For $65 Billion Canada can bring back an industry lost during the Conservative Diefenbaker years
Tories To Waste Billons On New Fighter Jets
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
For $65 Billion Canada can bring back an industry lost during the Conservative Diefenbaker years
Looking spiffy while you're shadowing Ruskies while they practice buzzing our airspace. Just keep your foot off the gas.
Most aircraft today are multi functional. The F-35 that Canada wants to purchase is a compromise aircraft because the F-22 was so expensive. Were all getting a few of them.
Wow, you're really dodging today.
I'm not asking for much here - any lay person should have the right to know. Exactly what would we be using this new craft for?
I'm not asking for much here - any lay person should have the right to know. Exactly what would we be using this new craft for?
Who said we don't need a military?
It is always good to find out exactly why we commit to certain expenditures. What are the aims of the project? What is acting as the catalyst for these aims? Obviously people have a right to know exactly why we make these moves. Otherwise, no government can even begin to justify the expense in the first place - especially not a fiscal conservative government. That's counter-intuitive to their own policy.
So, what will we be using these jets for again?
We should at least be getting the F-35B. The F-35B has vectored thrust and vertical take off and landing capabilities. Every airport, no matter how small could be an airbase.
Why? Who's going to attack? If you don't think you need modern jets...why would you need a military?
Well that is what I am saying. If no one is going to attack, why even bother with having one soldier. There is no need.
I remember the same comments of lack of necessity, and of unbearable financial burdern about the CF 18 when it was proposed in the early 80s. If we listened, we would still be flying 50s era CF101 Voodoos.
You would be very naive to think that other countries do not covet the resources of our north. The incursion by the Danish military, on behalf of the EU, a few years ago was intended to test our commitment to our sovereignty.
Our only protection is the perception of our willingness to fight, through our alliances, and to sustain those we have to have a 21st Century military.. not a ragtag militia equipped with cast offs and obsolete technology (like the submarines we got on the 'cheap' from Britain, and are maintenance nightmares, dry dock queens).
The F35 might actually be a bargain, when you look at the $100+mm cost (each) of the Eurofighter, and $200mm cost of the F22.
It is simply an expensive game. Also in an era when Free Trade is destroying the industrial integrity and prosperity of Canada, the only high technology investment is coming from military spending. That is, frankly, holding the U.S. economy and are own together and what we have left of high tech manufacturing.
You would be very naive to think that other countries do not covet the resources of our north. The incursion by the Danish military, on behalf of the EU, a few years ago was intended to test our commitment to our sovereignty.
Our only protection is the perception of our willingness to fight, through our alliances, and to sustain those we have to have a 21st Century military.. not a ragtag militia equipped with cast offs and obsolete technology (like the submarines we got on the 'cheap' from Britain, and are maintenance nightmares, dry dock queens).
The F35 might actually be a bargain, when you look at the $100+mm cost (each) of the Eurofighter, and $200mm cost of the F22.
It is simply an expensive game. Also in an era when Free Trade is destroying the industrial integrity and prosperity of Canada, the only high technology investment is coming from military spending. That is, frankly, holding the U.S. economy and are own together and what we have left of high tech manufacturing.
That's a good point. Though we may need some soldiers for peace projects. But what do we need the F-35s for?
Peace Projects? You can't be serious. UN Peace Keepers go in when people are done fighting. When they decide that they aren't quite done the Peace Keepers step aside. Why even bother?
Armies exist to fight. Their sole mission is to protect national sovereignty.
Our 'peace' mission have produced anything but. They are almost always cynical ventures aimed at separating combatants.. who subsequently use it to re-arm and entrench a stalemate, rather than find a resolution, out of the imminence of conflict.
The mission of Peace, was a fad of the latter half of the 20th Century. It produced NO peace, and was a drain on the resources and morale of the military.
You said it Coldstream. Peace Keepers never stood between combatants who were aimed to fight or slaughter. They simply moved aside.
Peacekeeping initiatives fail when they are implemented poorly. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have militia on reserve for those projects as there seem to be other states still suffering that may legitimately need our help.
Threats to national security need to be justified though. And I haven't heard anything that would drive that sort of initiative other than 'we have to be ready for the unexpected.' And frankly, that's not convincing.
Threats to national security need to be justified though. And I haven't heard anything that would drive that sort of initiative other than 'we have to be ready for the unexpected.' And frankly, that's not convincing.
They are always implemented poorly as Peace Keepers are unable to keep peace when combatants want to fight. Yes states still suffer and peace keepers do nothing to aleviate their suffereing. In fact... peace keepers have allowed suffering to get worse by inaction. It is so nice to clap each other on the back and say...
"We are keeping the peace"
... when the fighting is done and the damage is done.
So if you think there is no threat you should decommision the whole military establishment.
I think that's a slippery slope. We don't decide to fund these initiatives on an all or nothing basis.
Doesn't the government calculate the cost of financing these jets against real world initiatives that could happen in the future? Why is it so hard to explain the nature of upcoming war initiatives in our current global climate? And why wouldn't those sorts of conflicts be transparent to the public who have to decide with their tax-paying dollars whether or not this sort of funding is worthwhile?
Doesn't the government calculate the cost of financing these jets against real world initiatives that could happen in the future? Why is it so hard to explain the nature of upcoming war initiatives in our current global climate? And why wouldn't those sorts of conflicts be transparent to the public who have to decide with their tax-paying dollars whether or not this sort of funding is worthwhile?