Liberals Vow to Cancel Jet Fighter Project

[Canuck223]

The logic escapes me.

The Liberals make no bones about hating the US and thier militarism, but then wash thier hands of funding our military so we wind up increasingly dependant on the US.

[BTD]

We where not ready before WW1 or WW2, we can not let that happen again. Becasue we where not ready Canada could not contribute anything in the 2 worls wars and had to have the USA do the fighting for US.

Here fishy.

Contribute nothing eh.

[. ._]

Uhh...why don't we just get a few nukes?

When you acquire nukes, you become a target.

I dunno. If Iraq had nukes, would the U.S. have illegally invaded them?

[Heliian]

Ok, to answer the dopes as to why we need fighter a/c: We need to protect our sovereignty and keep the arctic as ours and all the resources that go with it, that is the most important reason. Secondly, peacekeeping like Canada has a great tradition of.

To answer why replace 80 with 65: How many of that 80 are serviceable? 20? 30 maybe.
Some great minds on this thread that understand why the government can't get involved with military purchases. The military needs the hardware. I had a good chuckle at the guy who had government procurement training, you've been told what's best for the gov by the gov, get real.
The f-35 is going to replace all the a/c in the american forces because of the different options that are available. (army, navy, air force)

Joint means developed and used by multiple agencies.

Obviously, they aren't going to tell you the actual ranges and speeds. The ability to go mach without a/b's is a majour step up from the shitty f-18s we have now. I hope the deal goes through but I have no faith in the current majourity of pussified voters and politicians.

[MrWings]

If there was a WWIII, with the CF-18, we'd last 13 minutes.

Now, with the F35, we'll last 21 minutes.

Long live Canada!

[Mrs.Robinson]

We where not ready before WW1 or WW2, we can not let that happen again. Becasue we where not ready Canada could not contribute anything in the 2 worls wars and had to have the USA do the fighting for US.

Here fishy.

Contribute nothing eh.

no one but the Germans where ready for WW2, Saying Canada needs f35's to be ready because we where not ready for WW2 is just stupid. Calling yourself a conservative and support a non bid contract is stupid. Saying conservatives support our troops and them having then fly single engine aircraft is stupid.

When 80% of are defense budget is for 65 aircraft we don't need, I wounder where the cuts will be to pay for these aircraft. 16 billion double that like the helicopters and you get 32 billion.

The front line troops will get the cuts and end up dying for the sake of a few air force officers doing a few weekend airshows for a living. I would rather give this money to the vets who have come back and really support our troops

[MrWings]

The f-35 is going to replace all the a/c in the american forces because of the different options that are available. (army, navy, air force)

Ever hear of the dope that put all his eggs in one basket?

[North Shore]

We need to protect our sovereignty and keep the arctic as ours and all the resources that go with it

Helian, do you honestly think that 60 jets are going to protect us from the most likely poacher of our natural resources? Give your head a shake - the Americans would roll over us in a day...

[Heliian]

Talkin about the Russians and the Danish and The Chinese and whoever else wants to try, We've already been taken over by the americans, duh.

[fish4life]

In reality I think the best aircraft for Canada would be the F-22 they just cost too damn much.

As for the F-35 the only thing that would happen with a bid is a bunch of other a/c types would come out and we'd still pick the F-35 just 10 years from now and millions of dollars of "Studies" later.

[winds_in_flight_wtf]

I am going to start by saying – that if I had it my way, I would purchase 200 F-35s, and 80 F-15s on the side. I mean, the money just comes out of thin air anyway… so why not let the liberals circle jerk around jack Layton – while we acquire necessary state of the art machines to protect Canadian Sovereignty.

Cool!
Then we could buy 179,775 of these disposable jets. Spare parts? Who cares! When it breaks, eject and get a new one!
http://www.raptoraviation.com/aircraft% ... g21UM.html
If we used up one jet per day it would last us 492 years!
(do the math. 16 billion is a LOT of cash)
-istp

We are not Kamikaze pilots

1200NM???
A ho can do that....
No idea who these guys are, but an interesting read....
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-191010-1.html
Having NOT ever looked at any REAL data, my opinion is rather mute, however seems to me like these are resources that could be better spent elsewhere...

Actually, the F35’s combat range is better than the CF-18s, and I would imagine its overall ferrying range would be a bit more as well.

Reason #134882 not to vote for any Liberals.

