Scrapping Fighter Jets Could Hurt Everyone: U.S.

106 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2011-01-27 20:54

NDPP

Scrapping Fighter Jets Could Hurt Everyone: US

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Scrapping+fighter+purchase+could+hurt+e...

"Canada's participation in a massive Fighter-jet purchase is critical for all players involved, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday, amid suggestions that a Liberal government could jeopardize the project.

Following a bilateral meeting in Ottawa with Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Gates said he didn't wish to interfere in Canada's domestic affairs but..."

sounds like we're going to have to take their offer...

Thu, 2011-01-27 21:07

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No, we don't have to take their deal, but we will. As for the Libs, I don't know if I believe they wouldn't press forward with this in either case.

I can tell you as an ex military man, I sure don't like how this is shaping up in any way. Worse, it distracts conversation from an even bigger mistake by Harper, cutting the Navy. I should tell you I am a retired Naval Officer, so I guess you could say I am viewing this with a little bit of predispostion, to say the least.

This doesnt' look good at all.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Thu, 2011-01-27 21:41

NDPP

a stronger and smarter Canadian politician than Ignatieff is, could win an election with this. None in my vicinity...

Thu, 2011-01-27 21:53

Fidel

acramer wrote:

No, we don't have to take their deal, but we will. As for the Libs, I don't know if I believe they wouldn't press forward with this in either case.

Since they are now attacking their own corporate tax cuts, I would expect the Liberal of Party of Canada to attack the F-35 lemons at some point, which I believe was their initiative in the first place.

Sun, 2011-01-30 17:07

Sky Captain Sky Captain's picture

Considering that the U.S. could attack us at any time, I think that we should get and develop our own fighter jet (we have the industry to do so, after all) and scrap this one (the f-35's not that good anyway.)

Mon, 2011-01-31 11:21

kropotkin1951

Sky Captain wrote:

Considering that the U.S. could attack us at any time, I think that we should get and develop our own fighter jet (we have the industry to do so, after all) and scrap this one (the f-35's not that good anyway.)

Lets call it the Avro Arrow.

Mon, 2011-01-31 12:16

Sean in Ottawa

It should be called the Panthera.

Panthera is a word for the lion family.

The mountain lion is the only predator capable of taking down an eagle (other than humans).

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:09

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

...then call it the homo sapien.

The word homo is absolutely guaranteed to strike fear into their hearts.

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:37

Sean in Ottawa

And it can be shortened to Homo and give a whole new meaning to freedom fighter as they continue to provide less than full human rights. Sure.

Mon, 2011-01-31 15:10

#10

NDPP

Canada Has No Way to Refuel New Jets In Air - by David Pugliese

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Canada+refuel+jets/4193964/story...

"The Canadian military does not have the ability to conduct aerial refuelling of the F-35 fighter jet it wants to purchase and is now looking at ways to get around that problem. Options range from paying for modifications to the stealth jets to purchasing a new fleet of tanker aircraft that can gas up the high-tech fighters in mid-air. That option could cost several hundred million dollars...

In addition, because the F-35 would not be able to safely land on runways in Canada's north because those are too short for the fighter, the Defence Department is looking at having manufacturer Lockheed Martin install a 'drag' chute on the plane."

Mon, 2011-01-31 20:26

#11

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Quote:
Military officers argue that the JSF is the only aircraft that can meet Canada's future needs.

The plane is mainly designed for attacking targets on the ground as opposed to being an air-to-air fighter aircraft. That has prompted some critics to question the purchase since the main role for the planes is to patrol the country's airspace in a sovereignty protection mission.

So we can't fuel it, can't land it, and can't defend our airspace with it.

The way this purchase serves "Canada's future needs" is by integrating our military completely with that of the U.S.A. And what better way to prove our fealty than to spend billions of dollars on their needs rather than our own?

And there's big side benefits for their friends at the Pentagon - bankrupting Canada with purchases of hardware entirely useless to our country guarantees that we will never be able to assert our military and territorial sovereignty again.

Mon, 2011-01-31 21:59

#12

thorin_bane

The same U.S. that had trimmed back its orders on this ballooning albatross. Along with the UK and the Aussies. It should always have been the superhornet and it could have already been delivered(the first ones) instead of wasting money refurbishing the cf18s right now. So many reasons why too. Duel engines, longer range, compatible parts with existing fleet, familiar controls and easier to maintain(we already know how to do most of it!) Better payload etc etc etc and most imprtantly they could have bought 100 for 5 to 6 billion and got a service contract for a billion more. 10 billion + saved, more planes, could have paid down debt or improved social spending.

