Mulcair Doesn't Rule Out F-35 Purchase

225 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

i don't agree. i think the position the Liberals hold is semantics just like the comment won't work with Harper.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

i don't agree. i think the position the Liberals hold is semantics just like the comment won't work with Harper.

Please explain. The Liberals are saying there would be no damage -- apparently the NDP is claiming there would be. I am saying that if you consider what is possible with the savings the Liberals are right there would be no damge -- just a different set of benefits derived from a different investment.

Now this used to be the NDP position until Trudeau agreed with it.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Please explain?

Sean, I'd say you were just pulling numbers out of the air, except you don't have any numbers - just the assumption that after having gone one for years this is somehow still a zero sum game.

What numbers are you talking about? and "gone one for years"??? this?

No idea what you are trying to say...

6079_Smith_W

Please explain?

Sean, I'd say you were just pulling numbers out of the air, except you don't have any numbers - just the assumption that after having gone one for years this is somehow still a zero sum game.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

I am saying it is curious to ask someone else to please explain when you have offered nothing to base your own claim on - just an assumption that this will all balance out evenly.

... and my other point - that the F-35 debacle has already gone on for some time, and has cost money and time.

 

And when did Trudeau take his noble and principled stand against the war machine? Right after this: 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-the-f-35-is-now-...

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am saying it is curious to ask someone else to please explain when you have offered nothing to base your own claim on - just an assumption that this will all balance out evenly.

... and my other point - that the F-35 debacle has already gone on for some time, and has cost money and time.

 

And when did Trudeau take his noble and principled stand against the war machine? Right after this: 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-the-f-35-is-now-...

Trudeau has had an ecomic team hard at work for over a year. There is no doubt that this was part of the conversation and General Andrew Leslie would certainly have raised it in his capacity as Trudeau's advisor on military issues. It's quite possible the article prompted the announcement but so what? It's still a smart choice. 

Doug Woodard

A few thoughts:

I don't think that we can restrict ourselves to classical "peacekeeping." That role involved helping organized and ressponsible states to avoid fighting. These days the situations that would need our help are much dirtier. Think about Yugoslavia and Rwanda. I don't think that pacifism is any more practical these days than it was in 1939. If we are going to have armed forces at all, they are going to need some "murderous tools."

Our existing F-18s have been in service for 30 years which is a long time for a fighter. They are reportedly suffering metal fatigue problems which limit their operational use as well as training flights. Their electronics (crucial these days) are getting long in the tooth.

Air defense is not our likeliest need now but I think we need something to control smugglers, wandering Bears etc. Transports are high-subsonic now, and Concorde technology has been around for some time. So we need to deal with (probably large and electronically conspicuous) aircraft in the speed range Mach 0.8m - M 2.0. Ours needs to be an interceptor, all-weather, fairly long range, preferably twin engined though maybe a very reliable single would be adequate.

The F-35 is a strike fighter with a single new engine designed especially for it, reportedly not reliable. The aircraft is apparently about the most expensive of all possible alternatives to buy and operate, which would inhibit training; pilot skill is crucial in air combat. Its capacity versus other fighters is not admired. The attraction seems to be that it would let us play with the big boys in interventions overseas, and gain American approval. It's also a big program which may offer us industrial benefits (I haven't seen much about this but it's been normal in the past). Our participation would help the Americans (a little) do something which they want to do.

Stealth is useful air-to-air but is probably not essential for our purposes.

The SAAB Gripen would be a minimalist solution for us, the operating cost per hour would be something under 25% that of the F-35 as far as I can make out. Although it has only one engine, that engine is well-tested and apparently very reliable; the Swedes have been operating it for several years with reportedly no engine-related losses. The Gripen reportedly has low-observable features although it is not fully stealthy, and it has a fast cruise, useful in air combat.

The "Super Hornet" developed from our F-18 and in service with the US Navy would be  a lot more expensive than the Gripen but much less than the F-35. It is twn-engined.

I think it's fair to say that if we were starting from square one to procure an aircraft to defend our own airspace, the F-35 would be an also-ran if it had a look-in.

