includes? Does it include only the Fighters themselves or does it include money that would be in the annual budget of the military(Fuel, salaries etc) It is a little misleading to say that the F-35's would cost 30 billion dollars if the actual cost is 9 billion and the rest comes from the militaries budget no matter what plane is decided.

That number was an entirely rhetorical estimate. NObody knows what it will really cost because we are going to buy a plane that has never flown a single combat mission. We also have no idea how much money we are really going to have on hand.

But to be fair... I made up the number. I have no idea what it will cost. Heres one thing I DO know though. The government has NO MONEY AT ALL. They cant even pay their own employees without borrowing.

Edited by dre, 06 April 2012 - 11:22 PM.

[Signals.Cpl]

That number was an entirely rhetorical estimate. NObody knows what it will really cost because we are going to buy a plane that has never flown a single combat mission. We also have no idea how much money we are really going to have on hand.

But to be fair... I made up the number. I have no idea what it will cost. Heres one thing I DO know though. The government has NO MONEY AT ALL. They cant even pay their own employees without borrowing.

What is your definition of a strong and sovereign Canada? And what is your view of how we should structure the military?

[DogOnPorch]

But to be fair... I made up the number.

To be fair??

Edited by DogOnPorch, 06 April 2012 - 11:30 PM.

[dre]

What is your definition of a strong and sovereign Canada? And what is your view of how we should structure the military?

Well one question answers the other. A strong and soveriegn canada works with our allies and listens to them but doesnt make promises we might not be able to keep. And I would structure the military around DEFENSE of this nation.

[Signals.Cpl]

And I would structure the military around DEFENSE of this nation.

That is a very broad statement and does not answer the question, mainly because that is the primary mission of almost all Militaries in history .

Edited by Signals.Cpl, 06 April 2012 - 11:43 PM.

[dre]

[quote name='DogOnPorch' date='07 April 2012 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1333780068' post='783091']
To be fair??



{/quote]
Yeah seems pretty fair to me. Everyone in this discussion has casually thrown out bogus numbers. Im just the only one willing to admit it. Nobody knows what the number. Not the DND and not the government.

[DogOnPorch]

[quote name='dre' date='06 April 2012 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1333780995' post='783095']
[quote name='DogOnPorch' date='07 April 2012 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1333780068' post='783091']
To be fair??



{/quote]
Yeah seems pretty fair to me. Everyone in this discussion has casually thrown out bogus numbers. Im just the only one willing to admit it. Nobody knows what the number. Not the DND and not the government.
[/quote]

The irony of you saying 'to be fair I lied' is priceless. My advice, as per John Belushi, is to start drinking heavily.

[dre]

That is a very broad statement and does not answer the question.

It DOES answer the question, very clearly. Canada has some legitimate military needs. THe airforce flew nearly 1000 patrol missions last year alone, and needs to stand on ready to shoot down rogue civilian aircraft.

[dre]

ame='dre' date='06 April 2012 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1333780995' post='783095']


The irony of you saying 'to be fair I lied' is priceless. My advice, as per John Belushi, is to start drinking heavily.

Not thats just your lame brained characterization. Im the only one thats honest, not the one that lied. Theres been a billion different claims as to the cost of this little adventure. The difference is I was honest. But the reality is we have no idea. This plane has never flown a single combat mission and had no operational history.

[Signals.Cpl]

It DOES answer the question, very clearly. Canada has some legitimate military needs. THe airforce flew nearly 1000 patrol missions last year alone, and needs to stand on ready to shoot down rogue civilian aircraft.

It does not answer the question, its a vague answer. Your answer includes everything starting from a Bi-plane to an F-35 and a canoe for the navy all the way to a Super Carrier. You are opposed to buying the F-35, but you are swing we need to be able to defend Canada, What is the alternative you want to see? And if we are to work with our allies, we need comparable equipment, and Canadian governments don't have the best historical record on dealing with the military. My personal belief is that the government should list what it expects the Military to be able to accomplish and ask them to draw up what they need and give three separate lists (Best, middle ground, worst). That way the military knows what is expected, and the government knows what its getting.

[dre]

It does not answer the question, its a vague answer. Your answer includes everything starting from a Bi-plane to an F-35 and a canoe for the navy all the way to a Super Carrier. You are opposed to buying the F-35, but you are swing we need to be able to defend Canada, What is the alternative you want to see? And if we are to work with our allies, we need comparable equipment, and Canadian governments don't have the best historical record on dealing with the military. My personal belief is that the government should list what it expects the Military to be able to accomplish and ask them to draw up what they need and give three separate lists (Best, middle ground, worst). That way the military knows what is expected, and the government knows what its getting.

Well if you think that saying the role of our defense department is defense is a vague answer theres really nowhere for us to go with this conversation.

but you are swing we need to be able to defend Canada, What is the alternative you want to see?

I dunno. Thats above my paygrade. I want a pay as you go government that transparenty investigates all the options.