Mon, 2011-01-31 22:25

#13

Boom Boom

I just can't comprehend why the gov't believes we need an expensive stealth fighter that's actually pretty useless for domestic needs.

Mon, 2011-01-31 23:14

#14

Michael Moriarity

Boom Boom wrote:

I just can't comprehend why the gov't believes we need an expensive stealth fighter that's actually pretty useless for domestic needs.

They don't believe we need it, they are just obeying orders.

Thu, 2011-02-03 00:19

#15

Frmrsldr

Boom Boom wrote:

I just can't comprehend why the gov't believes we need an expensive stealth fighter that's actually pretty useless for domestic needs.

Precisely.

Now, we all know that when Harper says we need new fighter-interceptors to defend Canada's north, he's only couching it in those terms to "sell" it to the Canadian public just like he and Martin and Chretien before him "sold" the Afghan war by describing it as a peacekeeping mission.

We all know he's lying, but for the sake of the argument let's act as if he means it.

That being the case then, what does Canada need a stealth fighter-interceptor to defeat Canada's own radar for? The only time these planes will be scrambled is when Russian recon. bombers overfly Canadian airspace. These aircraft are lumbering relics - technology from the 1950s. Their radar is either not even good enough to pick up conventional fighters. Even if it is, these aircraft would not be able to evade modern conventional interceptors. Besides, Russia isn't even an "enemy" anymore.

Like what was said above, if Canada has an "enemy", it's the U.S.A.

Thu, 2011-02-03 00:56

#16

Fidel

In the 1950s Canada's conservatives were duped into buying the Bomarc lemons and giving up thousands of Avro jobs and an entire aircraft industry to the US. They said fighter jets were out and missiles were in style. Only problem was, the Bomarcs were dud missiles that if ever launched, were guaranteed to explode nuclear warheads somewhere over Canada. Made in America, bought by a conservative government in Ottawa. Obsolete indeed.

And today we have conservatives wanting to sink a whole bunch of money into another make-work project to benefit another ailing US economy based largely on war and closed economy for Pentagon capitalism. The Lockheed jets are said to have a number of technical glitches and "issues" that need fixing. More lemons for the taxpayers to foot bills for. Some things never change.

Thu, 2011-02-03 02:10

#17

Jingles

I still think my battleship idea was way better.

Thu, 2011-02-03 02:29

#18

Frmrsldr

Jingles wrote:

I still think my battleship idea was way better.

Actually, if you mean icebreakers and Arctic patrol boats, then you are absolutely right.

Thu, 2011-02-03 02:37

#19

NDPP

As always follow the money...

Firms Reap Big Risks To Get Onboard F-35 Program

http://embassymag.ca/page/view/f-35-02-02-11

"Firms say major ministerial public relations campaign as much about investor as public confidence"

Thu, 2011-02-03 02:43

#20

NDPP

Frmrsldr wrote:

Jingles wrote:

I still think my battleship idea was way better.

Actually, if you mean icebreakers and Arctic patrol boats, then you are absolutely right.

NDPP

except where these become military assets of hostile, enemy interests...

Thu, 2011-02-03 21:48

#21

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Jingles wrote:

I still think my battleship idea was way better.

Actually, if you mean icebreakers and Arctic patrol boats, then you are absolutely right.

NDPP

except where these become military assets of hostile, enemy interests...

Yes indeed. I agree to that too, especially when we're talking about Uncle Sam.

Fri, 2011-02-04 23:00

#22

CanadianPatriot35

thorin_bane wrote:

It should always have been the superhornet and it could have already been delivered(the first ones) instead of wasting money refurbishing the cf18s right now. So many reasons why too. Duel engines, longer range, compatible parts with existing fleet, familiar controls and easier to maintain(we already know how to do most of it!) Better payload etc etc etc and most imprtantly they could have bought 100 for 5 to 6 billion and got a service contract for a billion more. 10 billion + saved, more planes, could have paid down debt or improved social spending.

You do know the Super Hornet is almost completely different than the older Hornets right? Different engines, wings, tails, pylons and most of the fuselage. We would have very few parts that are compatible, the only thing that is remotely similar is the cockpit setup but even than is different due to the newer avionics of the Super Hornet.