To me, Mr. Mulcair has been saying "F-35? No way!" in the politest possible way, and emphasizing that the *process* on our proposed F-35 buy has been secretive, wrong, and irresponsible. He's been saying "NDP governments with me as PM don't work that way." Perhaps he could have been more explicit about it. I suspect he has been trying to avoid alarming conservatively-minded Canadians, and the Americans.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...I mean, I am willing to consider the opinion of the defense official (in that National Post article) who says he doesn't think there will be a financial penalty (not the same as "no loss"). But he's not a corporate lawyer or an expert in international trade. And neither are you or I.

There is no contract, therefore, there would be no loss of contract. There would be losses because the Canadian government anted up $10 million to get a seat at the development table.Canada also agreed to another $100 million or so to stay at the development table, but again, that is not a contract to buy. There is no contract to purchase these aircraft (thank the lord for small mercies).

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...it just might be a bit wiser in the long run in not giving any disgruntled bidders (who presumably this government has to work with in the future) any justification for crying that political bias had any role in derailing the process.

There are no disgruntled bidders because the Harper circus made this a sole-sourced procurement. If anything, other manufacturers would be happy about the situation. Particularly Boeing, in that if the boneheads in charge of this ridiculous procurement actually go ahead and buy fighter aircraft that we don't need, they will most likely buy the Super Hornet.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...It's one thing to say it is a bad plane, or the wrong plane, or a bad deal. Quite another to say you are going to kill a deal before the process to consider it has run its course.

Oh, it's run it's course all right. Each of the three parties that may form the next government know full well the F-35 'deal' is dead. It is dead, dead, dead, and has been since the sadly fired Kevin Page called the Conservatives to account for their bozo bonanza.

Once more with feeling. Canada does not need fighter aircraft. There is no way we could defend ourselves against any opponent that actually has the capability of attacking us. As I pointed out before, the only country in the world that could attack us from the North is Russia. They haven't, and they're not going to. The only other country in the world that we have to worry about is the USA, and unfortunately their military capability is so far above anything we could mount that it doesn't pay to waste time talking about it. We could, for a modest sum, using a Canadian produced aircraft, have the capability of radar monitoring the northern part of Canada, and the coastlines, for that matter. That would be enough under international law to maintain that territory as ours. It would also give us a capability of handling emergencies should they arise.

So far, with our tin drum airforce, we've managed to kill a few civilians in Lybia and Syria, and I think we destroyed a dump truck in Iraq (wonder what that mission cost?). Canadian purchase of extremely expensive fighter aircraft is insane. If you drove around town and shovelled money off the back of truck you'd have a better return. And more happy voters.

And watching the politicians squabble over this idiotic (no, it far worse than idiotic but I can't think of a word) procurement when they all know it is dead and gone makes me wonder what the fuck we bother voting for.

i went to the Thesaurus to find some more appropriate terms. Pick one:

Quote:
foolish, crazy, stupid, dumb, daft, insane, lunatic, senseless, foolhardy, inane, fatuous, loopy, crackpot, moronic, imbecile, unintelligent, asinine, imbecilic, braindead, harebrained, dumb-ass, halfwitted, witless...

or use your own

 

6079_Smith_W

There are contracts, actually:

(though the concerns about doing things carefully isn't just because of signed contracts)

Quote:

As of December 2014, 33 Canadian companies have won US $637 million in contracts for both F-35 production and sustainment, according to industrial participation tabled in Parliament by Industry Canada. The same document estimates that over the 40-year lifespan of the aircraft, aerospace firms in this country could receive a total of $10.17 billion.

"If, in fact, the Canadian government were to decide not to select the F-35, we will certainly honour the contracts that we have here with the Canadian industry, but our approach in the future would be to try to do business with the industries that are in the countries that are buying the airplane," Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of aeronautics at Lockheed Martin, said in a 2013 speech in Montreal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-f35-military-jets-1...

If there was an open tender, there would be bidders. Presumably one of them might be Lockheed Martin.

And while the article calls Harper's claim it will crater the aerospace industry "baloney", outright cancellation is clearly not risk-free, and a definitive statement that there will absolutely be no consequences is similar processed meat.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
There are contracts, actually:

The clear implication of your prior post was that Canada had signed a contract to purchase the F-35. That is not true. As noted by your own post below, American companies have signed contracts with Canadian firms to supply bits and pieces for the F-35. Unless those contracts were contingent on Canada buying the F-35, it is the USA companies than can't cancel.

