Mulcair Doesn't Rule Out F-35 Purchase

225 posts / 0 new
Last post
jjuares

terrytowel wrote:

jjuares wrote:
[You keep bringing up Jack's four year old comment as if that is definitive. Are you saying that Jack was proposing that the Air Force not have any jets? Because if in fact he was opposing that it is fine.

What I am saying is that Mulcair should have followed Layton policy from 2011. Jack Layton advocating scrapping the F35 program and build warships instead.


Mulcair isn't saying buy the F-35 and you know it. So you are in favour of Justin's plan to but new planes then?

terrytowel

jjuares wrote:
terrytowel wrote:

jjuares wrote:
[You keep bringing up Jack's four year old comment as if that is definitive. Are you saying that Jack was proposing that the Air Force not have any jets? Because if in fact he was opposing that it is fine.

What I am saying is that Mulcair should have followed Layton policy from 2011. Jack Layton advocating scrapping the F35 program and build warships instead.

Mulcair isn't saying buy the F-35 and you know it. So you are in favour of Justin's plan to but new planes then?

But he is NOT ruling it out. And nowhere did I say I was supporting Justin plan.

I am opposed to buying ANY fighter jets. And the NDP used to feel the same way.

jjuares

New Democrat Leader Jack Layton, like the Liberals, promised to halt the purchase and hold an open competition to replace the existing CF-18s, which are expected to reach the end of their service life between 2017 and 2020.
I guess they weren't always opposed to new fighter planes. Not much point in having an Air Force without them, which may be fine but again you can hardly criticize Mulcair for having the same position Jack had at one time.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/harper-says-canada-exempt-from-rising-f-35-costs-1...

terrytowel

Jack Layton said it is time to go back to "square one" on the F-35s and none of the aircraft should be purchased without first assessing the defence priorities of Canadians. He said an NDP government would produce a white paper on defence in his first year in office, one that would "refocus" the Canadian Forces on defending Canada and Canadians, assisting in times of disaster and supporting peacekeeping efforts around the world.

And he is more interested in replacing two supply ships than in buying planes.

"We believe there are other priorities right now for the investment in military procurement, particularly these ships that are so vital in peacekeeping missions, in dealing with disasters around the world," said Mr. Layton. "These ships have been identified for replacement for a very long time and the governments have been completely ineffective in getting the job done."

An NDP government, Mr. Layton said, would ensure that contracts for the replacement of needed joint supply ships go to Canadian shipyards.

"For five years, Stephen Harper has failed to procure the joint support ship - ships that our naval forces desperately need, ships that would have kept Canada's shipyards humming," the NDP Leader said.

Mr. Layton rejected the suggestion that he was advocating an outdated role for the military by saying that the Canadians Forces must return to traditional peacekeeping missions.

"It's true that, under the UN arrangements, that a different emphasis has been placed," he said. "But still I think Canadians want to see us playing more of the role of peacemakers and want to see that in higher priority in the modern context. … It reflects expertise that we've developed over many years which has been allowed to atrophy under recent governments."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-pans...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Jack Layton advocating scrapping the F35 program and build warships instead.

And somewhere, in an alternate universe, alternate-Tom Mulcair is proposing that we buy warships, and alternate-terrytowel is shrieking that the alternate-NDP "want to buy murder-boats!!!"

terrytowel

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Jack Layton advocating scrapping the F35 program and build warships instead.

And somewhere, in an alternate universe, alternate-Tom Mulcair is proposing that we buy warships, and alternate-terrytowel is shrieking that the alternate-NDP "want to buy murder-boats!!!"

Mr. Magoo if you support buying fighter jets, that's fine. I don't. and there are plenty of NDP supporters feel the same way, they do not support guying fighter jets.

jjuares

terrytowel wrote:

Jack Layton said it is time to go back to "square one" on the F-35s and none of the aircraft should be purchased without first assessing the defence priorities of Canadians. He said an NDP government would produce a white paper on defence in his first year in office, one that would "refocus" the Canadian Forces on defending Canada and Canadians, assisting in times of disaster and supporting peacekeeping efforts around the world.

And he is more interested in replacing two supply ships than in buying planes.

"We believe there are other priorities right now for the investment in military procurement, particularly these ships that are so vital in peacekeeping missions, in dealing with disasters around the world," said Mr. Layton. "These ships have been identified for replacement for a very long time and the governments have been completely ineffective in getting the job done."

An NDP government, Mr. Layton said, would ensure that contracts for the replacement of needed joint supply ships go to Canadian shipyards.

"For five years, Stephen Harper has failed to procure the joint support ship - ships that our naval forces desperately need, ships that would have kept Canada's shipyards humming," the NDP Leader said.

Mr. Layton rejected the suggestion that he was advocating an outdated role for the military by saying that the Canadians Forces must return to traditional peacekeeping missions.