And they cost a lot more than you quoted for 100 planes, the Austrailians bought 24 for $3 billion (with 10 year service total price was $6 billion). So 96 planes = 12 billion, plus another $12 billion for every 10 years of service contract if everything stays the same (which it won't). Over 20 years $36 billion.

The JSF being single engine will cost less for maintanence, as the engines are the most expensive part to maintain for a modern jet. So JSF cost, weapons, spares, simulators and maintenance over 20 years $16 billion for 65 airframes = $246 million per airframe. Superhornet with same criteria = $375 million per airframe.

To top it off the F-35 will be much more survivable in the future, the Super Hornet will be obsolete in 10 years.

Seems like the F-35 is a pretty good deal.

Fri, 2011-02-04 23:13

#23

Boom Boom

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:
Seems like the F-35 is a pretty good deal.

What precisely are they good for?

Fri, 2011-02-04 23:48

#24

CanadianPatriot35

Boom Boom wrote:

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:
Seems like the F-35 is a pretty good deal.

What precisely are they good for?

Everything the CF-18 is good for. Canada's commitments to NORAD, participation in international operations, support of the Army, Navy and other Air Force assets as need be.

Sat, 2011-02-05 00:03

#25

Boom Boom

Almost all of that stuff we can do without. Buy more practical aircraft and naval vessels that can actually be of use to Canada, instead.

Sat, 2011-02-05 00:07

#26

CanadianPatriot35

So we should let others do it for us? I'm sure many Canadians will love that the US policing our skies, one step away from Canada becoming a new state. Oh well I will be able to get Cherry Coke up here then!

Sat, 2011-02-05 00:11

#27

Frmrsldr

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:

So we should let others do it for us? I'm sure many Canadians will love that the US policing our skies, one step away from Canada becoming a new state. Oh well I will be able to get Cherry Coke up here then!

Precisely.

Canada already is a vassal state of the U.S.

Purchase of the F-35 wil help further the integration/subjugation.

Sat, 2011-02-05 00:26

#28

Boom Boom

Canada ought to concentrate on its own needs and throw off the shackles of US subjugation!

Sat, 2011-02-05 01:11

#29

Frmrsldr

Boom Boom wrote:

Canada ought to concentrate on its own needs and throw off the shackles of US subjugation!

Absolutely.

Especially when the only "natural predator" Canada has is the U.S.A.

Sat, 2011-02-05 01:22

#30

CanadianPatriot35

Fidel wrote:

In the 1950s Canada's conservatives were duped into buying the Bomarc lemons and giving up thousands of Avro jobs and an entire aircraft industry to the US. They said fighter jets were out and missiles were in style. Only problem was, the Bomarcs were dud missiles that if ever launched, were guaranteed to explode nuclear warheads somewhere over Canada. Made in America, bought by a conservative government in Ottawa. Obsolete indeed.

And today we have conservatives wanting to sink a whole bunch of money into another make-work project to benefit another ailing US economy based largely on war and closed economy for Pentagon capitalism. The Lockheed jets are said to have a number of technical glitches and "issues" that need fixing. More lemons for the taxpayers to foot bills for. Some things never change.

Do you realize that Canadian companies are already making parts for this aircraft? $150 million invested for a return of $360 million, if the aircraft are bought that entitles these companies to a 2500+ aircraft supply run probably worth billions for the aerospace industry in Canada, and their designated Unions. A few of which probably sponsor this site. No other aircraft can supply the same amount of business, so in effect if we don't get the F-35 it would be a repeat of the Conservatives scraping the Arrow back in the 60s. Thousands of possible jobs gone.

Technical issues of the F-35? There are some yes, but very few military or civilian aircraft go through testing without finding some issues, for example the 787 or A380 or A400. It is aerospace, it is cutting edge, the best thing is the US is covering the R&D cost.

Sat, 2011-02-05 03:16

#31

NDPP

These are KILLING machines. Who are we going to kill?

Sat, 2011-02-05 03:22

#32

genstrike

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

These are KILLING machines. Who are we going to kill?

Exactly. If we're going to dump a bunch of cash into something, how about healthcare or education, instead of superhornets or F-35s?

Sat, 2011-02-05 06:46

#33

Fidel

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:
Do you realize that Canadian companies are already making parts for this aircraft? $150 million invested for a return of $360 million, if the aircraft are bought that entitles these companies to a 2500+ aircraft supply run probably worth billions for the aerospace industry in Canada, and their designated Unions. A few of which probably sponsor this site. No other aircraft can supply the same amount of business, so in effect if we don't get the F-35 it would be a repeat of the Conservatives scraping the Arrow back in the 60s. Thousands of possible jobs gone.

