We are a signator to Warfare Being Outlawed For Any Reason

Canada, likewise, could save billions of dollars by opting for another plane

...to uphold its International Treaty obligation under the Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928, supported by our national Constitution ensuring peace order and good government.

Certainly even an intellectual clown like Stephen Harper can see how 30 billion dollars could be far better spent than on ramping up our war program. (OK, maybe not.)

Anyhow, Harper's madness need not be contagious and prevent sanity or the rule of law from getting in the way for the rest of us. We need to revolt against this system of government to save our country.

Byers asks, "Is this even the

Byers asks, "Is this even the right plane for the job?"

He doesn't really specify "the job," just refers to 3 past uses of F-18s, for none of which the F-35 stealth features were required.

But we really should consider whether those 3 uses justified the resources spent -- as contrasted with strengthening navy, army, and having aircraft suitable for doing jobs in Canada.

I remember when "the job" was

I remember when "the job" was peacekeeping. Did we need ridiculously expensive, poorly suited and equipped fighter jets for that?

Just sayin'

Are the conservatives even the right government for the job?

And his anti-social safety net where if you get caught in it the various government agencies feed you to the pigs. Police States are the new norm. It was all the talk at the G8 and G20 where tax dollars where lavisly spent so leaders could discuss how to do tax payers in by convincing them less was really more. It hasn't been paying off thought as people take to the street and even die because it is no way to live.
Government racks up large fuel bills flying empty jets around and that isn't even the cost of the crew.
Can you really trust Harper to make the right decisions on the behalf of Canadians?
Not likely.
I thought Canada was set to rock and roll when it came to jobs and business investment and that was only last spring IMF perv said the Canadian economy was sound and the conservtives right on? I do believe Canadians voted themselves in a dud.

Harper has ambitions beyond Canada's borders

He has set his sights on his next job, which is leader of the United Nations. Why else would he turn Canada into an armed fortress, ready for battle in any theatre of his choosing? He is celebrating victory in Lybia and crowing like a rooster about our battle readiness.

The F35 is just the latest in a series of American-built war toys that will not even fly. Like the ABM's, for example, or 'Star Wars'.

It is a pig-in-a-poke and a damned expensive one at that. We could do better with rubber bands and balsa wood.

We should have trashed NATO

We should have trashed NATO, not Libya. What a disgrace.

As in Libya, we pay all the bills, the pilots release all that Halon 1301 every time they refuel, and the elites waltz off with the spoils.

Why fuss about what type of fighter jets when the real game is contracts, contracts, contracts and grabbing resources.

The carbon footprint of war is important, but not the only one to consider. Halon 1301 has an ODP of 16, and was banned long ago.

I believe we need to invest in rescue not more death and destruction. And I mean real rescue, not lies about the latest rampage of slaughter.

Jets

Britain just sold all their Harriers to the US Marine Corp.
After buying some great subs from Britain,I suppose no one wanted that deal.
Harper is trying to militarize Canada.

Mmm

The Liberal government decided on investing in the F35 programme. Then the Canadian air force confirmed the choice. The Conservatives and Harper have not yet moved ahead on any firm contract yet here we have two academic commentators from an island community forum that seem to have strong opinions on current military aircraft and seem to think they know what they are talking about.

a different version of the

a different version of the F35 was attempting a vertical take off from a carrier. Computer screwed up, the aircraft went inverted at around 50 feet and was about to fall on the carrier deck. The pilot got the afterburner going , rolled it over and recovered. Had he ejected he would have died. Sure is a badly controlled aircraft. we need F35's like a hole in the head.Harper wants to appear to be a big guy in the world, using our cash. The Liberal government did not contract the F35, they simply showed an interest,there has been no tendering either. One wonders just how much military expertize the fellow posting above. The F35 is a dog

Harper will go ahead because

Harper will go ahead because he's an "economist" and has the support of Realisticman.

Intelligent, normal people think, conservatives believe.

Ed Deak.

F35

The Liberals certainly did show an interest and decided on investing.

"Canada has been involved in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program from its beginning in 1997 (Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Liberal Party of Canada), investing US$10 million to be an "informed partner" during the evaluation process. Once Lockheed Martin was selected as the primary contractor for the JSF program, Canada elected to become a level-three participant, along with Norway, Denmark, Turkey, and Australia on the JSF project. An additional US$100 million from the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) over 10 years and another $50 million from Industry Canada were dedicated in 2002 (Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Liberal Party of Canada), making them an early participant of the JSF program.

The Canadian government has only stated an intention to purchase the F-35, no contract will be signed until at least 2013. If Canada were to decide not to proceed with the contract there would be no cancellation fees, although Canadian aerospace contractors might lose future F-35-related contracts as a result.

"The federal government, after making the initial $150 million investment in development of the F-35, has not left Canadian aerospace companies to fend totally for themselves. One company, NGRAIN (Canada) Corp. in Vancouver, has received a $5- million grant from Technology Partnerships Canada to help it develop three dimensional software technologies that can be utilized in the F-35. NGRAIN has already done work for both the Canadian and the American military as well as for CAE, the well known and respected producer of flight simulators.

We thus have a potential boon for the Canadian aerospace industry as well as a possible replacement for the F-18. The competition in the former area will be intense since all nine countries want to see as many contracts as possible come their way. Canada, as the first nation to throw its hat into the ring after Britain, is in an excellent position to benefit even more from this action, especially if our country’s subcontractors are among those chosen when final decisions are made by Washington on the make-up of the mass-produced version of the F-35. The investment of $150 million could well be one of the most telling made by the federal government in our aerospace industry.

Canada is not the only NATO country that has invested in the F-35 project. Turkey, Britain, Denmark, Holland, Italy and Norway are other member nations contributing financially to the development of the aircraft." WINGS Magazine Canada.

Norway urges Canada to buy F-35s

Everyone here at The Tyee loves Norway right?

November 25, 2011

"While expressing concerns about the U.S. government's commitment to the F-35 program, a senior Norwegian official told a parliamentary committee Thursday his government is committed to purchasing the stealth fighters, and he encouraged Canada to follow suit.

"Do I not see problems? Yes, I see a lot of problems," Norwegian Secretary of State for Defence Roger Ingebrigtsen told the Commons defence committee. "But believe me, we are going to procure these F-35s and I really hope that your nation is doing the same."

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Norway%2Burges%2BCanada/5764111/story.html#ixzz1ejQaVyO9

I'm not an Expert

...and I'm not saying that the F35 is the correct aircraft to buy. All I'm doing is making clear the chronology and the facts, in place of rhetoric and opinion.

Academics and commentators from community forums are free to say whatever they like but they are not experts and are only passing chatter. If I am wrong then let's hear technical commentary on the Rafale or the Sukhoi.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Perhaps the reason why Harper and Co. are holding steadfast to the F-35 can be explained by reviewing Harper's government co-dependency on US foreign (empire) policy.

Canada's armed forces (air force) will be ready, able and willing to fly beside its US counterpart in the event of US interests being threatened.