They make me sick – Never again. I have never seen tax $ get pissed away with such ease in my entire life. Secondly, why does everyone forget …. THAT IT WAS THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT WHO GOT US INVOLVED WITH THE F35 IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!

should we really be following the leader with the arms build up?

We're replacing 80 jets with 65. Sure they're more advanced and reliable aircraft, but that's hardly an arms build up. I'd call it staying up-to-date. Sorta like replacing your Pontiac Fiero with a Saturn Sky.

Reason #134882 not to vote for any Liberals.

So true.

Imagine if they ordered what was 100% needed? 130+ new jets ……. Oh good lord, Armageddon. But if Harper was to attain 300 junk FA/18s in the desert, hell …….then he is NOT providing Canadians with the best equipment to do the job! Same old Liberal Party crap.

I like the F35 and am not a big fan of the liberals, but since there is no deal signed my Mr. Harper should look at the Eurofighter. Why you ask? Because it is kickass cool and that's good enough.

+1!
With the UK going thru massive $$ problems, they'd be happy to sell to us. But, Canada has already sunk a lot of $$ into this program already. Not sure why, we've had no interest in single engine fighters since the F-104, and rightfully so. My vote would be for the F-15 Silent Eagle with the FAST packs/conformal weapons bay! The F-15 has double the range of any F-18, old or Super.

Remember the Liberals will vow to cancel anything. Except the Gun Registry, the census....etc.....

This A/C is 4.5 GEN.-which means he would obviously not be arming Canadians with the best possible equipment! Jack Layton would shit his pants over that one. Also have you looked at the price tag of a typhoon? F-15SE? Rafale? There is no winning when it comes to buying Multi-Role fighter jets . Same political shit when CF-18 was purchased.

The world is the most stable and safest it's ever been.

Actually you are dead wrong. Since the end of the cold war it has been much more unstable as 2 super powers have been replaced by many wannabes and other regional conflicts. Nuclear armagedon no but world wide instability yes. We cannot predict what will happen inthe next few years so it's best to be ready.

Not to pull the fear factor thing, but honestly, has our generation fought a world war? Have we been tyrannized or conscripted? Do any of us have any idea what it is like to actually fight in a worldwide conflict like so many of our Grandparents/Parents? Have any of us had our freedoms literally stripped from us? No, we are spoiled rotten with freedoms and we take lot’s for granted. I personally would rather be well equipped before the next Hitler or whoever comes along(WW2). Do you think earlier generations could imagine a war of such devastation could become reality? Those who think otherwise go back to Bible camp.

Uhh...why don't we just get a few nukes?

When you acquire nukes, you become a target.

I dunno. If Iraq had nukes, would the U.S. have illegally invaded them?

If Obama cured Cancer would the Republicans attack him for not curing HIV? Probably…..

We need to protect our sovereignty and keep the arctic as ours and all the resources that go with it

Helian, do you honestly think that 60 jets are going to protect us from the most likely poacher of our natural resources? Give your head a shake - the Americans would roll over us in a day...

They do spend more on national defense than the other G8 combined…. So I would sure hope so. Please keep in mind we are more American than European. I do not think the quantity of jets in this country VS the states is a realistic stance to take.
Secondly, I will always listen to the men and women in uniform over the Liberal Party.

[Nark]

I'd like to know where some of you get your soapbox to stand on.

Talking about a single engine fighter like it's a Caravan. The numbers? You have no idea what the number 80, or 65 or 15 means when it comes to squadron strength.

The ability to work with allies is lost on most of you. Terms like "Force Multiplier" isn't just a slang term I would see in power-point briefs.

As far as spending money on the Vets: You won't have any if they don't have the tools to fight with, in order to win and come home.

The A and B model CF-18s are hurting. They need to be upgraded.

[modi13]

You make some very good points, we need to be ready. We where not ready before WW1 or WW2, we can not let that happen again. Becasue we where not ready Canada could not contribute anything in the 2 worls wars and had to have the USA do the fighting for US.

We should spend 100% of the federal budget on defense in order to be ready. We need to support the USA 100% to make sure we are going to have to use this improved military.

The biggest threat Canada has today is to Maybe shoot down a passenger jet sometime in the next 30 years. The Only aircraft that can do this is the F35, a F18 Super Hornet is incapable of doing this and this is why we need the F35.

Anyone who disagrees with this is a pinko commie, who want to kill Canadian troops.

no one but the Germans where ready for WW2, Saying Canada needs f35's to be ready because we where not ready for WW2 is just stupid. Calling yourself a conservative and support a non bid contract is stupid. Saying conservatives support our troops and them having then fly single engine aircraft is stupid.