I still think it's immoral and an abuse of taxpayers money. Studies in the early 2000's in the US showed that investing in a narrow sector of the economy creates fewer jobs than wide dispersal investment in the civilian economy. For every $10 billion spent on weapons in the US, 40,000 fewer jobs are created than if invested widely in civilian economy. The ability for Keynesian-militarism(a politically conservative twist to what was a left wing idea) to create jobs was greater in the 1950s when production was more labour intensive. And there are other issues on the supply side of things with more military oriented economy competing with civilian production and for resources.

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:
Technical issues of the F-35? There are some yes, but very few military or civilian aircraft go through testing without finding some issues, for example the 787 or A380 or A400. It is aerospace, it is cutting edge, the best thing is the US is covering the R&D cost.

We should be spending more on R&D in Canada. Instead our two oldest political parties prop-up US economy and US industries like Lockheed and GM instead of investing in Canadian research and innovation, like the former Nortel and Newbridge Networks sold off to foreign interests. No one talks about "Silicon North" in the Ottawa area anymore. Military contractors in Ontario and Quebec have proliferated since the 1990s, and I don't think it's the best use of taxpayers money or a direction our economy should be taking. And they are only interested in space for the purposes of being more war-like not for improving human affairs like they've been bullshiting us.

Sat, 2011-02-05 10:14

#34

Boom Boom

The Cons are determined to show that they are the war party. That's another reason to throw the bums out. Our defense budget should be primarilly directed towards search and rescue, offshore smuggling, keeping the shipping lanes open, protection of sovereignty - and none of those require a stealth fighter as far as I can tell. More SAR helicopters, coast guard ships/icebreakers, planes with short take off and landing capabilities - those are the ticket to an efficient and practical defense strategy for this country. Let the Americans waste their money on stealth aircraft - we don't want expensive toys for the military to play with - we want practical alternatives.

Sat, 2011-02-05 10:24

#35

Fidel

Good post, Boom Boom. I agree. And with military-industrialism there will be political cronyism. Apparently their wacky ideology promoting "creative destruction" doesn't apply to cold war era fat-cats like Lockheed or any of the other 8000 military contractors milking US taxpayers. They want a similar deal here. The Republicans like their upside-down socialism for rich people, and Lib Dems are too timid to do anything about it themselves. They prefer their Soviet style soft budgets and closed economy for Pentagon communism, and the market baloney is for everyone else without old line party memberships. And our idiots in Ottawa just nod up and down in rapid agreement to whatever.

Sat, 2011-02-05 11:48

#36

kropotkin1951

Boom Boom wrote:

The Cons are determined to show that they are the war party. That's another reason to throw the bums out. Our defense budget should be primarilly directed towards search and rescue, offshore smuggling, keeping the shipping lanes open, protection of sovereignty - and none of those require a stealth fighter as far as I can tell. More SAR helicopters, coast guard ships/icebreakers, planes with short take off and landing capabilities - those are the ticket to an efficient and practical defense strategy for this country. Let the Americans waste their money on stealth aircraft - we don't want expensive toys for the military to play with - we want practical alternatives.

Lets face it our military is so integrated with America now no one in the command structure thinks of Canadian sovereignty in those terms. Our masters have already taken their places inside the imperial structure, the rest of us are merely pawns to be controlled. I'd say lets protest but I suspect at least one window would get broken and then we would all have to demand the violent perpetrators be brought to justice.

Sat, 2011-02-05 12:37

#37

CanadianPatriot35

The experts still say we need jets to patrol our territory, it is the only vehicle able to cover sufficient distance quickly enough to be of any use in sovereignty patrols. If you don't use jet and use slower aircraft you need more of them to cover all the territory, you need more bases for them to operate out of, and you need many more pilots and ground crew. In the end it will be way more money to use this option.

Now lets try to understand these business opportunities for the Canadian Aerospace community and their respected unions. Lockheed pays for all the R&D which might or might not produce a leap ahead in manufacturing or ability, they will do the trial and error trying to figure these things out how to make it work. They could waste millions on an idea that doesn't work. What Canada gets is the working final design to manufacture, so we bypass all the trial and error and step right into the knowledge to make the design work. This is exactly what China is doing in all areas of business, others go through all research, once the design is proven China makes it. Keeping the manufacturing process knowledge in the end without wasting tons of money.