Has Canada, like Australia, with their initial investments into F-35 technology been bargaining for their own aircraft industries to provide some of the parts for the F-35? Is it really the F-35 Canada wants or is it the aircraft industry using our government to procure contracts through taxpayer investments?

The F-35 stealth component will not be the latest and greatest as both the Russians and Chinese are developing stealth technology which corrects some of the vulnerabilities of US stealth technology. Thanks to US recent empire worldwide skirmishes since 1991 , Russia and China have had ample opportunities to study US war strategy and technology.

Creating a stealth-capable fighter jet requires a balance between stealth, manoeuverability and affordability. According to one of the F-35 critics, Carlo Kopp, the F-35 fails at all 3.

US war planes with stealth technology have been shot down. The stealth bomber's weakness is when it opens its bomb doors. The US is aware of this vulnerability and part of its first strike attack strategy is to render radar capacity null and void. (Libya bombing raids). The first bombing runs are at radar facilities.

Some low level advancements in radar technology show promise in detecting current stealth planes.

The 3 great military powers do not use their arsenals on each other but use 'surrogates' to fight their ideological wars. All 3 are among the top 5 arms dealers in the world.

Defending Canadian lives...

Yesterday I was munching my lunch and half taking in CPAC's question period from our House of Commons. I noticed all the MP's with white ribbons on their dresses or suits. Since I was 'half taking' it all in, my thoughts wandered to our spending priorities in defending Canadian lives.
On the one hand, I thought of Montreal Polytechnique and the recent ex RCMP officer's allegation of police casual approach to the missing women investigation in Vancouver,our highway of Tears.
On the other hand I thought of recent info about various levels of our police spying on fellow Canadians before and after the G8/G20 parties, and what that costs; and also our militarism creep and expenditures so that we can get the 'tools' and 'assets,' as militarists like to call them, to help NATO spank 3rd and 4th world people into order so that our job creators can control their resources.
We spend a lot of money to defend the privileges of big shots: - not so much to defend the lives of vulnerable Canadian women.

(Maybe I will write my Conservative MP something like this before I get my own little piece of white ribbon to wear.)

Baaad Choices

It would seem that Harper is a bad man in a bad situation making bad choices on behalf of the bad Military Industrial Complex that good old "Ike" warned us about.

The good and smart choice would be for Canada to invest in Drone technology and research. Drones that can place a 10 liter bottle of water at the feet of a villager dying from thirst, deliver medical supplies to inaccessible disaster zones, safely monitor insurgent American activities in other countries and best of all regain our status as peacekeepers in the world.

Should we spend these multibillions of our taxpayers dollars to help make Harper the new warlord on the world stage? Or should we spend half that much to regain the respected status Canada used to hold as peacekeepers and humanitarians?

Stevie and the Jets

The subs that can't dive ,the jets that can't recognize our own troops,can't refuel etc.But we can't see them ,another "un-reported' crime!

F-35B Joint Strategic Fighter (JSF)

Here is some disturbing facts from US Marine Major Christopher Cannon on the F-35B. This is the vertical landing version of the F-35.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/f%E2%80%9335b-needs-plan-b

Also, Canada was not the only "partner" to sign on to the F-35 program in order to garner business for its military arms manufacturing industry.

From the Business Spectator October 2011 "The Sound of a JSF death rattle"

"...we convinced our defence manufacturing industry to tool up to be major JSF contractors. As a result, a huge chunk of our defence manufacturing support capacity faces a financial disaster. Three companies have already failed. The long-term air defence planning of the US and Australia is now in tatters."

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Joint-Strike-Fighter-Australia-US-defence-costs-ai-pd20111004-MAR7Z?opendocument&src=rss

It also appears that Russia has developed a mobile radar and anti-aircraft system (S-300 and S-400) that has the US and other western allies nervous to say the least. China and Iran are installing this system. Low level aircraft and missiles can be picked off at 22kms and higher flying aircraft and missles at 200kms.

Also in development or already developed are defenses against radar guided missles. You got to love hackers and their abilities.

We now have a new arms build-up by the largest country arms dealers who also happen to sit on the so-called UN Security Council.

"militarism creep"

macsasquatch, I like the term you used, "militarism creep".

Did you notice the arrival of the Grey Cup to Vancouver this week?

The shiny cup arrived on a military helicopter and when it was landed it was paraded through a phalanx of every division of Canada's Armed Forces like a monarch.

Heavily advertised on TV these days are the new phase of computer games that put you right in the middle of "realistic" combat conditions.

Maybe one day computer game developers will come out with a front line military hospital game where the gamer gets to spend 16 hours a day in triage and surgical conditions. You win at this game if you can finish without running down the hallway like Lady MacBeth repeating over and over again, "Out, damned spot, out I say".

The Avro Arrow and the TSR-2

Had similar capabilites to the F-35. Both were cancelled because the U.S. arms machine sold their product as being superior. The Americans have always had knack for selling their aircraft to the rest of the world and it sucks.

The truth is that we need more schools that are earthquake-proof, better hospitals and roads instead of the latest piece of killer-craft. We are not living in a video game and the old model fighter jets are more than we need to keep the peace.

If you want to see the impotence of military weapons, look no further than the nuclear bomb. Canadians should have handed Stephen Harper his arse on a platter. Instead we voted him in with a majority. We are living in a dream.

Who is the enemy, and where are they? The Afghans have killed and injured thousands of Allied troops with IED's that cost a few hundred dollars. No fighter aircraft can destroy them.

Canadians have no enemies abroad, other than those we created in AfCananda over the last ten years.

You haven't convinced me we

You haven't convinced me we even NEED any more planes...or for that matter the miltary, or more cops, guns, jails, courts...whatever...

How about a tax break instead?

pure insanity

That is what buying any jet fighters is. About all we will need the military for in the future will be to provide help for the increasing number of climate change disasters. Harper is cutting funding for environment, culture, education, infrastructure repair and health; while planning to buy jets, build more prisons and continue to try and repair the useless submarines! Our wonderful country is headed for the ditch under Harper.

Norwegian gov't as dumb as Canadian gov't

Like the Harperites the Norwegians are determined to buy this over-priced lemon.

The Americans plan on spending a third of a trillion dollars on these planes which they don't have.

What they don't realize, is that the age of militarism is over. No Western gov't especially the US can afford to spend billions on weapons that were meant for the Cold War-Bad habits die hard.

The military industrial complex is going to have to be retooled to make solar panels and wind mills to deal with our imminent energy crisis.

Just another transfer of wealth

Our governments both Liberal and Conservative have sold out entirely to the U.S. military industrial complex that former president Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about. In fact, all the discussion about suitability of the plane is irrelevant and the wealth transfer will occur even if the plane doesn't fly. The British subs are a prime example of that style of fraud and theft. The fact is we have no NEED for these planes in the first place. What we are seeing is ongoing theft of the wealth of the citizens of this country to further engorge the .0001% and escalating warmongering from our fascist state. Oh Canada!