"It's true that, under the UN arrangements, that a different emphasis has been placed," he said. "But still I think Canadians want to see us playing more of the role of peacemakers and want to see that in higher priority in the modern context. … It reflects expertise that we've developed over many years which has been allowed to atrophy under recent governments."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/layton-pans...


And nowhere in that article does he say no to the airplanes and remember that was over 4 years ago. Our current planes are now 4 years older and ALL leaders have talked about replacing them. You want to score cheap points by making unwarranted assumptions. Mulcair has never said buy the F-35

terrytowel

jjuares wrote:
Mulcair has never said buy the F-35

But he is not ruling it out either.

The Toronto Star reported

"he (Layton) said that means scrapping the $16-billion F-35 jet fighters deal along greater attention to Canada’s naval needs."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/04/08/canadian_military_should_r...

I don't support ANY fighter jets AT ALL. Mulcair should not support it either

terrytowel

NDP says would keep F-35 in race for new jets

Canada's opposition New Democrats on Monday defended Lockheed Martin Corp's right to try to sell Ottawa new fighter jets after a rival said he would not buy the company's F-35 plane if he won the Oct. 19 election.

Canada's tortuous and controversial effort to replace its aging CF-18 fighters has run into repeated problems and is now part of a tight election race between the ruling Conservatives and the New Democrats and Liberals, both on the center-left.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair made his comments backing the U.S. company one day after Justin Trudeau of the Liberals said he would not buy the F-35 jet, which has been hit by cost overruns.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCAKCN0RL1RQ20150921

terrytowel

Harper, Mulcair blast Trudeau for promising to scrap stealth fighter jet (F-35)

Mulcair said Trudeau was showing a lack of experience in cancelling the F-35 purchase, instead of opting for an open competition between various aircraft makers, calling that “the basic rule of public administration.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-defends-plan-to-avo...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Mr. Magoo if you support buying fighter jets, that's fine. I don't. and there are plenty of NDP supporters feel the same way, they do not support guying fighter jets.

Ok, so for those keeping track at home:  "plenty" of NDP supporters and one Liberal supporter are anti-jets.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

terrytowel wrote:

I don't support ANY fighter jets AT ALL. Mulcair should not support it either

Mulcair should support whatever tt supports, and oppose whatever tt opposes. But tt, any party that took your position, of buying no more fighter jets AT ALL, would fail to win a single seat in the House of Commons. I used to think you weren't a troll, and actually wanted to discuss things, albeit rather funky things. This thread has convinced me that you have no interest in babble except to create as much havoc as your tiny, shrivelled little mind can imagine.

6079_Smith_W

terrytowel wrote:

I don't support ANY fighter jets AT ALL. Mulcair should not support it either

But you don't support him. How does that make any sense?

If he did something you couldn't hold up to criticism you wouldn't be happy at all.

Geoff

Hey, let's buy this one: Russia’s new T-50 fighter jet. I'll bet we can get a better deal from Putin than we can from Lockheed Martin. Take a look: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/russias-stealth-fighter-could-outfly-outshoot-american-jets-9edbae7da1ee

 

Sean in Ottawa

jjuares wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Now that I look at Trudeaus position it's even stupider than I first believed. He is going to buy cheaper airplanes. I didn't see any mention of process. He certainly could buy cheaper ones. Just place a machine gun on a used Cessna for example. Without a process all things can be considered. Now I believe the f-35 would probably lose any fair process and I wish the Liberal gov. Under Chrétien hadn't got us involved in this process at all. The CF-18's are coming to the end of their life span and something has to be done and hopefully that will involve a sophisticated bidding and procurement plan to find a replacement. If Justin wins that sounds like that won't be the case and he will be selecting the appropriate plane.

But the truth is both want to exam ine another process and hope to save money with a new process. Neither is completely ruling out F-35s if a new process goes there.

That said I think we should redefine the need to not include these kinds of missions. A plane that can be used over Canada for our defense would cost less and that is what we need to do. And if the NDP does not want to run a deficit -- the F-35 is exactly the type of program that needs to go.

I am shocked at Mulcair's response from a communications point of view. It is an over-the-top attack on a position that is very similar to his own. there ought to have been at least some civility over a position this close to the NDP position and one that NDP supporters might better understand and support more than the dog's breakfast Mulcair is making NDP policy on this.

Mulcair and Trudeau, if they want to look like they are capable of governing, ought to look at each other's programs and find some things they can be polite about. Voters could well turn to the Conservatives in disgust. Both are playing this stupid game and both can lose for it. Their programs are close enough that it would not be hard to find things to like in both. This hard line hostile auto reject of the other's positions is sickening.

We ahve seen this from Trudeau and today the pettiness and stupidity is with Mulcair. Pretty sad that he could think this is a winning strategy.