Quote:
As of December 2014, 33 Canadian companies have won US $637 million in contracts for both F-35 production and sustainment, according to industrial participation tabled in Parliament by Industry Canada. The same document estimates that over the 40-year lifespan of the aircraft, aerospace firms in this country could receive a total of $10.17 billion.

"If, in fact, the Canadian government were to decide not to select the F-35, we will certainly honour the contracts that we have here with the Canadian industry, but our approach in the future would be to try to do business with the industries that are in the countries that are buying the airplane," Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of aeronautics at Lockheed Martin, said in a 2013 speech in Montreal.

So it's clear that no existing contracts are at risk. Future contracts, in other words, contracts that do not exist, with a possible value of $250 million a year would be lost. Of course, all that and more would be gained by sourcing aircraft in Canada. Meantime, the aerospace industry in Canada had $27.7 billion in direct revenues in 2014. That means the loss of "possible" contracts, if amounting to what Carvalho said, would be less than 1% of total direct revenue per year. In the real world, where the contracts would be a significantly smaller amount than Carvalho suggests, it would barely be noticeable.

But you're doing a good job re-iterating Harper's position on this issue. Given there's been a few firings lately, you could ask him for a job.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...If there was an open tender, there would be bidders. Presumably one of them might be Lockheed Martin.

And while the article calls Harper's claim it will crater the aerospace industry "baloney", outright cancellation is clearly not risk-free, and a definitive statement that there will absolutely be no consequences is similar processed meat.

You've already posted an article by Michael Byers that said the costs for the F-35 were well above what the government was willing to pay. Unless you have information that we could buy some of Lockheed-Martin's junk at fire sale prices, they wouldn't be in the running.

And what do you mean by 'outright cancellation'? There is nothing to cancel. You can't cancel a contract that doesn't exist.

And who made the 'definitive statement' that there will be 'absolutely no consequences'? Nobody. Just another of your straw men. You really should look into getting a job in Harper's campaign. He'd like the way you think.

 

NDPP

Lots of discussion and F-35 info here:

Sept 21, 2015 - Will The F-35 Procurement Plan Ever Lift Off? (podcast)

http://everythingispolitical.ca/episodes/2015/9/22/september-21-2015-wil...

"MPs panel with Michelle Rempel, Jack Harris, Leona Alleslev debate the F35 procurement"

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

The clear implication of your prior post was that Canada had signed a contract to purchase the F-35. That is not true.

Maybe you should have asked what I meant instead of making assumptions. Again, I said nothing about any contract. My actual concern (as I said) was how the contractor might take Trudeau's statement as prejudice, rather than a fair assessment. Again, Mulcair raised all the same concerns, about the machine, the deal, and about Harper's handling of it. But signed contracts or not, how this is dealt with does have an effect on negotiations and dealing with those companies in the future

 

Quote:

And what do you mean by 'outright cancellation'? There is nothing to cancel. You can't cancel a contract that doesn't exist.

A bit pedantic, don't you think? Many of the headlines refer to cancellation, and Trudeau uses the term in this press conference (around 1:40).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-h...

Quote:

And who made the 'definitive statement' that there will be 'absolutely no consequences'? Nobody. Just another of your straw men.

Let's see.. Trudeau blows off valid concerns about jobs, says there will be extra money on the table. And now that the fervor is dying down a bit people are starting to remember another election promise:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/22/ghost-of-sea-king-replacement-ha...

The fact that Trudeau is downplaying those real concerns, and just assumes there will be a saving, rather than additional costs, because a cheaper deal will fall out of the sky, is evidence that perhaps Mulcair has a point.

Quote:

But you're doing a good job re-iterating Harper's position on this issue. Given there's been a few firings lately, you could ask him for a job...

You really should look into getting a job in Harper's campaign. He'd like the way you think.

Sorry sweetheart, but I have had worse shit thrown at me, though not usually in such a repetitive way.

Paladin1

alan smithee wrote:

I agree with terry. Canada should be peacekeepers not war mongers. We shouldn't be buying F-35 or any other war machines.

It's time to pull out of NATO and make Canada a neutral country.