OCCUPY THRE BALLOT BOX

We must end this "Kleptocracy" created by majority governments. Lets regain democracy, turf the "Harper Government" and occupy parliament. Should we want to warmonger we should fight the 1% that are driving us back to being serfs. Lets occupy the halls of the elete who are stealing our wealth.

The right plane? the right armed forces?

"New factors mean cost may skyrocket. Is this even the right plane for the job?"

It depends on from where and how see the future potential "military" threats to this country. If you think the role of this country is that of a lapdog/bootlick for the US Empire, militarily serving its global Empire ambition, taking on its enemies as our own, then you want an F-35 type aircraft as the centrepiece of your "ground assist" airforce. this, along with "heavy lift" aircraft to ferry heavy armour etc and masses of troops to far off imperial war lands.

On the other hand, if the focus of the nation were to become defence of its own resources and lands against foreign interference and invasion, because the country has adopted an "independent/self-sufficient" development focus, then you see a different military requirement. You see a force dominated by primarily "light infantry" ground forces, suited to harass in hit and run strikes against a superior "in place" invasion forces, say coming from the US, as an example, seeing this policy as a threat to its own resource supply. In addition to light infantry/guerrilla equipped and trained forces, familiar with and suited to fight in multiple Canadian landscapes, you want a more versatile light and fast support and troop ferrying capacity force, needing short space land and take off from "groomed" natural terrains. (Helicopters, harrier type aircraft etc.Perhaps some other jet type fighter aircraft.) And off-shore, you want submarines and fast moving light surface craft that again, can harass and attack hit and run, invasion fleets, their support and supply vessels.

AND, you want an officer corp. weaned of its sympathies and loyalties to such a potential invader, and compelled to focus on the national strategic interest.

As it is, we are a lapdog serving state for the US Empire, and want a military suitable to that predominantly foreign interest, even dependant on their equipment, rather than fully developing our own military hardware and armaments capacity, to which we have the "parts and supplies" patents and ability to make and supply ourselves.

So there are really two perspectives on this issue... one being the US Empire serving one, and one built and developed around a more purely "independent national interest".

realisticman, does it really matter

...whether it is/was a Liberal initiation for procurement and a Conservative acquisition, or if it is/was the other way around? Absolutely not. This is where we are headed and, in Canadian political terms, invariably.

This is what happens when we do not live in a democracy, nor even a semi-functioning republic. There is no real choice at the polls because the Party machine of government has been captured by wealth. The Parties all line up on the capitalist side (only leaning left or right within that contextual distortion itself), with warring as an economic policy while steered by the Military-Industrial-Media complex.

Making the issue 'Party'-oriented is simple distraction. See how well its working? We get poorer and poorer, and closer and closer to a systemic collapse on a few different fronts, while those governing us and their criminal cohorts of capitalism are making off like thieves -- but that's just because they are thieves.

Rantnic

Right on. Now that's real politics of the highest order... occupy the institutions of government. Get on the Occupy Vancouver website right now and advocate for this. Turf the buggers out. :-)

On second thoughts...

... maybe we will need a new jet fighter to kill all those enemies we are creating with our energy policies. Stephen Harper may need to kill people for fun, just to prove he can. After all, power does not exist unless it is being exerted, does it?

Harper must want that job at the U.N. real bad. Even if it means creating enemies a la George W. Bush.

igbymac

quote:
"Making the issue 'Party'-oriented is simple distraction. ..."

Maybe. At least let's have some perspective on the chronology of this.

We must serve our masters

The military-industrial complex won't be denied on this one folks. It is our duty to buy their weapons.
Didn't former ambassador Paul Celluci say his only goal was to get Canada to buy US weaponry?
Heads down people, the 8th Al Qaeda Airforce has penetrated our airspace!! Scramble the fighters!

Radical Strategy

Let's just abolish our air force - that will really get the generals to have a class-1 stroke.

F 35

Forget the planes. The next war will be within our boarders. The people will rise up against our own government if they don't pay attention to it's own people.

F35 Folly

Will someone please answer the question: "What military threat to Canadian sovereignty can 65 F35s counter?".

Can anyone keep a straight face and say that Canada or, for that matter, North America is likely to come under attack by a massive wave of bombers - therefore we need F35s . I don't think so. Sounds to much like 1960 Cold war thinking. The world has evolved way past that!

Why would we, in support of Nato, be buying an aircraft capable of attacking third world nations. That makes no sense!

There is no credible threat that could be countered by our few F35s. Rather, we need to counter the economic threat to our Arctic, protect our coastal fisheries, deal with internal unrest, root out terrorist cells, and, most importantly, we need to keep our country financially viable!

Scrap this program before it cripples our fiscal ability to meet legitimate military needs.

We must buy the war planes

Should we not buy those war planes there will be great profits lost. As we all know, under our Kleptocratic system of majority rules, profits must be made. So lets all support, not our government, but the "Harper Government" so that profits may go where Lord Harper has decreed.

F-35

This plane is all about pork. Not only can it not communicate with ground troops, has a short range, rotten specs on several levels but, at this point, it doesn't even have an engine that works.
Perhaps we could build catapults and toss them at the opposition that isn't there to begin with...pilotless of course...the pilots are intelligent people.
The V-22 is another overpriced smart, passenger-carrying bomb that the US insists on keeping in the arsenal despite many crashes and failed missions.

We used to be peacekeepers but now we are sending some of our best and brightest people into wars based on lies, bad intelligence (if you can call it that) and maybe keeping up with the Jonses(?).
God only knows and God ain't talking...to any sane people anyway.
If Harper or any others who agree with this madness want war so badly, give them axes and send them to Somalia or somewhere equally nuts. Show us how it's done.
This is a lousy plane, strategically, financially and the next possible opposition has several planes that can beat it.
Please stop now while we've only flushed a couple of billion (not sure about that) down that toilet.

This F 35 business is really

This F 35 business is really turning into a joke. I am starting to wonder if these jets could be the downfall of Harper? It is going to be a bigger circus than Mulroney/Shrieber or the Fast ferries...and a way larger waste of money. it is a waste of money as the costs seem to go up 'daily' and no engines to boot plus only a single engine.....

Canada should start looking for others. I would go with those Russian Sukhoi T-50 or the Sukhoi Su-34 Fullback if we really have to get new jets. Why do we have to get what the US is getting?

Igbymac said....

“This is what happens when we do not live in a democracy, nor even a semi-functioning republic. There is no real choice at the polls because the Party machine of government has been captured by wealth. ...
"We get poorer and poorer, and closer and closer to a systemic collapse on a few different fronts, while those governing us and their criminal cohorts of capitalism are making off like thieves -- but that's just because they are thieves.”

I think we all know what has to be done. And it is not going to be done by the naive, less than 50%, voters who continue to believe that their welfare is going to be bettered by the people they send to Parliament. It is not going to be done by suggesting this and suggesting that. We are coming closer and closer to Armageddon. I think the solution is obvious.