And yes, I am hearing from people who have previously promised to support either the NDP or the Liebrals say they are being alienated by this crap. Some may go CPC, some may vote for whichever one they think is being the least "assholeish" and some may not vote. Two out of three helps Harper.

But Sean unless I am misreading this Trudeau is excluding the F-35 from the process. Now I believe the F-35 is the wrong plane. For example for pilot safety we should pick a two engine plane to fly over the North. But politicians shooting off their mouths on which plane to choose is not a neutral and professional way to make these choices.

The sum total is the same: The NDP is known to be hostile to the F-35 and is proposing to restart the process. While Mulcair has not specifically excluded the option, he has stated a) that we need to restart the process and 2) that in a proper process this plane would not have been the choice.

Trudeau has stated that he would scrap the process and begin a new procurement process. He has not explicitly excluded the plane but the Liebrals are hostile to the choice and do not believe a fair process would have come to that plane (the reason both want a re-do -- otherwise why would they?)

The only difference between the positions is rhetorical. Mulcair has been careful not to give cause to a lawsuit by excluding the company or plane but if you look closely so has Trudeau. In all the comments I have read both leaders appear to have avoided a legal liability -- and both have cover to take the plane if they turn out to be wrong and it is the best plane after all.

Both would allow their departments the ability to do a better process and both are confident that it would lead to a different plane.

Neither should be attacking the other on this position. Voters won't reward this.

All that said -- the NDP could take the position that Canada does not need this plane as it will not take part in offensive action. Canada will redirect to coast guard, navy aid and other international contributions. This is a more rational approach given the cost and uses of this plane.

As it stands it seems Mulcair and Trudeau seem to want to whip out their F-35s and measure them. NDP supporters have no reason to claim to be impressed. I'm not. In this case Trudeau did not go after Mulcair so on this one he is not the guilty party.

Sean in Ottawa

And don't get me wrong -- technically Mulcair is right to a point --  you don't rule out a company that can sue you. However the difference in the positions is minor for the public and Mulcair pointing it out does more damage than good to any potential legal case.

Mulcair should have let Trudeau and Harper duke it out on F-35s -- nobody thought the NDP was interested in the planes anyway. The only thing Mulcair could do is irritate his supporters. Mulcair has to be careful about taking his supporters for granted as he makes himself more attractive to centrists.

Mulcair should have spent his time talking about something else like Health research and innovation which is deserving of investment.

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

I don't support ANY fighter jets AT ALL. Mulcair should not support it either

Mulcair should support whatever tt supports, and oppose whatever tt opposes. But tt, any party that took your position, of buying no more fighter jets AT ALL, would fail to win a single seat in the House of Commons. I used to think you weren't a troll, and actually wanted to discuss things, albeit rather funky things. This thread has convinced me that you have no interest in babble except to create as much havoc as your tiny, shrivelled little mind can imagine.

That's uncalled for.

I see where TT is coming from and the point is not unreasonable to make even if you disagree.

Frankly, many New Democrats would agree with him and a good many others might want to soft-peddle the point knowing how politically dumb this attack on Trudeau is even if it may legally be correct.

There was nothing to gain for Mulcair in this. He could have picked a different topic and let Trudeau and Harper bruise each other.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Can these F-35s still be returned for a full refund -- or at least store credit -- so long as Tom has the receipt and hasn't discarded the box?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Can these F-35s still be returned for a full refund -- or at least store credit -- so long as Tom has the receipt and hasn't discarded the box?

Love it.

But I bet there is a restocking fee.

Not sure we want to buy much from that store anyway.

Sean in Ottawa

Hey look at this -- while we were talking about Mulcair Harper made a fool of himself.

 

This morning he says the F-35 is essential

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-21/harper-calls-f-35-cont...

This afternoon he cancels it

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-officially-scraps-f-...

Now if Mulcair was not also making himself look like a fool this would have been a very bad day for Harper. This is why you don't talk about stuff where you have nothing to gain-- the other guy might step in it. Plus you give up on engaging where you can benefit.

Does Mulcair have a communications manager or just a that-was-easy button from Staples?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not sure we want to buy much from that store anyway.

They make good Census software.

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Now that I look at Trudeaus position it's even stupider than I first believed. He is going to buy cheaper airplanes. I didn't see any mention of process. He certainly could buy cheaper ones. Just place a machine gun on a used Cessna for example. Without a process all things can be considered. Now I believe the f-35 would probably lose any fair process and I wish the Liberal gov. Under Chrétien hadn't got us involved in this process at all. The CF-18's are coming to the end of their life span and something has to be done and hopefully that will involve a sophisticated bidding and procurement plan to find a replacement. If Justin wins that sounds like that won't be the case and he will be selecting the appropriate plane.

But the truth is both want to exam ine another process and hope to save money with a new process. Neither is completely ruling out F-35s if a new process goes there.

That said I think we should redefine the need to not include these kinds of missions. A plane that can be used over Canada for our defense would cost less and that is what we need to do. And if the NDP does not want to run a deficit -- the F-35 is exactly the type of program that needs to go.