Do you think we should send Canadian soldiers out on peacekeeping missions unarmed and without "war machines"?

Whats to stop two opposing groups intent on murdering each other from just steamrolling the mythical peace keeper?

 

 

I personally think we need to turf the F35. It's an underachieving money pit. We couldn't buy enough to make a difference in an air campaign against a near peer enemy. Our best bet is to go with cheaper air to air fighters and purchase air to ground craft like the A10s the US is getting rid of.

We also need transport ships so we can stop depending on other countries to move our stuff around (which could also be tasked with humanitarian missions).

Hunky_Monkey

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Now this used to be the NDP position until Trudeau agreed with it.

 

I thought the NDP position had to do with opposing it being sole sourced.  Layton for example wasn't against the F-35 per se but saying an open process should deterimine it. That was Layton's position.  That's not what Trudeau is saying.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

The clear implication of your prior post was that Canada had signed a contract to purchase the F-35. That is not true.

Maybe you should have asked what I meant instead of making assumptions. Again, I said nothing about any contract. My actual concern (as I said) was how the contractor might take Trudeau's statement as prejudice, rather than a fair assessment. Again, Mulcair raised all the same concerns, about the machine, the deal, and about Harper's handling of it. But signed contracts or not, how this is dealt with does have an effect on negotiations and dealing with those companies in the future

 

Quote:

And what do you mean by 'outright cancellation'? There is nothing to cancel. You can't cancel a contract that doesn't exist.

A bit pedantic, don't you think? Many of the headlines refer to cancellation, and Trudeau uses the term in this press conference (around 1:40).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-h...

Quote:

And who made the 'definitive statement' that there will be 'absolutely no consequences'? Nobody. Just another of your straw men.

Let's see.. Trudeau blows off valid concerns about jobs, says there will be extra money on the table. And now that the fervor is dying down a bit people are starting to remember another election promise:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/22/ghost-of-sea-king-replacement-ha...

The fact that Trudeau is downplaying those real concerns, and just assumes there will be a saving, rather than additional costs, because a cheaper deal will fall out of the sky, is evidence that perhaps Mulcair has a point.

Quote:

But you're doing a good job re-iterating Harper's position on this issue. Given there's been a few firings lately, you could ask him for a job...

You really should look into getting a job in Harper's campaign. He'd like the way you think.

Sorry sweetheart, but I have had worse shit thrown at me, though not usually in such a repetitive way.

The argument the company could claim prejudice is empty. Trudeau has said nothing against the company. He has disparaged the plane as inappropirate (as ahve the NDP) and that is not a problem. The company can bid on a level playing field for whatever need the government of Canada has. This argument of some kind of legal claim is ridiculous as there is no bias stated against the company -- only against the procurement program and the udea that we need such an expensive cplane with its capability.

As for the idea of real concerns about jobs -- this is also empty as I explained upthread. There is nothing unique about this opportunity. Similar money spent on something else would not have a problem creating equal valued spin-offs. There is nothing special about the proportion of benefit to investment. Wuthout this money spent on that plane -- other programs can be designed that will produce an equal or better economic benefit.

All of this handwringing about the lost of value for the contract fails to consider the scope of the investment and the opportunity cost of that amount of money.

There are tw extremely poor arguments to attack the Trudeau position and statement. This was also the NDP position and it is included in many flyers as the Liberals are enjoying pointing out.

Sean in Ottawa

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Now this used to be the NDP position until Trudeau agreed with it.

 

I thought the NDP position had to do with opposing it being sole sourced.  Layton for example wasn't against the F-35 per se but saying an open process should deterimine it. That was Layton's position.  That's not what Trudeau is saying.

Maybe that is the position today but the NDP position has been that this is a huge amount of spending that would be better directed to higher priorities. The program was a failure of process and should be scrapped and the plane is inappropriate to Canada's needs.

This is one of the higher ticket Conservative priosities that must be scrapped to afford a more progressive agenda.

That said Canada may require a more modest plane to patrol its airspace.

Nowhere has the NDP ever before suggested that this plane might be the right plane and the right type of spending -- just with a better process.

Hunky_Monkey

Actually, that was the position of Jack Layton in 2011.  Just to be clear.  Or at least according to Rosie Barton on Power & Politics who corrected Liberals twice this week on that point.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

JacK Layton wanted fighter jets? That's news to me.