But why would Canada want to do that, when we could give give billions to the homeless, or other bottomless pit programs like the dirty needle service in BC. I can tell you why BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO WORK! Aerospace jobs are great paying but governments the world over still need to invest in the industry to keep up.

Boom Boom, planes with short take-off abilities, so you are suggested the F-35B model that has vertical take-off and landing ability? That would fit your scenario.

I just laugh at all these people who say we don't need a military, we have no enemies. Kinda like Poland said before WWII, these jets will be in service for 40 years who knows what will change in the world in that time. With the US concentrating on their own in-border interests in the near future Canada might actually have to provide their own security, instead of leaching off of the defensive capabilities of the US. Canada has tons of resources others want in the coming years and we might actually want to protect those resources even as a show of force.

NoDifferencePartyPooper - who are these jets gonna kill? Everyone they are ordered to by the Canadian government as sanctioned by the UN. The F-35 like the jets they replace the CF-18, which were used in the UN sanctioned Desert Storm and Kosovo conflict, will carry out these same missions. The F-35 with the use of stealth will greatly increase the survivability of our brave pilots. This is kinda what the Canadian military does, comes to the aid of countries and allies in need as well as our own interests, has been doing this for decades, and will be doing for decades to come. Except for a few lefties that are sitting so far in left field that they think they are right, the majority of Canadians expect this.

Sat, 2011-02-05 12:47

#38

kropotkin1951

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:

This is kinda what the Canadian military does, comes to the aid of countries and allies in need as well as our own interests, has been doing this for decades, and will be doing for decades to come. Except for a few lefties that are sitting so far in left field that they think they are right, the majority of Canadians expect this.

Thanks for dismissing the views of the majority of the people who post on this site. I guess we should all leave babble now and admit that our anti-imperialism is wrong and defer too your superior view of the world as a place to be made safe for democracy.

Ready Aye Ready Pax Americana Forever

Sat, 2011-02-05 12:47

#39

Boom Boom

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:
The F-35 with the use of stealth will greatly increase the survivability of our brave pilots.

Let me guess, you play computer war games a lot.

Sat, 2011-02-05 16:17

#40

Fidel

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:
But why would Canada want to do that, when we could give give billions to the homeless, or other bottomless pit programs like the dirty needle service in BC. I can tell you why BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO WORK

The difference between Canadian hawks and the rest of us is that most Canadians want EVEN MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE JOBS than just those earning high wages in the closed economy of militarism and Pentagon capitalism creeping Northward. You can't have just those working for friends of the party employed and prospering. That's not democracy, the very thing that self-described bipartisans, moderates and even "centrists" claim to be promoting with their war crimes, torture and renditions, obscene warfiteering etc.

Cold war's over. There are no more threats. And our friends in the US should stop funding terrorism abroad if they're really interested in world peace, which they aren't.

In March 2010 Secretary of "Defense" Robert Gates complained that "the general [European] public and the political class" are so opposed to war they are an "impediment" to peace. -William Blum on the war machine

"The United States became the target of terrorists on 9/11 not because of the country's freedom and democracy, but because U.S. Middle East policy has had nothing to do with freedom and democracy." – Stephen Zunes

Sat, 2011-02-05 16:24

#41

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Canadianpatriot35 doesn't seem to be able to answer questions honestly. If he were less eloquent in his presentation of Conservative/military industrial complex talking-points, I would assume reading comprehension problems (he clearly didn't understand the conditions he agreed to when he signed up here - or simply doesn't respect them).

Sat, 2011-02-05 18:02

#42

CanadianPatriot35

Fidel wrote:

Cold war's over. There are no more threats. And our friends in the US should stop funding terrorism abroad if they're really interested in world peace, which they aren't.

Post Cold War Canada's military has been busy, Desert Storm, Kosovo, and now Afghanistan. Desert Storm stopped the expansion of Iraq into Kuwait, Kosovo a conflict to stop genocide, and Afghanistan a conflict to stop the spread of terrorism. Seems like we are busier than ever and there is no telling what the future will hold. All these conflicts were UN sanctioned, should we not participate in these conflicts, and let these groups do whatever we like?

Now this site endorses the views of pro human rights, anti-imperialism, pro labour, but should it include Anti-Military? From some of the comments I should think so, questioning the very existance of our military in some cases. Nowhere on this site does it say military intervention in human rights abuse cases is forbidden (CF-18s in Kosovo). The common view is that Iraq taking over Kuwait was an act of aggression, and the Allies actions were to combat this invader. Should the military not be involved, and let this country expand into other countries?