I am shocked at Mulcair's response from a communications point of view. It is an over-the-top attack on a position that is very similar to his own. there ought to have been at least some civility over a position this close to the NDP position and one that NDP supporters might better understand and support more than the dog's breakfast Mulcair is making NDP policy on this.

Mulcair and Trudeau, if they want to look like they are capable of governing, ought to look at each other's programs and find some things they can be polite about. Voters could well turn to the Conservatives in disgust. Both are playing this stupid game and both can lose for it. Their programs are close enough that it would not be hard to find things to like in both. This hard line hostile auto reject of the other's positions is sickening.

We ahve seen this from Trudeau and today the pettiness and stupidity is with Mulcair. Pretty sad that he could think this is a winning strategy.

And yes, I am hearing from people who have previously promised to support either the NDP or the Liebrals say they are being alienated by this crap. Some may go CPC, some may vote for whichever one they think is being the least "assholeish" and some may not vote. Two out of three helps Harper.

But Sean unless I am misreading this Trudeau is excluding the F-35 from the process. Now I believe the F-35 is the wrong plane. For example for pilot safety we should pick a two engine plane to fly over the North. But politicians shooting off their mouths on which plane to choose is not a neutral and professional way to make these choices.

The sum total is the same: The NDP is known to be hostile to the F-35 and is proposing to restart the process. While Mulcair has not specifically excluded the option, he has stated a) that we need to restart the process and 2) that in a proper process this plane would not have been the choice.

Trudeau has stated that he would scrap the process and begin a new procurement process. He has not explicitly excluded the plane but the Liebrals are hostile to the choice and do not believe a fair process would have come to that plane (the reason both want a re-do -- otherwise why would they?)

The only difference between the positions is rhetorical. Mulcair has been careful not to give cause to a lawsuit by excluding the company or plane but if you look closely so has Trudeau. In all the comments I have read both leaders appear to have avoided a legal liability -- and both have cover to take the plane if they turn out to be wrong and it is the best plane after all.

Both would allow their departments the ability to do a better process and both are confident that it would lead to a different plane.

Neither should be attacking the other on this position. Voters won't reward this.

All that said -- the NDP could take the position that Canada does not need this plane as it will not take part in offensive action. Canada will redirect to coast guard, navy aid and other international contributions. This is a more rational approach given the cost and uses of this plane.

As it stands it seems Mulcair and Trudeau seem to want to whip out their F-35s and measure them. NDP supporters have no reason to claim to be impressed. I'm not. In this case Trudeau did not go after Mulcair so on this one he is not the guilty party.


Well I agree this is a dumb political point to make. There isn't a vote to be gained by talking about this other than to point out the the botched procurement plan. I get the sense that the NDP is in a reactive mode. They know that they have bring the Liberals down a notch or two. Today on a TV show from Atlantic Canada Trudeau with in 6 seconds said that they had a fully costed program and that they would be bringing it out. They need to go after the Liberal numbers and show these contradictions.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Sean - I think you will find this thread is about... this thread. It is about trolling in thread titles and making outrageous claims in the thread itself. It is about getting fed up with the excrement that is being spread around the board and, having time on my hands today, having decided to vent a little of my frustration (and BTW it is handy to have a copy of photoshop to play with). There are only so many times that I am going to open threads in babble, only to see the water carriers for a party that has historically demonstrated an almost patholodical aversion to the truth when making election promises, making outrageous statements while wrapping themself in some "progressive" flag and not react to it. I have, in the past, stated that I drink the orange kool-aid, but I think that I have, for the most part, kept my partisanship on a reasonably tight leash. I do not think that is the case with some of the partisans who drink the red kool-aid.

If this thread has prompted any deep thoughs on my part, it is only that it has caused me to seriously consider writing a note to Unionist to apologize for anything I may have said or thought when I encountered his original diagnosis of Towlie as being a troll.

It would have been much better if I had followed the advice to "not freed the trolls" - but there is still that tempation to find something large and indigestible and shove it down their throats and exult while they choke on it.

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

And don't get me wrong -- technically Mulcair is right to a point --  you don't rule out a company that can sue you. However the difference in the positions is minor for the public and Mulcair pointing it out does more damage than good to any potential legal case.

Actually I think the point on which Mulcair is most right here is not just making sure he doesn't get sued, it is not boxing himself into a corner unnecessarily, and for no real reason at all.

That in particular is good politics above just playing to what you think people want to hear.

If there is something wrong about saying there will be a new competition and whomever wants to apply with whatever machine can do so, I'm not sure what that fault is.

Really (as bagkitty points out) it is only an issue in this case to someone bent on catching him in a perceived wrongdoing (emphasis on perceived).