I have no respect for any party or leader that wants to make Canada a warrior nation. Peace keeping and defence of our borders is all I want to support when it comes to military spending (and of course decent pensions and benefits for those who serve in our military). Mind you, the costs of benefits paid to veterans are far more reasonable when your military isn't involved in wars.

jjuares

laine lowe wrote:

JacK Layton wanted fighter jets? That's news to me.

I have no respect for any party or leader that wants to make Canada a warrior nation. Peace keeping and defence of our borders is all I want to support when it comes to military spending (and of course decent pensions and benefits for those who serve in our military). Mind you, the costs of benefits paid to veterans are far more reasonable when your military isn't involved in wars.


He was open to it yes. He wanted a general defence review first.

Sean in Ottawa

ESQUIMALT, B.C.—The Canadian military should concentrate on peacekeeping and not making war, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday.

And he 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...

6079_Smith_W

Oh, right. The same Jack Layton who was going to drive the party to electoral defeat because of his wishywashy stand on gun control.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I will say this, if Sean were running the NDP campaign the NDP would be winning.

Flattery ( even if so obviously insincere) will get you everywhere.

It will get me nowhere with Sean. That ship has sailed. I said it because for years he has been critiquing the NDP's insufficient use of social media and has also critiqued individual events from the perspective of voter engagement or perspective.

Shortly after Trudeau became leader I emailed Mark Garneau and recieved a reply that indicated my message had been read. I don't know that he responded personally, I imagine they have aides, but I was pleased to see the reply within 24 hours of being sent. Being able to vote as a supporter considerably increased my sense of commitment as I had helped to select a leader of a party for the first time and I was grateful for that opportunity. I felt heard even though I am not a member of the Liberal party. 

This is not the first time Sean's efforts to communicate with the party has been rebuffed. Sean also recognizes that marketing is even more important than policy. I think he has a better understanding of the average voter. He is right that a barrage of weak attacks will backfire or simply be ineffective. 

Mulcair is still highest on the best PM polls by alot. I thought people didn't trust the NDP on the economy, but I saw polls which indicated otherwise a while back. So if it isn't the economy, and it isn't Mulcair, what is it? Policy? I doubt it. That leaves the campaign. 

NDPP

Harper's Support For F-35 Boondoggle Bolstered By Mulcair's Equivocation  -  by David Climenhaga

http://rabble.ca/http%3A/%252Frabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2015...

"...Then there is the troubling spectacle of Thomas Mulcair, whose title at the moment is supposedly leader of the New Democratic Party, siding with Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper to assail Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for stating the self-evident truth that the F-35 scheme is a stupendous waste of money and therefore deserves to go over the side immediately."

jjuares

And it’s working. Until Sept. 15, every poll but one put the NDP ahead of the Liberals. Since then, every poll but one has the Liberals ahead of the NDP. The Liberal message might not make a whole lot of sense, but at least it’s a message. Whereas the NDP seems to have responsibled itself into a near-stupor.

Watching the leaders’ debate, I thought Trudeau looked terrible: shouting, interrupting, reeling off talking points, plainly out of his depth. No doubt he turned off a lot of voters — those who’d already written him off. But the type of voter the two parties are fighting over may be less interested in which leader is more knowledgeable about the economy than which one’s more irate about it. Who knew Angry Tom would be outscowled by Sunny Justin?
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-liberal-message-m...

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I think that all the parties suffer from the same thing: unquestionning acceptance by their supporters and a failure to understand the value of specific well placed and quality criticism to the development of their policies and direction of their campaigns.  The surround their communications people with partisans that will accept anything rather than real people who will call them on garbage. They also suffer from the desire to mound more criticism on their opponents rather than to make sure that the quality of that criticism is high. It is the quality of the criticism of your opponents rather than the quantity that makes it effective.

You've just described the Manitoba NDP to a T.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I think that all the parties suffer from the same thing: unquestionning acceptance by their supporters and a failure to understand the value of specific well placed and quality criticism to the development of their policies and direction of their campaigns.  They surround their communications people with partisans that will accept anything rather than real people who will call them on garbage. They also suffer from the desire to mound more criticism on their opponents rather than to make sure that the quality of that criticism is high. It is the quality of the criticism of your opponents rather than the quantity that makes it effective.