The F-35's are already out of date

The US Air Force is responsible for 56% of R&D in Drone technology and will be spending $4 billion a year for the next 10 years on drones. Former US Secretary of Defense said:

"Two years ago, Mr Gates conceded that the F-35 would probably be the last manned strike fighter. It may take longer than the visionaries think, but the pilot in the cockpit is already an endangered species".

On the domestic front, drones are providing an option never before available for a price that can't be beat

OOMG

Only 55 million for the cheaper plane?
IDIOTS!
How much for a plane that actually works?
I'm imagining I could build a decent aircraft for the lower bid and probably get the enthusiasts to Mars for the higher.
Who are these people?

Ludicrous, insane or obscene; you choose

Mr. Mckay, Mr. Harper and others have echoed that the F35 would serve Canada's needs. But they never went on to outline those needs, let alone provide details.

Why do we need attack fighters? Sub question, why do we need stealth capability attack fighters?

Canadian sovereignty and defence, hardly. Russia, China, U.S.A, Denmark. Technology to see troops or illegal immigrants hiding somewhere in the boreal forest?

rantnic, aerosondes were only coming into their own as governments were still fixated on manned, F35 style planes.

But rapid advances in remote controlled drone technology (much like iPhones and pad tech has taken over a lot of desktops), these will surely outperform F35s before the first of those roles out on the tarmac.

Any plane stationed in the Arctic, especially the F35s, require "unmentioned", extra costs for refueling and maintenace runway installations, especially in that difficult northern environment.

Counter the Blackhawks now on the U.S. Canada border? :-)

Replace the F18s for a fly by, recently demonstrated over Ottawa? Super Hornets would fulfill that role, among others, for much less effort and financing.

Dreams of leading NATO style attacks on nations like Lybia. Grandiose fantasies, but..., looks good to much of the Con. support base, part of that "tough on crime" mentality.

The FRAME is poorly thought out, but even if considered acceptable, the non specialized, F35 selection is among the worst possible. What a waste of badly needed funds.

Then again, no money, easier to arrange more P3s, especially for the upcoming, short changed, Health Care transfer agreements.

Our need to resurrect Outlawing War

Has everyone gone completely mad?

Do most still believe the continual lies and accept the ongoing cruelty administered down from above?

Is there absolutely nothing worth fighting for more important than our financial situation?

Has life itself become that barren in meaning to us all?

If not, then why do we act like it??

There’s no better cure for helplessness, hopelessness, and defeatism than struggle. And I don’t mean typical work in Washington’s nonprofit industrial complex. I mean passionate all-out devotion to a moral cause that is going to change the world. ...

the Peace Pact would not place on the United States any obligation to go to war against another nation that violated the pact, or any obligation to join an international alliance to “keep the peace” through the use of war. The League of Nations was voted down in the Senate and the Kellogg-Briand Pact up, not purely out of irrational “isolationism,” but also because the idea of making alliances of war did not seem a wise way to eliminate war. In fact, it looked to many people in the United States all too similar to how World War I had begun. We now have further examples, of course, of the United Nations and NATO launching wars. ...

just as liberty requires eternal vigilance, the enforcement of any law, especially against those with power, requires eternal vigilance. We have a sad history of not domestically criminalizing the violation of international treaties, and not prosecuting powerful people for crimes. What’s needed is cultural pressure.

One cause, one sane and morally unbeatable position for the world to take, for all of humanity to pursue, would change everything: Outlaw War.

Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928 Story

Wealth is the temporary

Wealth is the temporary control of energy.

Wealth can not be created only taken.

The purpose of all crimes, violence and wars has always been energy theft from others, often using and wasting more energy than what's gained.

People killed in traffic accidents are victims, but victims killed by landmines and other accidents are called "heroes fighting for our freedoms".

A medal hungry lieutenant ordered about 100 of us of the rearguard into an attack against an advancing army. We were encircled and by the time we broke out, there were only 30 of us left. We found our sister heavy machinegun squad in the forest, lying by the roadside with their throats cut. Their families never found out what happened to them, only that they've died as heroes.

As long the world is willing to put up with the crap sold to them by politicians and the military, there's no hope, but to waste more and more energy, people and resources on stupid toys to kill each other for sweet bugger all.

Ed Deak.

Sorry Ed

We must, as good little Canadians obey our war lord Harper in all things, as we did, after all give him a mandate to overcome democracy with his majority government. He was also the one, if I remember right, that let us all know that coalition governments are a bad thing. Coalitions are after all too close to being democratic and may represent the people, instead of those who count.

Outlawing War and Homeland Defense...

Fundamentally, I agree with igbymac's proposal to resurrect the old idea and push for the outlawing of all war, and the total disartmament of all States, including the United States. :-) This latter which thinks it has a special place and special "right" and exemption from war crimes in the world. (And thus far it does indeed.)

So igby is absolutely correct. But until we can practicfally and realistically get there, it is purely the defense of our own homeland territory that we should be concerned with... from outside interventions directly onto. Our northern territory for example, to which a number of others, but especially the US have raised questions and challenges and claimed "special right". (Some rwingers carry that concept overland to far off poverty stricken and long time war torn states, thousands of miles away.)

The F-35, for exampleis is not a "defensive" weapon system platform by design, but one designed primarily for "supporting" aggressive massed invasion forces... such as those bootlicking, serving and dying for the US Empire.

And a purely "defensive" military in our context, most likely to be up against a bigger and more powerful, and better equipped invasion force, needs a quite different set of weapon systems, types of troops, and land based strategy and tactics... certainly from those that we have. It needs an emphasis on "partisan/ guerrilla" methodologies of wearing down, rather than directly confromting an enemy of superior numbers with inferior ones. We are too small a country in population, over too vast an area, and the army we can practically put into the field, up against what "might" be coming at us, say from the US. We are in no position to butt heads. We need to be smarter.

I suggest a political policy blend of igbymac's and a military focus on strictly homeland defense.

@granville

Harper going for the head of the UN reminds me of a story reported in the MSM a bunch of years ago.

The way I remember it,in my opinion, Mulroney, it was said, agreed to take the Chinese when Hong Kong went ''communist'' in 1987.

In return Raygun and Thatcher would nominate Mulroney for the head of the UN.

As it was the third world's turn to get head of the UN, Mulroney lost to Boutros-Ghali in 1992.

But what is the job anyway?

Should we not have a national discussion about what we want from our military. Or whether we should be part of NATO. Or whether we should be invading other countries.

Hi Lawrence: Mulroney lost out, and I hope Harper does too.

If Harper fell into the Rideau Canal and drowned, that would be a tragedy. If someone were to rescue him, that would be a disaster.

We need a strong leader in this country but not Harper, Baird and Kent. We should send them to AfCanada to teach the AfCans how to disarm IED's.

why manned jets

As far as I understand manned fighter jets are all being replaced by unmanned drones. There is a company in the lowmainland that actually has contracts with US companies and elsewhere to build both maanned and drones, all manned craft will no longer be built, thats the trend. (im saying way too much already. contracted to Boeing ...)
If the US is phasing them out, why are we going down this path, and buying these dinasaurs?