When 80% of are defense budget is for 65 aircraft we don't need, I wounder where the cuts will be to pay for these aircraft. 16 billion double that like the helicopters and you get 32 billion.

The front line troops will get the cuts and end up dying for the sake of a few air force officers doing a few weekend airshows for a living. I would rather give this money to the vets who have come back and really support our troops

This is one of the reasons I don't think anyone who hsn't had military experience should be involved in making decisions that affect it; you really have no comprehension of what the CF requires. First, Canada contributed 1 million troops to the Second World War (1/12 of the total population) and by the end of it we had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world. Second, this entire argument has happened before - a century ago. No one thought Canada would have any need for a standing army, since we had the US and UK to protect us, so all we would need was a militia. Both world wars proved that idea wrong, since we couldn't even protect our own coastline from German and Japanese submarines; even shipping wasn't safe in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is well within Canadian territory. Regardless, Canada hasn't fought a war on its own soil since 1885, but our miltiary has still been extremly active, because that's what we do: we help people. The First and Second World Wars, Korean War and Gulf War were all cases of countries being invaded without justification, and in every case Canada took the side of the invaded. All of our peacekeeping operations, and even the war in Afghanistan, were about creating stability and protecting civilians. Our fighters took a very active role in the Gulf War and Kosovo, where they bombed (one could even say "struck") Serbian troops who were on the verge of committing genocide. The F-18s could have even played a much larger part in suppressing the Iraqi air force directly by engaging in air-to-air combat, and the fact that they didn't doesn't mean that having fighters is unneccessary. For those of you who think that the military has no value whatsoever because of the strength of our allies, or that we wouldn't stand a chance if we were invaded, perhaps you should look at the lessons of the last century. If you haven't tried shooting a rifle that's twenty years old and so worn out that it's entirely inaccurate, or tried to stay warm in a jacket that's been through three tours in the Balkans, you're in no position to be telling our soldiers, sailors and airmen what equipment they should be using. On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35; it's the only plane available that will meet their requirements for the next three or four decades. And I'm sure the CF's top brass has a much better understanding of potential conflicts and the future of our military requirements than anyone posting on this board.

[shitdisturber]

In reality I think the best aircraft for Canada would be the F-22 they just cost too damn much.

Whether it's better or not is a moot point, the F-22 isn't for sale to anybody outside the US border.

[Mrs.Robinson]

. On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35; it's the only plane available that will meet their requirements for the next three or four decades. And I'm sure the CF's top brass has a much better understanding of potential conflicts and the future of our military requirements than anyone posting on this board.

Send me a link to back this up I have seen a poll that shows that our fighter pilots say " our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35". I have 2 friends who fly f18 and they think the f-35 is a bad decision.

Send me a link to this information or your just making things up. Our CF could a should use this money in other equipment and mission (this is my option not making things up). We need a new front line fighter but I think a more cost effective option could be found.

[Mrs.Robinson]

I'd like to know where some of you get your soapbox to stand on.

Talking about a single engine fighter like it's a Caravan. The numbers? You have no idea what the number 80, or 65 or 15 means when it comes to squadron strength.

The ability to work with allies is lost on most of you. Terms like "Force Multiplier" isn't just a slang term I would see in power-point briefs.

As far as spending money on the Vets: You won't have any if they don't have the tools to fight with, in order to win and come home.

The A and B model CF-18s are hurting. They need to be upgraded.

I would rather have an engine failure in a caravan over the arctic any day then in a f35.

In a caravan I could glide to landing, once on the ground I would have shelter and supplies. In the best case scenario, I would have shelter, supplies, and a radio.

An f35 with an engine out would be. Eject, freeze your nuts on the way down. Once down if your not dead you would require first aid, you would be alone, have no shelter and die is not rescued within an hour.

I would chose an engine failure in a caravan any day of the week for me.

I'm sure you have some statistic that says 100% of our fighter pilots think this risk is worth it. Then again Peter MacKay did say that the engine will not fail

[Nark]

yadda yadda...

You are trying to compare a tac air asset to something you might have flown as a civilian. I'm sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on with that.

The mission type and logistics are things that decide what is the best platform required. Not what some anonymous person on the internet thinks. And especially what a Liberal thinks.