You've just described the Manitoba NDP to a T.

I attempted to describe all the parties everywhere in Canada.

This is why so many people say F-it and don't vote.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I will say this, if Sean were running the NDP campaign the NDP would be winning.

Flattery ( even if so obviously insincere) will get you everywhere.

It will get me nowhere with Sean. That ship has sailed. I said it because for years he has been critiquing the NDP's insufficient use of social media and has also critiqued individual events from the perspective of voter engagement or perspective.

Shortly after Trudeau became leader I emailed Mark Garneau and recieved a reply that indicated my message had been read. I don't know that he responded personally, I imagine they have aides, but I was pleased to see the reply within 24 hours of being sent. Being able to vote as a supporter considerably increased my sense of commitment as I had helped to select a leader of a party for the first time and I was grateful for that opportunity. I felt heard even though I am not a member of the Liberal party. 

This is not the first time Sean's efforts to communicate with the party has been rebuffed. Sean also recognizes that marketing is even more important than policy. I think he has a better understanding of the average voter. He is right that a barrage of weak attacks will backfire or simply be ineffective. 

Mulcair is still highest on the best PM polls by alot. I thought people didn't trust the NDP on the economy, but I saw polls which indicated otherwise a while back. So if it isn't the economy, and it isn't Mulcair, what is it? Policy? I doubt it. That leaves the campaign. 

Actaully I missed who posted the comment.

Interesting. I would be lying if I said I did not appreciate the comment. I don't like lying and there is nobody who could not appreciate that.

I think that all the parties suffer from the same thing: unquestionning acceptance by their supporters and a failure to understand the value of specific well placed and quality criticism to the development of their policies and direction of their campaigns.  They surround their communications people with partisans that will accept anything rather than real people who will call them on garbage. They also suffer from the desire to mound more criticism on their opponents rather than to make sure that the quality of that criticism is high. It is the quality of the criticism of your opponents rather than the quantity that makes it effective.

As well the same is true of proposals. The parties provide large numbers of promises most of which are forgettable if not laughable. By far the promises recycle earlier proposals that did not work or mirror mistakes. There is little effort to construct proposals that really meet the problems becuase the parties are mostly trying to tick the boxes showing they care or to pander. One reason for this is that the parties give too little credit to voters. Voters see through crap more than they think.

As far as ships sailing when it comes to my respect for individuals -- I react to what is current -- when I refer to the past it is becuase I am referencing a pattern that still exists. If I feel someone is being less than honest or fair or they are playing games I can be harsh.  I have no respect for partisans who can never criticize their own party and use a place like this just to campaign. I respect independent and honest thinkers even if we disagree. I do require people to answer honestly and not selectively when engaged in debate and not repeat statements that have been responded to without accounting for or addressing that response. Behave this way and you may not get my agreement but you can get my respect. I also hate injustice and manipulation. I am able to get along with a number of people I disagree with.

It is not impossible for anyone I have fought with in the past to earn my respect. It can take time but it can be done if the person behaves honorably. I will be mean and nasty with anyone I think is not behaving honorably -- and for me that is the test not agreement on the issue at hand. This is why I was able to have no problem with Terry Towel who would say difficult things but I have seen no problems with this.

I am not personally friendly to the Liberal party and ther are both personal and public reasons for this. However I work with people that I care for deeply and have huge respect for -- who happen to be Liberals.

I am not afraid to say when I agree with the Liberal party or leader even if I do not like either very much.

My impressions can be wrong and they can change but this is how I tick and what creates bias in me.

 

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am saying it is curious to ask someone else to please explain when you have offered nothing to base your own claim on - just an assumption that this will all balance out evenly.

... and my other point - that the F-35 debacle has already gone on for some time, and has cost money and time.

 

And when did Trudeau take his noble and principled stand against the war machine? Right after this: 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-the-f-35-is-now-...

 

Not curious. I was just saying your language was so scrambled I have no idea what point you were making or asking. Fine if you want to leave it that way.

You are delivering a question and I don't know what it is.