Another view of this site pro-labour - this F-35 contract will bring billions of dollars to the enonomy and the unions will get a sizeable cut. Are we saying on this site that we don't want that? Some rabble supporters may disagree. These contracts and jobs will not be isolated to the Aerospace industry, as it will entail many aspects of aircraft design, for example the avionics in these planes require computer programmers. There are many in Ontario who have never worked in the aerospace industry directly that will be a part of this program. Seems good for the labour movement.

So the problem many on this site seem to associate with the F-35 is that it is a "US" fighter and it has some measure of Stealth in the design. So the question is; would it be a different story if it was a Swedish or European figter will less stealth attributes?

Sat, 2011-02-05 18:11

#43

CanadianPatriot35

Here is a better quote:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

Sat, 2011-02-05 18:19

#44

Fidel

I'm sorry, CP35, but we're just not on the same frequency. Might I suggest making some effort to be more true to your own intellect for your own sake? And I think all of us here tend to be genuinely worried for otherwise good people who accept such lopsided views of recent history. It's just not healthy. Don't accept just one version of the truth. Don't be afraid to examine opposing points of view. Because if your political views are as sturdy as you think they are, then they should be able to stand up to scrutiny. Lots of scrutiny from the opposing views.

The saying goes that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle. But with cold war propaganda from both sides of the last 70 years that would have made Joe Goebbels proud, I think you should temper your understanding of the facts with views of people who represent the widest range of politicized views. The victors are the ones who write history. And they will always tend to embellish the truth before it's printed and published as text books and newspapers in Texas or NYC etc and dumped on this side of the border.

Sat, 2011-02-05 18:21

#45

kropotkin1951

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:

Nowhere on this site does it say military intervention in human rights abuse cases is forbidden (CF-18s in Kosovo). The common view is that Iraq taking over Kuwait was an act of aggression, and the Allies actions were to combat this invader.

That is a common view but not a very sound one in my opinion. Around here most of us see "Operation Iraqi Liberation" to be about its acronym not any human rights abuses.

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:

Another view of this site pro-labour - this F-35 contract will bring billions of dollars to the economy and the unions will get a sizeable cut.

I am not interested in importing the culture of Columbine to Canada thank you. Do you think building tanks and tear gas and land mines would also be good industries for Canada? Yes kiddies you can be proud of your community we build bombs that kill a thousand people a week. Don't despair only about 300 of them were collateral damage and soon we will make the areas we are bombing safe for democracy.

You obviously have no respect for the PEACE part of Peace Order and Good Government. Since it is such a primary part of our constitution how can you call yourself patriotic while sounding like a war hawk. Do you consume too much American propaganda?

Sat, 2011-02-05 18:46

#46

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
I'm sorry, CP35, but we're just not on the same frequency.

Sat, 2011-02-05 18:49

#47

Slumberjack

I don't know about the triumph of evil and such, but the triumph of corporatism depends on the infusion of total hogwash, post 41 being exhibit A in that regard, into the vacuous minds of willing rubes. In this particular instance, we see a worn out act before us, where a prop appears to be talking, while the ventriloquists are barely moving their lips.

Sat, 2011-02-05 19:50

#48

HumbleOne

I am all for keynesian economics but not military keynesian economics. I am for good union jobs but I feel Harper is using the economic arguement as a last resort. If the f-35 was a jobs issue than Harper should have gotten an offset agreement. 16 billion for military planes but 16 billion in Canadian investment in return. Offset are very common but all Canada got vague promises about bidding rights in the F 35 production. Lets spend 16 billion on our country rather than sending it to the US.

Sat, 2011-02-05 19:50

#49

kropotkin1951

CanadianPatriot35 wrote:

Here is a better quote:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke

Trading quotes, well I'll see your Burke and raise you a Franklin.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Sat, 2011-02-05 19:51

#50

CanadianPatriot35

So no one has the will to answer a couple simple questions, here I will repeat them

Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistans were all UN sanctioned, should we not participate in these conflicts and as such let these groups (of the respective conflict) do whatever they want? Example may be territorial expansion, genocide, or terrorism.

In Desert Storm, Iraq invaded Kuwait (which is a fact) should Canada have been involved with the Allies in stopping this aggression?

Come on someone step up to the plate.

Sat, 2011-02-05 19:51

#51

kropotkin1951

Or my favourite Vietnam era slogan: Fighting for Peace is Like Fucking for Virginity.

Pages

Topic locked