Uninformed, devious or obscene, you choose

Mr. McKay, Mr. Harper and others have echoed that the F35 meets Canada's needs, but never outlined those needs, let alone provided any details about such.

The 1st. question must be "Why do we need attack fighter jets?" with the sub topic, "Why do we need stealth equipped, attack fighters?"

The answer "To protect Canadian sovereignty" is off the table. Against Russia, China, U.S.A., Denmark?

As an arm of the U.S. military? What sovereignty?

Arctic patrols would require the building and upkeep of expensive, isolated runways to refuel and maintain these jets, costs beyond purchasing, not mentioned in the budget to date.

To detect enemy troops or illegal immigrants wandering around the Boreal forest or tundra, as the permafrost melts? Probably need more rescue craft.

As a counter to U.S. Blackhawks along our border? :-)

For patriotic ceremonies, such as the recent Ottawa "end of Lybia mission" recent example. If so, the Super Hornet would do a better job for this and other tasks than the F35.

DPL, our govt. stated that they are not interested in the VTL engines that the U.S. seems to be having problems with, due to increased costs. But they'll probably get dragged in with the issue of scale.

rantnic, you are absolutely correct. Aerosonde technology was in its infancy while governments were hypnotized into Cold War, manned aircraft, but, like phone and pad technology that has surpassed desktop advances, so has 'Drone technology". These will be in more common use long before the first F35 hits the tarmac.

As the U.S. pulls back on military expenses, mostly for cost reasons, Canada somehow has lots of cash to throw around on expensive, unproven and soon dated technology.

Taking the lead in future NATO type missions, such as Lybia? Some grandiose and expensive dream. Burma, Congo or Zimbabwe? No oil to speak of.

Satisfy the "tough on crime" types in the Conservative base? Rather expensive show off.

But we won't need that cash as we approach the Health Care transfers, since P3s will supply the funds and our taxes will go to these much more important military expenditures.

Harper Is Not A Leader

Harper is an exploiter of a political system barely reasonable in theory, and rotted to the core in reality. Does anyone dare suggest that a handful or two of bright, well-informed people could not come up with something markedly more democratic than ours in a day or two?

The fact that a man of Harper's low quality can get himself elected PM in the first place is comprehensive proof that our political machine, or our society at large, is dis-functional. Yes, every form of representation has its flaws,but one which allows a small group of people to run the nation over a cliff on a joy-ride certainly needed to have a fool-proof governor installed before being put on the road.

This brings us back to an article by Rafe Mair recently, one regarding Trudeau allegedly forcing the Constitution-Charter on Canada as he saw fit. Assuming this to be true, how is this occurrence of events even possible in a functioning democracy? The answer is, it isn't. Likewise, this is comprehensive proof we are not a democracy.

We occupy a state where a form of representation can be, and is, bought and sold. This also explains Harper: a capitalist apparatchik. By definition not a leader, but a toady. A man who leaves his thinking and his humanity to others.

Storm the Bastille!

Too many questions unanswered

Mr. McKay, Mr. Harper and others have echoed that the F35 meets Canada's needs, but never outlined those needs, let alone provided any details about such.

The 1st. question must be "Why do we need attack fighter jets?" with the sub topic, "Why do we need stealth equipped, attack fighters?"

The answer "To protect Canadian sovereignty" is off the table. Against Russia, China, U.S.A., Denmark?

As an arm of the U.S. military? What sovereignty?

Arctic patrols would require the building and upkeep of expensive, isolated runways to refuel and maintain these jets, costs beyond purchasing, not mentioned in the budget to date.

To detect enemy troops or illegal immigrants wandering around the Boreal forest or tundra, as the permafrost melts? Probably need more rescue craft.

As a counter to U.S. Blackhawks along our border? :-)

Sure our Conservative

Sure our Conservative government say they don't want the VTL F35's. I mentioned them only to show that too much automation can bite the folks riding along. One hopes that most readers understand that the computer does most of the flying and if they fail, it's time to leave.
Computers reduced the number of aircrew, but are they better? Ask the guys who ran out of gas half way across the Atlantic, when the computer started moving fuel to the lighter wing, which was lighter because it has a massive fuel leak.
A few years ago the F22 was going to be the end all of all fighters, went massively over budget but some got built anyway. A senator with some aviation company in their district votes for anything the company builds, or loses support when elections roll around. Spend the money on social issues and keep the F18's for a longer time.

DPL

You speak of the Air Transit A330. The pilots moved the fuel, not the computers.

At 05:36 UTC, the pilots received a warning of fuel imbalance. Believing at this point that they didn't have a fuel leak, they followed a standard procedure to remedy the imbalance by transferring fuel from the port to the near-empty starboard tank.

R/M old man....

From article:

Are you saying the Harper government is lying!!??
http://www.rickmercer.com/Rick-s-Rant/Blog/January-2010/Politicians-Are-Not-the-Kind-of-Tools-Our-Soldiers.aspx

I will go on record......

....as betting a loonie that the Harper government has no real intention of either buying these fighters, or building ships.

Does anyone remember that this government is spending some $90,000 a day to get advice on how to manage the economy - and aside from some phantom planes and ships, about the only announcement coming from the lips of Flaherty is that the promise of balancing the budget by 2014 will have to be broken?

Rickie

No. Are you?

Well, Jerry, there are no baby-steps to sanity

No warfare means no warfare ever. Defensive warfare is a misnomer.

The world tried to rationalize defensive war. Nuremberg allows a nation to defend. It had to, knowing all nations involved in WWII were war criminals under the existing International Pact,

As for Nuremberg's effectiveness by opening the legal defensive loophole, we see the USA in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Pakistan defending itself. I need not say more. The outcome speaks for itself.

Simply put, the world must return to Kellogg-Briand, or it will remain a planet of barbarism, run amok by lunatics and thieves.

Suggesting that

until we can practicfally and realistically get there, it is purely the defense of our own homeland territory that we should be concerned with,

I remain unconvinced.

There is no defense of our homeland, only the illusion of defense. An amateur does not defend himself against the heavy-weight champion of the world. We cannot match the military might of America or Russia, or even Pakistan or North Korea for that matter, as we do not have the Bomb. That is ultimately the only defense any nation has, if a real fight broke out. Nuclear warfare, is that what we want from all this?

If not nuclear, then what? Canada remains with at least three other options: peace, cooperate in the insanity, or engage the enemy.

Going backwards, if attacked Canada could try to engage the enemy like Vietnam, Cambodia or Afghanistan have been forced to do while the world watched. Engage the enemy in a long, drawn-out war, killing enough attackers along the way, while always understanding that the warrior will tire and lose its lust for blood (as all warriors do). Is this the option Canadians prefer played out?

Or Canada can cooperate with the Empire, as it always has, fueled on by exploitive capitalism and the religious-based insanity of exceptionalism. One only need look down the barrel of the gun to see where this is taking us -- global economic collapse, a global security state, ecological destruction, and perpetual war.