[modi13]

Send me a link to back this up I have seen a poll that shows that our fighter pilots say " our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35". I have 2 friends who fly f18 and they think the f-35 is a bad decision.

Send me a link to this information or your just making things up. Our CF could a should use this money in other equipment and mission (this is my option not making things up). We need a new front line fighter but I think a more cost effective option could be found.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1626565799 It's an entire interview with the wing commander from CFB Cold Lake about how the F-35 is the right aircraft for our military. Also, from Global News: "Air force chief Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told the House of Commons defence committee that Russia is already building a "fifth-generation" fighter — which is what the F-35 is — and that China is expected to build one too. If the planned purchase is cancelled, he told MPs, Canada's air force would become "irrelevant" for defence missions with the United States and other countries in the NATO military alliance, many of whom are also buying the Lockheed-Martin aircraft." If the poll said that the pilots "want and need the F-35" doesn't that confirm what I said?
As for it having only one engine, 26 air forces either have or had F-16s, which are single-engined, and I've been able to find only one confirmed case of an accident caused by an engine failure. The USAF has been operating them in Alaska since the 70s or 80s without any of their pilots dying in the wilderness after an engine failure. The F-35's engineering is 30 years more advanced than that, and the chances of having an engine shut down are significantly smaller. Not only that, but do you think our pilots don't have any survival equipment? Do you think they go on missions to the Arctic in Bermuda shorts? I'm sure you could set a Caravan down on a rocky hill like it was a paved runway and set up a nice little camp while the fighter pilot would slam to the ground at terminal velocity sans parachute.
We've already tried using "cost effective" equipment in the military; see the Ross rifle. Buying from the lowest bidder always means that the product will be of inferior quality, and the military is somewhere that we shouldn't skimp. Much more importantly, and this is the point I've been trying to get across, THERE IS NO OTHER FIGHTER AVAILABLE THAT'S IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS THE F-35. The other aircraft that are available are made of technology that's already a decade old, and doesn't come near the capabilities of the F-35. There is no other aircraft that is as advanced or will last as long. Anything else we purchase will be a step sideways from the F-18, and we'll soon find ourselves outdated and outclassed. Just because it's an expensive purchase doesn't mean it should never be made; on the contrary, if we wait another two decades before upgrading to a fifth-generation fighter it will cost us far more in the long run. And the $16 billion to be spent on the program won't be spent all at once, so there won't be cuts to other areas of the military; it will be paid out as the aircraft are delivered, and $6 billion of that cost is for a long-term maintenance program, meaning the money will be spent over the period of the contract.

[Mrs.Robinson]

Send me a link to back this up I have seen a poll that shows that our fighter pilots say " our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35". I have 2 friends who fly f18 and they think the f-35 is a bad decision.

Send me a link to this information or your just making things up. Our CF could a should use this money in other equipment and mission (this is my option not making things up). We need a new front line fighter but I think a more cost effective option could be found.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1626565799 It's an entire interview with the wing commander from CFB Cold Lake about how the F-35 is the right aircraft for our military. Also, from Global News: "Air force chief Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps told the House of Commons defence committee that Russia is already building a "fifth-generation" fighter — which is what the F-35 is — and that China is expected to build one too. If the planned purchase is cancelled, he told MPs, Canada's air force would become "irrelevant" for defence missions with the United States and other countries in the NATO military alliance, many of whom are also buying the Lockheed-Martin aircraft." If the poll said that the pilots "want and need the F-35" doesn't that confirm what I said?
As for it having only one engine, 26 air forces either have or had F-16s, which are single-engined, and I've been able to find only one confirmed case of an accident caused by an engine failure. The USAF has been operating them in Alaska since the 70s or 80s without any of their pilots dying in the wilderness after an engine failure. The F-35's engineering is 30 years more advanced than that, and the chances of having an engine shut down are significantly smaller. Not only that, but do you think our pilots don't have any survival equipment? Do you think they go on missions to the Arctic in Bermuda shorts? I'm sure you could set a Caravan down on a rocky hill like it was a paved runway and set up a nice little camp while the fighter pilot would slam to the ground at terminal velocity sans parachute.
We've already tried using "cost effective" equipment in the military; see the Ross rifle. Buying from the lowest bidder always means that the product will be of inferior quality, and the military is somewhere that we shouldn't skimp. Much more importantly, and this is the point I've been trying to get across, THERE IS NO OTHER FIGHTER AVAILABLE THAT'S IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS THE F-35. The other aircraft that are available are made of technology that's already a decade old, and doesn't come near the capabilities of the F-35. There is no other aircraft that is as advanced or will last as long. Anything else we purchase will be a step sideways from the F-18, and we'll soon find ourselves outdated and outclassed. Just because it's an expensive purchase doesn't mean it should never be made; on the contrary, if we wait another two decades before upgrading to a fifth-generation fighter it will cost us far more in the long run. And the $16 billion to be spent on the program won't be spent all at once, so there won't be cuts to other areas of the military; it will be paid out as the aircraft are delivered, and $6 billion of that cost is for a long-term maintenance program, meaning the money will be spent over the period of the contract.