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

And don't get me wrong -- technically Mulcair is right to a point --  you don't rule out a company that can sue you. However the difference in the positions is minor for the public and Mulcair pointing it out does more damage than good to any potential legal case.

Actually I think the point on which Mulcair is most right here is not just making sure he doesn't get sued, it is not boxing himself into a corner unnecessarily, and for no real reason at all.

That in particular is good politics above just playing to what you think people want to hear.

If there is something wrong about saying there will be a new competition and whomever wants to apply with whatever machine can do so, I'm not sure what that fault is.

Really (as bagkitty points out) it is only an issue in this case to someone bent on catching him in a perceived wrongdoing (emphasis on perceived).

 

 

I am not taking issue with the NDP position on F-35s. I am taking issue with Mulcair blasting Trudeau for it when the Liberal position is now almost identical. The pettiness of this is the problem. I think partisans often miss how heavy a price this kind of stuff can exact. Imagine how much more prime ministerial Mulcair could have looked if he said to Trudeau well on this issue we are very close in positions. I look forward to an assessement of what Canada needs and a better process to find a solution. Instead he hammered at Trudeau in a way that is more likely to move votes away from the NDP than away from Trudeau. You have to choose when to pull out the nasty. And that should not be when the public cannot see daylight between the position you have and that of your opponent.

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

I don't support ANY fighter jets AT ALL. Mulcair should not support it either

Mulcair should support whatever tt supports, and oppose whatever tt opposes. But tt, any party that took your position, of buying no more fighter jets AT ALL, would fail to win a single seat in the House of Commons. I used to think you weren't a troll, and actually wanted to discuss things, albeit rather funky things. This thread has convinced me that you have no interest in babble except to create as much havoc as your tiny, shrivelled little mind can imagine.

That's uncalled for.

I see where TT is coming from and the point is not unreasonable to make even if you disagree.

Frankly, many New Democrats would agree with him and a good many others might want to soft-peddle the point knowing how politically dumb this attack on Trudeau is even if it may legally be correct.

There was nothing to gain for Mulcair in this. He could have picked a different topic and let Trudeau and Harper bruise each other.

Thank you Sean for your defense. I'm 100% against WAR. I don't support any boots on the ground, though I do support the troops 100%. I just feel Canada should go back to its role as peackeeping nation.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

All that said -- the NDP could take the position that Canada does not need this plane as it will not take part in offensive action. Canada will redirect to coast guard, navy aid and other international contributions. This is a more rational approach given the cost and uses of this plane.

That is my whole point. We don't need new fighter jets. Which is why I don't support the F-35s. And there thousands of Canadians, many of them NDPers, who feel the same way. Some of you are so blindly partisan, you have actually forgotten that the NDP advocates finding solutions in a non-violent way. Instead you are making jokes about the F-35? Jets that drops bombs to wipe out entire villages?

Like it or not folks this is a Game Changer. In one feel swoop Trudeau has grabbed headlines, gone more to the left than Mulcair, and given people a reason not to vote for Mulcair. As people who want to get rid of the F-35 completely have no reason to vote for Mulcair as he is including them in a revised bidding process.

Saying "cancelling F-35" people understand that more than saying "we will review the process"

This is a game changer.

Sean in Ottawa

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

I don't support ANY fighter jets AT ALL. Mulcair should not support it either

Mulcair should support whatever tt supports, and oppose whatever tt opposes. But tt, any party that took your position, of buying no more fighter jets AT ALL, would fail to win a single seat in the House of Commons. I used to think you weren't a troll, and actually wanted to discuss things, albeit rather funky things. This thread has convinced me that you have no interest in babble except to create as much havoc as your tiny, shrivelled little mind can imagine.

That's uncalled for.

I see where TT is coming from and the point is not unreasonable to make even if you disagree.

Frankly, many New Democrats would agree with him and a good many others might want to soft-peddle the point knowing how politically dumb this attack on Trudeau is even if it may legally be correct.

There was nothing to gain for Mulcair in this. He could have picked a different topic and let Trudeau and Harper bruise each other.

Thank you Sean for your defense. I'm 100% against WAR. I don't support any boots on the ground, though I do support the troops 100%. I just feel Canada should go back to its role as peackeeping nation.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

All that said -- the NDP could take the position that Canada does not need this plane as it will not take part in offensive action. Canada will redirect to coast guard, navy aid and other international contributions. This is a more rational approach given the cost and uses of this plane.

That is my whole point. We don't need new fighter jets. Which is why I don't support the F-35s. And there thousands of Canadians, many of them NDPers, who feel the same way. Some of you are so blindly partisan, you have actually forgotten that the NDP advocates finding solutions in a non-violent way. Instead you are making jokes about the F-35? Jets that drops bombs to wipe out entire villages?

Like it or not folks this is a Game Changer. In one feel swoop Trudeau has grabbed headlines, gone more to the left than Mulcair, and given people a reason not to vote for Mulcair. As people who want to get rid of the F-35 completely have no reason to vote for Mulcair as he is including them in a revised bidding process.