(continued below)

(continued from above)

In the interim, us 'we mean well' Canadians hide behind our silk flag, audaciously calling ourselves Peace-keepers, while we continue to commit atrocities and war crimes against millions of innocents. But at least we have our safety, right? I say, don't be so sure. Our time to gravely suffer at the hands of all this madness is coming, one way or another.

Or thirdly, Canada can choose peace. It can surrender, and in the process succeed, by reclaiming its sovereignty. Let's first consider our situation.

Our country is in a rather unique position geopolitically. We share a united land base with the Empire, we have a close similarity in culture, and we are its largest economic trading partner. Accordingly, we do have options.

Recall how Obama had a chance to redefine the world upon taking office? He had the world's heart behind him, yet he failed miserably. He is now acknowledged by many as a sham, a traitor to the people. Like Obama, perhaps Canada has a similar opportunity itself to lead the world to a better place.

Canada could publicly decry its new 'no war' position and walk away, dismantling its military immediately. It could invite the world to join. If an enemy invaded and looted the joint, well, this world isn't going to be worth a damn anyhow.

But if the rest of the world followed Canada's confident, sane and righteous lead, we all would be making historic progress for the better. We might just single-handedly push the world through the tipping point and help redefine humanity. Must we continue on deceiving ourselves, and in the process, being a traitor to all?

R/M old man....

Yes.

igbymac

As long as material resources are allowed to be owned by individuals, there will be wars and rumours of wars:
http://www.countdown.org/armageddon/war.htm

Iggy and War...

This is one of those issues, "right of defense", however more accurate a definition is needed of it, and I agree, that we will have to disagree on.

I am not a pacifist. Which does not mean that I fail to see the irrationality of war. It is but recognition of an ongoing regrettable reality, in my view.

All that said, I do think a place has to be arrived at, through collective agreement between peoples, outlawing warfare and mutual disarmament. More, I don't think this is in the least impractical... but where in time, I don't know. Just highly unlikely this side of endless growth, highly competitive capitalism... of that I am a tad more certain. But ehhh, even there I would love to be proven wrong.

My experience with life simply is, that the meek do not inherit the earth, but get used as doormats by everyone else.

Wars are not fought between

Wars are not fought between peoples and countries, but between rulers, priesthoods and governments.

People can get along with each other very nicely as they do the minute the armistice or peace is signed.

The purpose of all wars is energy control.

Ed Deak.

Jerry, I am thinking

You ethically support the end of war, but you will perpetuate the myth of war as unavoidable by preparing for it all the same. Correct?

Isn't that like saying you believe in abstinence but you're packing a condom just in case? There doesn't seem, from my perspective, to be much conviction in either example. ;)

We are not talking about the rain invariably coming and having an umbrella handy. War is a choice, a horrific behavioral one, and a wholly avoidable one IF we behave intelligently. We disagree on little politically, but war is the keystone issue which needs a permanent resolution.

As Fiat lux rightfully says, there are very few driving the very, very many along into war. First they drive our thinking, then our bodies. And in our times, the drivers are all elected by the people. Or has Nike or BP declared war and I've been asleep at the switch?

We are what we allow ourselves to be. And what we are influences what others may become. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a vote for a war apologist, or a war-monger like Harper, will help bring war to a permanent end and the state-sanctioned abuses of capitalism to its knees.

The connection between the two is just too obvious to ignore.

War is the elephant in the room we'd all rather not seriously address.

Igbymac

For the first time in decades there are no Canadian troops involved in any warlike actions. The first time in many years. Yet you describe the Prime Minister as a warmonger. Your description is the absolute opposite of what has actually happened under the 5 years of the present Prime Minister.

You may have disagreement with the Conservatives in how best to avoid armed conflict, as it seems you also have with Jerry here. The use of inflammatory and sensational language is melodrama.

The elephant is not, at this time, even in the room.

It just might be a slight calm before the storm continues

Harper is too much of a power junkie to stay out of the planned attacks on Syria and Iran
We are no longer just "holding the bully's coat". Does anyone really doubt that WW3 is coming?

R/M old man....

Please define "warlike actions". 1,000 troops training an army and police certainly DOES constitute "warlike actions"......

Ethics?

There is absolutely no such thing as an ethical war. As a Canadian I would like to think that my country is one that is moral, just, ethical and a country to be proud of. Unfortunately all of that goes down the tube once you give a megalomaniac like Harper with a majority control over our country.

Should we wish to protect Canada's sovereignty we must protect from within and turf Harper, the only way we can do that is to occupy the ballot box. Lets get this "Occupy " movement working for us.

Harper has used the media to drive home his mantra that coalition government is bad. He is right in only in that it is too much like democracy for the powers that really run this country. Too bad for them.

Canada may not be openly

Canada may not be openly involved in a war at this time, but preparing for it and supporting the warmongers.

Our capitalists are taking huge investments, resources, factories, millions of jobs to and reimporting the products of their brother communist slave labour bosses in China.

At the same time we have the B52s over our heads several times a day, practicing to kill millions, most likely in China, and there are war preparations going on against the same gang they're feeding with our resources and wealth.

Now Harper wants to make another "free trade" racket with India, which is the same as declaring war against his own people in Canada, already ruined by the NAFTA and the rest of these criminal actions, destroying the economy and democratic decision making powers .

Which is the purpose of all wars. At least Hitler was honest about it, when he declared that he wanted "Lebensraum", "Room to live", now fulfilled with the free movement of capital, used as weapons to cause indebtedness, colonization and slavery.

The new form of "Lebenesraum"

Ed Deak.

Fact Is

This year and for the first time in 70 years not any branch of the Canadian Armed Forces is on duty in a conflict.

This occurred during Stephen Harper's term as Prime Minister.

Ironically, he only talk around regarding warmongering seems to come from a few Canadians who seem to calling for an uprising to overthrow the democratically elected government.

Here, kick the crap out of me....

Looks like rain. Think I'll take my umbrella with me. :-) And maybe a condom... a fella never knows... even at my age hope springs eternal. :-)

I think everyone here opposed to war is correct... except RM, who reeks the bullshit of the system. But, in the absence of us all being collectively agreed, I'll reserve my right to defendf myself. Which is a shit, I know, and a bit of a perpetuation of the myth. Still... what the fuck do ya do? Announce to the bullies of the world, who would love you to lay down and cover your head while they kick the crap out of you, that they are free to have an unopposed go at you and steal your "stuff"?

It's just not in my nature.

That "democratically elected

That "democratically elected government" represents a bit over 1/3 of the people who bothered to vote, claiming a "majority" and "Canada now is a conservative country".

In a democracy people have the right to overthrow democratically elected governments by voting them out, or forcing the leaders out, the way Campbell was, by public opinion.

Mr. Harper is a megalomaniac mental case, who will go most likely go wild next year and the sooner he starts collecting his corporate directorships, the better.

Ed Deak.