From this it seems that you are taking issue with my contention that there is no point assuming a loss  by not doing the project becuase this assumes that there is nothing better that we can invest $50 billion dollars in that would provide the same benefit in spin offs. If that is the case I disagree that I woudl need to provide proof of what other options are. The issue I raise is that people look at the loss in spin-offs without considering that this required an investment that can be put to something else.

No, I cannot be specific becuase there is no specific alternative on the table. I can say that there are many alternatives in terms of projects and investment and to suggest there is nothing better to do than invest in a program that is mostly going to the US is not something I think needs debating.

What needed to be said is that you cannot consider the loss without considering what could be done with the savings of $50 billion dollars that can now be spent elsewhere -- and entirely in Canada.

You want more? Go to the US and look at the US defence for the program -- all the jobs it will provide there that we would be investing in. Invest this $50 billion in Canada on Canadian industry and yes we get more than the table scraps we get from an American program. At the very least you have to acknowledge the math is not as simple as (x=value of the spin-offs) but instead the loss would be x-y where y is calculated as either what else we could do with $50 billion dollars or what we consider to be the opportunity cost on the investment.

As I stated the spinoffs are a rebate or return on investment -- to fail to consider what is invested and the cost of that including what else it could have done when considering the loss of spinoffs through cancelation is ridiculous.

When you consider the total, it is reasonable to argue there is (or arguably may be) no net loss to Canada since there is no plan to take the $50 billion and just throw it in the Centennial flame.

I am no Liberal or friend of Trudeau but this point is obvious.

6079_Smith_W

You had asked quizzical to explain her argument, not me.

I found it curious because I had just asked you a pretty simple question: what you base your argument on. And you didn't respond.

As for the saving or loss, we don't actually know. Even experts who believe there will be no financial penalty don't know. And the last time a politician - Jean Chretien - cancelled a pricy military expenditure in an election campaign it didn't wind up being so simple or cheap.

That's why although Trudeau has taken a stand that is likely to get him votes among some people (though perhaps not in the ridings which have those parts contracts that probably won't last so long now), the criticism about him doing so unilaterally, not in consultation with those who have been dealing with this and will be affected, is also valid.

Attention-getting (perhaps vote-getting) and decisive to be sure, but then jumping off a cliff is also a decisive act. And vote-getting isn't of itself a justification; if one wants to see vote-getting ploys one need look no further than the Harper campaign.

A difficult issue? Sure. Not so obvious, IMO.

 

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...Sorry sweetheart, but I have had worse shit thrown at me, though not usually in such a repetitive way.

I wasn't 'throwing shit'. I was merely pointing out that your position on the issue is precisely the same as that of Harper. And your dodging and weaving would be just the sort of style he would like.

However, if you want to distance yourself from the Conservatives on this issue, why not clearly state why Canada should go ahead with the F-35 procurement?

6079_Smith_W

To indulge you for a moment in making this all about me, rather than the subject of this thread...

What exactly do you imagine I agree with Harper on here?  Because I don't support the F-35 deal.

For that matter, I'm not aware that Mulcair has said anything in support of it either.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

On the other hand, if we want to discuss the topic, there is this:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/23/pentagon-official-casts-more...

Quote:

The Pentagon's top acquisition official says the Canadian supply base is an essential part of the program and will remain as such, even if the country does not buy the aircraft.

Doesn't exactly jive with what the the representative from Lockheed Martin said, but both undercut Harper's claim that a cancellation will "crater" the Canadian aerospace industry.

 

6079_Smith_W

No. Nothing about the price of beans either.

That might be because the article wasn't about the necessity of fighter planes, but rather Harper's claim about the consequences of cancelling the F-35, and the perspective from Washington.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

but rather Harper's claim about the consequences of cancelling the F-35, and the perspective from Washington.

 

 

I'd rather we didn't buy the F35s but one major problem is spare parts. If we go with updating the CF 118s then we're going to discover spare parts for those are more and more obsolete and we will need to be searching got obsolete parts in foreign countries and be at the mercy of exchange rates and exorbitant price gouging.

Kinda like the story about Canadian service members searching for ship parts on Ebay if I recall correctly.

terrytowel

bagkitty, quizzical and jjuares were heaping scorn on me for starting this thread. How dare I question the logic of Mulcair leaving the door open to purchase F-35 jets. They were leveling some real vicious attacks directed squarely at me. Now they are nowhere to be seen on this thread.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Chin up!  I'm sure they'll be back the next time you need scorn heaped on you.