Saying "cancelling F-35" people understand that more than saying "we will review the process"

This is a game changer.

I don't see this in iteself as a game changer nor do I think anyone is going to really see a difference between the parties.

The real problem for Mulcair is that he is not looking selective in his shots at Trudeau, he is not picking the right battles, he is wasting communicaiton opportunities and being blown of message in the stupidest of ways.

That is the game changer. People are going to stop liking him and that really was his edge. A stupid thing to give up.

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The real problem for Mulcair is that he is not looking selective in his shots at Trudeau, he is not picking the right battles, he is wasting communicaiton opportunities and being blown of message in the stupidest of ways.

That is the game changer. People are going to stop liking him and that really was his edge. A stupid thing to give up.

I agree with you there. And thanks for defending me. Contrary to what some people might think, I'm not a troll. I'm just very anti-war and believe we should go back to peacekeeping. hence no need for fighter jets.

Is that so wrong? As many NDPers agree with that stance.

The jokes people here made about the F-35s were in extremely poor taste. These are fighter jets that kill people. Bomb villages. Shoot down planes. And you are making jokes about that? The destruction of human life? And you call me a troll?

The people who made the jokes about the F-35, should really look themsleves in the mirror before accusing other people of being a troll. It is really in poor taste to make jokes about fighter jets that kill people.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What I am saying is that Mulcair should have followed Layton policy from 2011. Jack Layton advocating scrapping the F35 program and build warships instead.

Quote:
I'm 100% against WAR.

Let me guess:  he should buy those warships and beat them into ploughships.

terrytowel

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What I am saying is that Mulcair should have followed Layton policy from 2011. Jack Layton advocating scrapping the F35 program and build warships instead.

Quote:
I'm 100% against WAR.

Let me guess:  he should buy those warships and beat them into ploughships.

War is nothing to joke about

Sean in Ottawa

Warships may be a poor word but there are purposes for navy ships other than multinational bombing expeditions. I'd be interested to hear if there is any other realistic purpose for an F-35 for Canada.

 

quizzical

terrytowel wrote:
I go back to Jack Layton position in 2011

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/04/08/canadian_military_should_r...

That should be Mulcair position. He will lose votes over this, by even flirting with buying any jets.

 If you support Mulcair jet buying policy, fine. But he will lose votes.

stop being petulant.

it's like you've talking points already built you can't use and are tweeking to.

btw, there's not a thing wrong with the air force needing new jets and the NDP wanting to meet those needs.

we're a huge country with oceans on 3 sides. it can't be patrolled by rail.

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am taking issue with Mulcair blasting Trudeau for it when the Liberal position is now almost identical.

Well that's the word the Globe used in equating Mulcair and Harpers' position.

But is that what he actually did? He said Trudeau was showing a lack of experience, and prejudicing the process. And he does have a point.

And this is an election. The whole point is to show how you are different from your opponent. Is Trudeau conducting himself any differently? I don't think so.

After October 19, then we can start talking about cooperation.

 

 

 

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

stop being petulant.

Excellent word to use. I mean it, cause at least you didn't call me a troll. Which I'm NOT. But call me petulant, much better than being called a troll.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am taking issue with Mulcair blasting Trudeau for it when the Liberal position is now almost identical.

Well that's the word the Globe used in equating Mulcair and Harpers' position.

But is that what he actually did? He said Trudeau was showing a lack of experience, and prejudicing the process. And he does have a point.

And this is an election. The whole point is to show how you are different from your opponent. Is Trudeau conducting himself any differently? I don't think so.

After October 19, then we can start talking about cooperation.

 

 

 

Sure but in the meantime you should be trying to win. And this is a poor choice of a topic when the NDP wants some positive press.

Giving some crap for having almost the same position seems pointless when there are so many better issues with significant difference to focus on.

A good clue is not to pick subject matter that is hard to explain and a legal opinion would be one of them.

The NDP has way better things to come out with than this.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
War is nothing to joke about

And war is nothing to troll about.

terrytowel

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
War is nothing to joke about

And war is nothing to troll about.

As quizzical said I'm being petulant not trolling.

http://rabble.ca/comment/1527309#comment-1527309

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Don't just take her word for it.

quizzical

a petulant troll?

Pondering

Actually there is quite a lot of daylight between the two positions. Trudeau has ruled out the F-35s as too expensive and inappropriate to Canada's needs.

He has not ruled any companies out of bidding for the new jets.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Liberals are copying a number of NDP positions in their run from the left. The correct response form the NDP should be to welcome them to the right position.

Correct. Thank you for pointing out the principled and consistently progressive stand, Sean.

That would be the correct response, if the NDP (and/or the Liberals) gave a shit about anything except winning an election.