Show me the poll that says OUR pilot WANT and NEED the F35, I could not find the link.

[modi13]

Show me the poll that says OUR pilot WANT and NEED the F35, I could not find the link.

You're the one who said you had it:

I have seen a poll that shows that our fighter pilots say " our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35".

[Mrs.Robinson]

On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35.

you said it not me

I messed up in my quote, again show me the info.

I have 2 friends who fly f-18 and they think the f35 is bad decision. It would be very unscientific for me to conclude that 100% of Canadian fighter pilot do not want the f35. In fact it would make me full of shit to conclude that.


You made a statement, can you back it up.

[modi13]

On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35.

you said it not me

I messed up in my quote, again show me the info.

I have 2 friends who fly f-18 and they think the f35 is bad decision. It would be very unscientific for me to conclude that 100% of Canadian fighter pilot do not want the f35. In fact it would make me full of shit to conclude that.


You made a statement, can you back it up.

I didn't make the claim to have that poll, so I can't show you that, but on top of what I posted above: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/16/one- ... love-them/ ; http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/defence-09-08-2010 "On Aug. 31, Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps said the planned purchase is due to the F-35's stealth capability, so that Canadian pilots can sneak up on enemies. He told the Globe and Mail that stealth is a "deterrent" since knowledge of such capability would alter an enemy's strategy."; and I personally know more than half a dozen Canadian Forces pilots who all want the F-35, not to mention all the other members of the CF I served with who think it's the best choice.

[Mrs.Robinson]

On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35.

you said it not me

I messed up in my quote, again show me the info.

I have 2 friends who fly f-18 and they think the f35 is bad decision. It would be very unscientific for me to conclude that 100% of Canadian fighter pilot do not want the f35. In fact it would make me full of shit to conclude that.


You made a statement, can you back it up.

I didn't make the claim to have that poll, so I can't show you that, but on top of what I posted above: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/16/one- ... love-them/ ; http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/defence-09-08-2010 "On Aug. 31, Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps said the planned purchase is due to the F-35's stealth capability, so that Canadian pilots can sneak up on enemies. He told the Globe and Mail that stealth is a "deterrent" since knowledge of such capability would alter an enemy's strategy."; and I personally know more than half a dozen Canadian Forces pilots who all want the F-35, not to mention all the other members of the CF I served with who think it's the best choice.

How many pilot in the air force? I'm guessing 500 I could be wrong, How many are fighter pilots? I'm guessing 100

lets define more the half a dozen. i thinking it would have to be a number between 7 and 11.

How can you make the statement. "our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35" based on another persons statement who says he know 5 to 11 pilots want these aircraft.

There was not even a mention if they where fighter pilots or not.


I guess facts don't matter to conservatives it all spin and lies. We must attack Iraq or else we will have a mushroom cloud. Because of these lies Canadian Soldiers have died in Afghanistan. Had there not been a diversion of the Iraq war Afghanistan may have succeeded. Because of those Conservative lies Many more Canadians soldiers have died for a War that will be lost.

I don't care what anyone wants in the DND, The Government makes the decisions and we elect the Government. If A government is elected on a platform to disband the military, then that is what the voters wanted.

I'm stuck with Harper's decisions, as he is the government. If this get voted down in the house of commons (i'm not even sure if this can be voted on) then thats what the people wanted.

[modi13]

How many pilot in the air force? I'm guessing 500 I could be wrong, How many are fighter pilots? I'm guessing 100

lets define more the half a dozen. i thinking it would have to be a number between 7 and 11.

How can you make the statement. "our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35" based on another persons statement who says he know 5 to 11 pilots want these aircraft.

There was not even a mention if they where fighter pilots or not.