In The Interests of National Defence

Canada must be willing and able to defend itself against all threats. Right now the biggest threat to our sovereignty is the loss of our economic independence. We are already at war, war with those who would take over our economy for the concentration of their own wealth. Occupy the ballot box for democracy.

I'll reserve the right...

...to not kick the crap out of you Jerry.

We all loathe war. Nevertheless, it's good to see you being realistic, man.

War is the ultimate economic

War is the ultimate economic competition, therefore all good "conservatives" must love war to "win" and knock the other guy down, or be kicked out of the Reform/CRAPP/ Conservative Party.

I grew up and was educated as an arch conservative fascist and that was all we were brainwashed with.

Luckily, some of us have the courage to wake up and become human beings.

Ed Deak.

America isn't at war with anyone either, relaisticman

Believe what you want; I'll believe what I know.

Canada is in NATO and thus complicit with its actions.

Often quietly to the publics awareness, Canadian soldiers are exchanged with NATO's other participating nations soldiers in certain military operations: on the ground, in the air or in command.

Canada is the 6th largest producer of military-destined equipment on the planet, despite being only 0.005% of its population.

Canada has never been invaded by foreign forces, yet every war since WWII has had the rhetoric 'defensive' attached simply to feign technical compliance with Nuremberg.

The most persistent form of our warring involvement is through our capitalist ideology, where war is an accepted economic policy.

Clearly my argument is not Party-oriented; Harper just happens to be a bigger proponent of the affirmative-action promoting war than most PMs.

personal thoughts of analysis from above

In school and the media, we are taught about our world and nation on the premise that politics is legitimate. We build on that assumption, analyzing the changes over the years. Eventually, here we are:

We believe we live in a democracy where the government works with Canadians in mind, and those elected are our chosen people for this public service. But does the reality align with the theory?

To me, when I examine theory and fact, when I try to make sense of what I hear with what I see, they seem at odds with one another. I wonder, what's wrong?

So simple logic suggests it may be useful to re-examine the basic premises of our thinking, namely political legitimacy. If politics is not legitimate, as our currently taught theory suggest, what is it? It appears upon my analysis that politics, in contemporary times, is simply a propaganda campaign.

This propaganda campaign is used primarily to persuade the people to accept state abuses of its power. The people in office are the most faithful, the hardest hit and most ardent believers (I call them victims), of the campaigns prior.

And like many deeply religious faithful, the deeply political faithful feel a calling to the priesthood. They take on the taught message and, rarely straying from its piety, proselytize it to the people and the following generation.

In their quest to become admirable servants of the faith, the priests and priestesses lecture us from their campaign trail. They tell us that their political piety is true, that their sect is best, and that they deserve to be seen as the Right Honourable, Yes, they claim, they are acting in the interests of all.

What makes them so convincing is that they truly believe their views. They believe in their hearts that everything is on the up and up - despite the dissonance, despite the facts pointing elsewhere.

Their followers, the political congregation, taught similarly, typically believe the message (more or less). Together they perpetuate the fables of yesteryear.

Now doesn't this framework of understanding make sense of the facts and the world around is significantly better than the one we are led to believe?

Wars and countries invaded by

Wars and countries invaded by "conservative", "democratic" USA since 1890.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

The Right to Defend in not Exclusive of Outlawing War

QUOTE:

"The deck is stacked against us today, and we know it. Outlawrists in the 1920s didn’t imagine they'd live to see success, but they did believe success would likely come in a future generation, step by step. They believed that outlawing blood feuds and dueling and slavery pointed the way toward outlawing war. They believed in cultural progress, even if it came slowly. So, they happily worked for what they believed to be a just cause, for what William James called “the moral equivalent of war,” and they seemed in my reading to go through fewer cycles of optimism and pessimism than do most activists today. They seemed to exhibit, in fact, less interest in what their cause could do for them than in what they could do for the cause. ...

The big looming question for people today is, of course, “What about self-defense?” Levinson’s response was to point to the example of dueling. No nation had banned only “aggressive dueling” and yet people could still defend themselves. They did so without making use of “defensive dueling.” It takes two to tango, to duel, or—and this is the difficult one to grasp—to make war. Nazi Germany did not attack the United States before the United States put its economic muscle into a war against Germany, and indeed its assistance into attacking German submarines. Japan attacked a U.S. territory stolen from the people of Hawaii, but only after long and deliberate provocation, including U.S. support for and participation in war against Japan on behalf of China, as detailed in my earlier book War Is A Lie.

More than self-defense, the big concern in 1928-1929 was to make clear—as Kellogg and the Senate made very clear—that the Peace Pact would not place on the United States any obligation to go to war against another nation that violated the pact, or any obligation to join an international alliance to “keep the peace” through the use of war. The League of Nations was voted down in the Senate and the Kellogg-Briand Pact up, not purely out of irrational “isolationism,” but also because the idea of making alliances of war did not seem a wise way to eliminate war. In fact, it looked to many people in the United States all too similar to how World War I had begun. We now have further examples, of course, of the United Nations and NATO launching wars" (emphasis added)

LINK

I understand it is in your nature, Jerry. It is in all our nature to varying degrees. So what are we going to do about it? :)

What are we going to do?....

First, an excellent post immediately above me, igby. And an appropriate but extremely difficult question posed.

But as to what we are going to do, I am less certain... at least how it all unfolds. One pretty much, it seems to me, still has to pretty much play it by ear. :-) But what has been clear to me most of my adult life is, actually a lot of stuff Ed Deak says, which keeps surprising me. :-) (And Ed and I have our differences.)

First, most wars occur at "a ruling class initiation", by and large. Though the issues that give them that opportunity/excuse appear as "Lebensraum" kind of reasons, they are driven by and large by population growth, an overly aggressive economic system focused on "wealth creation and acquisition", which leads to resource and space depletion over time, which leads to coveting they neighbours "stuff"... which leads to war. It's this cycle of development events which has to "interrupted" at a critical point it seems to me, and the precise pressure point seems to be getting a handle on population growth, coupled with the creation of a socio-economic regime designed to 1. meet peoples "reasonable" material and cultural needs, 2. discourage inequality, which is the source of internal class conflict and pressures, and 3. maintain a "stable" and long term "sustainable" relationship with Nature, as the underpinning of it all. Which points all scream "economic democracy" to me.

continued next post...

What Are We Going to Do> II

From previous post...

All of which is easier said than to do, for sure. In the current world, before we get there, it appears there are going to be some serious, famine driven die-offs. Already happening. Many countries like the United States and those of Europe (We still seem not yet too overly developed, but it is changing fast to the negative.), China, Japan, and others, are all going to have to scale back their expectations I think, seriously tackles the huge chasm between rich and the average/poor, and learn to live more within their own means (which time and over aggressive development has depleted a great deal). And why they exhibit such "imperialist" behaviours. Indeed, we are all going to have to learn to live more self_sufficiently within our own means, much means reduced populations again, which I consider pivotal everywhere. (Which means, I'm afraid, there is going to have to be less tolerance toward such religions, as the population growth encouraging Roman Catholic Church.)