All three of these parties don't even begin to question why Canada needs fighter jets to ally with the U.S. and NATO and bomb other countries into submissions.

Likewise for the shameless, brainless cheerleaders of each of those three parties.

We need a new approach. That, however, would seem to require chasing Harper, Trudeau, and Mulcair out of any venue where decent people gather.

Second best option: Get rid of Harper. Then deal with the other two dregs.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am not taking issue with the NDP position on F-35s.

Well Sean, you bloody well should question why Canada needs any such weapons of mass destruction. Please don't let them confine the debate to a fair tender process leading to the best and cheapest choice of murderous tools. Why the fuck do we need these - exactly?

 

pookie

I gotta say - I honestly think Trudeau's position on the F-35's will resonate with more Cdns.  Mulcair can talk all he wants about "proper principles of public administration". I highly doubt the typical undecided voter gives a crap.  

And Harper's position is idiotic given that he has been sitting on this file for 10 years.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Liberals are copying a number of NDP positions in their run from the left. The correct response form the NDP should be to welcome them to the right position.

Correct. Thank you for pointing out the principled and consistently progressive stand, Sean.

That would be the correct response, if the NDP (and/or the Liberals) gave a shit about anything except winning an election.

All three of these parties don't even begin to question why Canada needs fighter jets to ally with the U.S. and NATO and bomb other countries into submissions.

Likewise for the shameless, brainless cheerleaders of each of those three parties.

We need a new approach. That, however, would seem to require chasing Harper, Trudeau, and Mulcair out of any venue where decent people gather.

Second best option: Get rid of Harper. Then deal with the other two dregs.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am not taking issue with the NDP position on F-35s.

Well Sean, you bloody well should question why Canada needs any such weapons of mass destruction. Please don't let them confine the debate to a fair tender process leading to the best and cheapest choice of murderous tools. Why the fuck do we need these - exactly?

 

I certainly presume that the NDP position remains a review of what is needed and a process to supply it. To say that we make no assumptions about what is needed and therefore the conclusion is my understanding. I read into this avoidance of a legal problem.

That said, both the NDP and Liberals would be foolish not to question directly the need for such expensive hardware. Given the NDP position -- usually not to be invovled in this kind of operation -- you would expect a desire to see Canada be a specialist in something else. Canada does not have to be a bomb courier in order to be useful to its allies. There are lots of very useful investments we can make and excell at. When it comes to the NDP positions you would think we would want to invest in material helpful to: participate in UN initiatives, participate in foreign aid, participate in some scurity arrangments with alliances etc. Canada built the DART program. There is more that can be offered here that can be very useful within alliances. Even earthquake response could be beefed up as part of our contribution to international community.

In short the NDP must ask these questions.

And even if the warmongers like more weapons there are many ways Canada can be a useful ally without engaging with fighter planes.

Sean in Ottawa

pookie wrote:

I gotta say - I honestly think Trudeau's position on the F-35's will resonate with more Cdns.  Mulcair can talk all he wants about "proper principles of public administration". I highly doubt the typical undecided voter gives a crap.  

And Harper's position is idiotic given that he has been sitting on this file for 10 years.

I really think they are trying to say the same things and sound different.

There is a real risk -- if I am correct and people see it this way -- that this could drive voters right back to the Conservatives. Many voters are not sophisticated and they could well reject the entire mess the Liberals and NDP have on offer due to the stench.

Rev Pesky

Unionist wrote:
...Well Sean, you bloody well should question why Canada needs any such weapons of mass destruction. Please don't let them confine the debate to a fair tender process leading to the best and cheapest choice of murderous tools. Why the fuck do we need these - exactly?

Hear, hear! The purchase of these aircraft is not to satisfy any demand in Canada. The purpose of this purchase is to satisfy American demand. The Canadian military position is nothing more than that of a sock puppet to the USA. Recent events, in which those Canadian fighter aircraft have been used to kill civilians in both Libya and Syria testify as to their purpose. As defensive weapons, the Canadian air force is a joke. The only country we're likely to need to defend ourselves against is the USA, and believe me, our air force would be history in about twenty minutes.

We should probably monitor our coastlines, and we already have an aircraft built in Canada that is capable of doing that. Bombardier makes the Dash-8, which is already used by the USA as a coasta patrol aircraft and French Civil Defence as a water bomber. It has a range of 2000 kms (which is similar to the range of the F-35), and for the newest model costs CAD$ 35 million. A slightly older model costs less than half that.

For that matter, drone aircraft are the coming thing, and there's no reason we couldn't use those to monitor our coasts. 

What we absolutely do not need, is a fighter aircraft, especially not an extremely expensive, unreliable, useless piece of shit like the F-35.

 

Pondering

I don't think the public is going to think that Trudeau is making a mistake by taking the advice of General Andrew Leslie on better ways to spend our defence dollars. In my opinion the public will think that Trudeau is showing common sense by taking a decision many would have taken long ago.