I guess facts don't matter to conservatives it all spin and lies. We must attach Iraq or else we will have a mushroom cloud. Because of these lies Canadian Solders died in Afghanistan. Had there not been a diversion of the Iraq war Afghanistan may have succeeded. Because of those Conservative lies Many more Canadians soldiers have died for a War that will be lost.

I don't care what anyone wants in the DND, The Government makes the decisions and we elect the Government. If A government is elected on a platform to disband the military, then that is what the voters wanted. I'm stuck with Harper's decisions, as he is the government. If this get voted down in the house of commons (i'm not even sure if this can be voted on) then thats what the people wanted.

Edited. How can you criticize me for basing my perspective of what our pilots want on the opinions of nine or ten pilots, several of whom are fighter pilots, when you're doing the same thing with only two? I provided the sources you asked for, I gave you the information you wanted, and you've ignored all the facts I provided, you hypocrite. I'm not a conservative; I've always voted Liberal. Don't make strawman arguments if you know nothing about me. The purchase of F-35s has nothing to do with the Iraq War, in which we weren't even involved. You haven't provided a single reason not to buy them that's stood up to scrutiny; you've ignored every rational argument that's been presented and plowed ahead as though your opinion is the only one that matters. You know nothing about the military or what it requires to maintain its position as the most capable fighting, peacekeeping and humanitarian force in the world.

[Mrs.Robinson]

You make some very good points, we need to be ready. We where not ready before WW1 or WW2, we can not let that happen again. Becasue we where not ready Canada could not contribute anything in the 2 worls wars and had to have the USA do the fighting for US.

We should spend 100% of the federal budget on defense in order to be ready. We need to support the USA 100% to make sure we are going to have to use this improved military.

The biggest threat Canada has today is to Maybe shoot down a passenger jet sometime in the next 30 years. The Only aircraft that can do this is the F35, a F18 Super Hornet is incapable of doing this and this is why we need the F35.

Anyone who disagrees with this is a pinko commie, who want to kill Canadian troops.

no one but the Germans where ready for WW2, Saying Canada needs f35's to be ready because we where not ready for WW2 is just stupid. Calling yourself a conservative and support a non bid contract is stupid. Saying conservatives support our troops and them having then fly single engine aircraft is stupid.

When 80% of are defense budget is for 65 aircraft we don't need, I wounder where the cuts will be to pay for these aircraft. 16 billion double that like the helicopters and you get 32 billion.

The front line troops will get the cuts and end up dying for the sake of a few air force officers doing a few weekend airshows for a living. I would rather give this money to the vets who have come back and really support our troops

This is one of the reasons I don't think anyone who hsn't had military experience should be involved in making decisions that affect it; you really have no comprehension of what the CF requires. First, Canada contributed 1 million troops to the Second World War (1/12 of the total population) and by the end of it we had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world. Second, this entire argument has happened before - a century ago. No one thought Canada would have any need for a standing army, since we had the US and UK to protect us, so all we would need was a militia. Both world wars proved that idea wrong, since we couldn't even protect our own coastline from German and Japanese submarines; even shipping wasn't safe in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is well within Canadian territory. Regardless, Canada hasn't fought a war on its own soil since 1885, but our miltiary has still been extremly active, because that's what we do: we help people. The First and Second World Wars, Korean War and Gulf War were all cases of countries being invaded without justification, and in every case Canada took the side of the invaded. All of our peacekeeping operations, and even the war in Afghanistan, were about creating stability and protecting civilians. Our fighters took a very active role in the Gulf War and Kosovo, where they bombed (one could even say "struck") Serbian troops who were on the verge of committing genocide. The F-18s could have even played a much larger part in suppressing the Iraqi air force directly by engaging in air-to-air combat, and the fact that they didn't doesn't mean that having fighters is unneccessary. For those of you who think that the military has no value whatsoever because of the strength of our allies, or that we wouldn't stand a chance if we were invaded, perhaps you should look at the lessons of the last century. If you haven't tried shooting a rifle that's twenty years old and so worn out that it's entirely inaccurate, or tried to stay warm in a jacket that's been through three tours in the Balkans, you're in no position to be telling our soldiers, sailors and airmen what equipment they should be using. On the contrary, our fighter pilots have said that they want and need the F-35; it's the only plane available that will meet their requirements for the next three or four decades. And I'm sure the CF's top brass has a much better understanding of potential conflicts and the future of our military requirements than anyone posting on this board.

read the 3rd to last line


look what you wrote




page 3, 3rd post, 3 to last line read it

If this was not you then I'm sorry I must be drunk