All of which seems aggering, I know. And there is no guarantee that we will get there. Almost certainly not all of us. The aggressiveness of the US is a huge problem, and another world war with staggering consequences cannot be ruled out. Pretty much, it is up the people of the US themselves.

But naiveté will not get us there either. And pretty much, we are all the victims of circumstance, with the prerequisite issue of there needing to be an opportunity created to really doing anything about it, at least decisively. Which is pretty much out of our hands. I'm afraid.

The "implosion" of global capitalism in upon itself, forcing masses off their asses, seems that prerequisite event that must happen, it seems to me. Without that, I don't see any real driver to change, short of war.

Un realistic

be realistic and google

WHERE ARE CANADIAN FORCES DEPLOYED.

quite a few places actually.

Maybe you are right, Jerry...

Maybe we have to put the dog down.

But it is hard to envision something else growing forth when there has not been a communal epiphany about why things have got so wrong. Until then, the old dogma will remain, and with its 'might is right' backing we will be back. That has been our history.

And Fiat lux makes, and vigilantly reiterates, some fundamental problems we face which are not commonly heard. Relative truths that need to be addressed.

I believe I have a fairly broad background in a number of interwoven areas of study effecting politics. But my passion lies with the developing mind, our thinking and propaganda. So when Fiat lux mentions the university's economic teachings are a root problem, I investigated further. I find sometime between my days in university, what was once theorizing is now disseminated as full-blown science.

Fiat lux is absolutely correct. Our publicly-funded institutions of higher learning are indoctrinating disciples of economic conservatism. Upon graduation, both the political machine and corporate business recruit 'the best and the brightest' into public or private offices of influence.

It's all too insane. The best I can say about things is that it's a very dark comedy. As such, my personal focus is not on the politics, per se,but on our thinking about what is going on around us.

The real war we face is winning back the hearts and minds of the common person.

Cheers, comrade.

Lawrence

and not one a combat role.

f35

All that the current military establishment does to defend our sovereignty is futile. We should immediately instruct our instructors in afghanistan to instruct the Afghani "irregulars" to get over here and instruct us how to deter any invader. That would solve the defense of Canada problem.
Then get out of NATO, the military wing of Western Corporate Hegemon International Inc., and spend a the pile of money saved on fireworks, marching bands, dog parks, and a general beautification of the pug ugly built environment of this middling good land. Many will say this is fanciful. Many will be wrong.
As a side note, has anybody else noted that those who are so, ahem,...turgid...about the military tend to look a bit doughy? Unacquainted with physical hardship? Could this be a new disorder for the encyclopedia of mental disorders-Sadism by proxy?

Going back aways to discuss

Going back aways to discuss computer operated systems. The guys with the fuel shortage had a wing unbalance and as I recall the cross feed valve automatically opened to try to equal the wing weight. And they just sat there as the fuel level went down on the heavy side but not up on the light side. Pretty shoddy fuel management, but what would I know after 20 years as both a military and civil Flight Engineer. But to move alone. Our beloved government said this evening that they are going ahead with building up Resolute for use as training. Been there lots of times and I sure wouldn't enjoy the idea of flying around there on one engine. Those buckets will need tons of equipment to keep them operating in the north. But since they are a offensive aircraft, just who are they planning on fighting with?

R/M old man....

As peacekeepers, we weren't in "combat roles" either. Or do you have information differing from the rest of us that let's you insist we were?

And you haven't addressed those 1,000 military personnel still in an active war zone, carrying weapons, and (presumably) being allowed to use them in specific situations.

What's in a name?

Canadian troops are going into combat with Afghan troops.

Getting shot at and all that stuff.

AlJazeera is a good source for international news

igbymac

Yelping melodrama notwithstanding. There is a tiny weenie difference between packing heat, guarding fish and shovelling mud.

Perhaps it's people in uniforms that you struggle with?

"Operation DRIFTNET is a Canadian Forces domestic operation in support of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to halt the destructive effects of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing on the high seas."

PALACI
"The Canadian Forces assistance to Parks Canada to prevent large avalanches through Rogers Pass, protecting travellers and keeping Trans-Canada Highway 1 and CP rail links between British Columbia and the rest of Canada clear."

DPL

"The Portuguese Gabinete de Prevenção e Investigação de Acidentes com Aeronaves (GPIAA) investigated the incident along with Canadian and French authorities.
The investigation revealed that the cause of the incident was a fuel leak in the number two engine, caused by an incorrect part installed in the hydraulics system by Air Transat maintenance staff. The part, which was adapted from a similar engine, did not maintain adequate clearance between the hydraulic lines and the fuel line. This allowed vibration in the hydraulic lines to degrade the fuel line and cause the leak. Air Transat accepted responsibility for the incident and was fined CAD 250,000 by the Canadian government, which as of 2009 is still the largest fine in Canadian history."

Sure the leak was caused by a

Sure the leak was caused by a poorly fitted wrong part, but the near loss of the aircraft was basically pilot error as they trusted the computer more than their own training. Of course I knew about the final conclusion, but the item of interest is buying aircraft that really are not that suitable for arctic condition and computer errors often kill folks.It will cost a bundle to maintain such an aircraft in the high north, but Harper simply goes ahead blindly so he can look good to our not so friendly US. Have you ever refueled or worked on an aircraft when its noon but dark as can be and around 40 below zero?

WE NEED THIS, OR ANY OTHER FIGHTER LIKE A HOLE IN THE HEAD!

This government is being run by criminals, just as the US government is.
We don't need fighters at all, because they are being used illegally to kill innocent people in other sovereign lands for no reason at all. The people in Lybia have not done anything wrong, but the canadian[sic] government has!
We cannot trust our own government anymore to be peace keepers, as we have been in the sixties and we then had the respect of the world, which is now toast.
I would say "fire the bastards"!

I see, realisticman

Canada needs a 23 billion dollar 'search and rescue' and 'distressed drivers' budget, is that it? It's called PR; it's whitewashing the military so fools can more easily support it despite the crimes it is fundamentally put in place for.

As for whether I have an issue with the uniform, yes, on two fronts: One, because it allows a person/people to hide their conduct behind the propagandized image of respectability of the uniform; and two, I think the military in its truest form is the most disgusting profession on the planet.

Fantino's flights of fancy?

"We will purchase the F-35. We're on record. We're part of the crusade. We're not backing down."

Crusade!?? When the hell did Fantino turn into a raging Christian Armageddonist nutbar?

Maybe he didn't. Maybe he's just a good Catholic. But he's maintaining his sterling reputation as a disaster of unmitigated proportions with this quote, just as he did with protestors, natives, activists, gays and anyone else with whom he disagrees should be able to exercise their lawful rights of lifestyle and dissent.

It sure would be nice if the good people of Vaughn would grow a brain and elect a candidate more appropriate to their aspirations and capabilities. Fantino's dementia's getting the better of him and it's not looking pretty.