6079_Smith_W

Or those of us who are here can indulge you if you get off on that sort of thing, and say please.

quizzical just posted the night before last, and jjuares was here just yesterday. I don't think anyone else particularly cares.

 

 

terrytowel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Or those of us who are here can indulge you if you get off on that sort of thing, and say please.

quizzical just posted the night before last, and jjuares was here just yesterday. I don't think anyone else particularly cares.

Why do you have to be so mean to me?

6079_Smith_W

I haven't said anything mean to you terrytowel.

Just pointing out that the posters you mention haven't taken off, whatever that is supposed to mean.

terrytowel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I haven't said anything mean to you terrytowel.

I don't think anyone else particularly cares.

quizzical

i used to think it was a good thing to be missed.....there's real life outide of this forum.......i'm not a committed to the job political geek nor propagandist.

 

6079_Smith_W

Well I don't care, and I think it is a bit odd to bring it up out of the blue.

 

terrytowel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well I don't care,

Then why respond?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's a human thing, terrytowel.  A donkey has its head stuck in the fence and you feel like you should do something,

quizzical

tt,  why don't put some quotes of these vicious attacks you were subjected to?

i consider your fabrication about this attack shit too to be an actual personal attack.

6079_Smith_W

terrytowel wrote:

Then why respond?

What I don't care about is keeping tabs on who drops in and out of the conversation, and imagining possible motives.

I don't think anyone was saying anything at all bad about you before you decided to bring that up out of the blue.

Are we done?

 

quizzical

terrytowel wrote:

bagkitty, quizzical and jjuares were heaping scorn on me for starting this thread. How dare I question the logic of Mulcair leaving the door open to purchase F-35 jets. They were leveling some real vicious attacks directed squarely at me. Now they are nowhere to be seen on this thread.

waiting  for examples of this from you. i'll soon think you're avoiding the thread.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Normally I try to steer clear of "gotcha" thread titles and "gotcha" commentary (well unless it is an opportunity to see if I can make Maysie blow coffee out of her nose)... but hell, if I am really being missed I can jump back in.

If you require any further explanation, I would strongly suggest going back and reading post #73 - I believe any "meanness" on my part is fully explained there.

 

Doug Woodard

Paladin1 wrote:

I'd rather we didn't buy the F35s but one major problem is spare parts. If we go with updating the CF 118s then we're going to discover spare parts for those are more and more obsolete and we will need to be searching got obsolete parts in foreign countries and be at the mercy of exchange rates and exorbitant price gouging.

Kinda like the story about Canadian service members searching for ship parts on Ebay if I recall correctly.

Paladin, I think if we choose to update our CF-18s it would only be for a short time, I think they are too decrepit as well as too old (electronics).

One of our options is to buy the Super Hornet which was developed from the F-18. The US Navy has just bought a batch of Super Hornets and expects to be operating them for a long time.

terrytowel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't think anyone was saying anything at all bad about you before you decided to bring that up out of the blue.

First response from bagkitty about my post

UnitedStatesLibraryofMedicine wrote:

Depending on the specific cause and type of shock, symptoms will include one or more of the following:

  • Anxiety or agitation/restlessness.
  • Bluish lips and fingernails.
  • Chest pain.
  • Confusion.
  • Dizziness, lightheadedness, or faintness.
  • Pale, cool, clammy skin.
  • Low or no urine output.
  • Profuse sweating, moist skin.

MayoClinic wrote:

Seek emergency medical care

If you suspect a person is in shock, call 911 or your local emergency number. Then immediately take the following steps:

  • Lay the person down and elevate the legs and feet slightly, unless you think this may cause pain or further injury.
  • Keep the person still and don't move him or her unless necessary.
  • Begin CPR if the person shows no signs of life, such as breathing, coughing or movement.
  • Loosen tight clothing and, if needed, cover the person with a blanket to prevent chilling.
  • Don't let the person eat or drink anything.
  • If the person vomits or begins bleeding from the mouth, turn him or her onto a side to prevent choking, unless you suspect a spinal injury.

Pages