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am taking issue with Mulcair blasting Trudeau for it when the Liberal position is now almost identical.

Well that's the word the Globe used in equating Mulcair and Harpers' position.

But is that what he actually did? He said Trudeau was showing a lack of experience, and prejudicing the process. And he does have a point.

And this is an election. The whole point is to show how you are different from your opponent. Is Trudeau conducting himself any differently? I don't think so.

After October 19, then we can start talking about cooperation.

 

 

 

Sure but in the meantime you should be trying to win. And this is a poor choice of a topic when the NDP wants some positive press.

Giving some crap for having almost the same position seems pointless when there are so many better issues with significant difference to focus on.

A good clue is not to pick subject matter that is hard to explain and a legal opinion would be one of them.

The NDP has way better things to come out with than this.


Yes, Mulcair needs to talk about issues that will resonate with people. His criticism of Trudeau is correct but irrelevant. This is the most inept campaign I have ever seen. Mulcair loves to explain. There is a saying in politics. When you are explaining you are losing. Each day represents about 4 % of the remaining campaign time. So he just spent 4 percent of his time talking about something that won't get him one single vote even if he is correct.

Rev Pesky

Here is a bit of F-35 history that could have been a part of Mulcair's pronouncement, but wasn't. Courtesy Wikipedia:

Quote:
On 28 July 2010, the National Post newspaper reported that IP addresses registered to the Canadian Department of National Defence Defence Research Establishment Ottawa had been used on 20 and 21 July to attempt to remove critical text of the F-35 purchase from the Wikipedia article on the aircraft.

Repeated attempts to remove text and add insults against the opposition were made by three IP addresses at the establishment. Martin Champoux, DRDC Manager of Public Affairs indicated it was not part of a government campaign to eliminate criticism, stating, "It sounds to me like someone was freelancing. This is not behaviour we commonly condone"; and indicated that IT specialists were attempting to track down those responsible and that employees would be reminded about government regulations regarding computer use. On 31 July 2010, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the IP addresses responsible had been traced to CFB Cold Lake and on 25 August reported they had been further traced to 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters, CFB Winnipeg. "Now it's up to chain of command to pursue that, identify the individual and determine whether disciplinary or administrative action is appropriate," stated Canadian Forces spokesman Captain (N) David Scanlon.

On 29 July 2010, opposition leader Michael Ignatieff stated that the Wikipedia incidents showed the government had "something to hide". He added, "Instead of making the case for Canadians ... saying, 'this is why we need this plane,' they're playing these games with Wikipedia. If you can't prove this case straight up and you have to resort to these tricks, then there's something wrong with the very proposition." New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton publicly said on 29 July 2010, "Attempting to expunge the realities of debate. I mean what the heck is going on here? We all knew [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper operated a controlling operation, but we didn't think he was willing to go so far as to snatch the words out of people's mouths and pretend they never were spoken. I hope that DND are simply disavowing this practice and will put a stop to it ASAP."

Now, I hate to say this, but note the difference between Ignatieff's statement, and Layton's. Ignatieff addresses the issue of whether the aircraft should be bought at all. Layton's quote addresses only the issue of the Wikipedia manipulation. Those quotes were from a CBC story, and it's quite possible either, or both, party leaders said more than these quotes, so perhaps I'm short-changing Layton.

What the story does, though, is point out the procurement for this aircraft has been shit for years. Why we're still even talking about this is beyond me. This procurement should have been trashed a long time ago.

 

pookie

jjuares wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am taking issue with Mulcair blasting Trudeau for it when the Liberal position is now almost identical.

Well that's the word the Globe used in equating Mulcair and Harpers' position.

But is that what he actually did? He said Trudeau was showing a lack of experience, and prejudicing the process. And he does have a point.

And this is an election. The whole point is to show how you are different from your opponent. Is Trudeau conducting himself any differently? I don't think so.

After October 19, then we can start talking about cooperation.

 

 

 

Sure but in the meantime you should be trying to win. And this is a poor choice of a topic when the NDP wants some positive press.

Giving some crap for having almost the same position seems pointless when there are so many better issues with significant difference to focus on.

A good clue is not to pick subject matter that is hard to explain and a legal opinion would be one of them.

The NDP has way better things to come out with than this.

Yes, Mulcair needs to talk about issues that will resonate with people. His criticism of Trudeau is correct but irrelevant. This is the most inept campaign I have ever seen. Mulcair loves to explain. There is a saying in politics. When you are explaining you are losing. Each day represents about 4 % of the remaining campaign time. So he just spent 4 percent of his time talking about something that won't get him one single vote even if he is correct.

Yeah....he lectures.  All the frigging time.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Liberal candidate, John McCallum, spoke on Power and Politics today and said that the F-35 jets cannot function properly north of 60 degrees latitude. This makes them totally useless for defending the Canadian arctic.

Pages