Our Federal Government is really the bomb-shit. I mean they stopped the Liberal nationalized daycare program in its tracks when they assisted Paul Martin and the Libs self destruct in 2006.
“The Liberals were in the midst of delivering on a $5-billion national child-care program before they were thrown out of power in the 2006 election. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives came to office, that program was abandoned, in favour of the $100-a-month cheques to Canadian parents known as the Universal Child Care Benefit.”
The Universal Child Care Benefit is laughably ineffective, as reasonable day care costs are well above $100 dollars per month. Hats off to conservative thinking and the choice that the 100 dollars per month provides (none). Way to go, nanny state kept in check.
The fiscal restraint though goes *poof* when we are talking about shiny new fighter jets! The new F-35 is so new and amazing you do not even see the 9 billion dollar price tag through all of this incredible awesomeness!
“The Canadian government said Friday it plans to spend $9 billion to purchase a new generation of fighter jets, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
The contract, one of the biggest military equipment purchases in Canadian history, is worth $9 billion, but the full cost could rise to as much $18 billion once the government signs a maintenance contract.”
I’m amused that we need the best and the brightest new technology for our Air Force. What exactly are we going to do with these new jets other than spend a horrendous amount to train to fly and maintain them. Put quite simply, Canada does not need these jets. The F-35 is purely an offensive weapon that has no place in a Canada that is once was dedicated to peacekeeping and resolving issues without the slaughter of war.
For the fiscally conservatives who also occasionally read DWR here is another little interesting snippet.
“The new jets would replace an aging fleet of CF-18s that recently underwent a $2.6-billion upgrade”
Huh, we are retrofitting old jets, AND buying new ones. The money for the military seems to be connected to a high pressure fire hose. Consider that 2.6 billion is already one half of the necessary money for universal childcare in Canada. Oh yah, but we need defence! The terrorists are at our door just waiting for our Jet Technology to become obsolete.
I’m thinking we need to up the *facepalm* ante here just for the inept twerpitude of our military planning/spending.
Here is what the Official opposition is saying:
“But the government is fending off criticism that it is making one of the biggest military purchases in Canadian history without a single competing bid. The Liberals say the massive purchase of 65 jets should have been subjected to competitive bids.
I think Canadians are amazed that the largest procurement deal in the history of the country is a single-sourced — so, it’s not a competitive — deal,” Ignatieff told reporters.”
You know what I am amazed at Iggy? Your enormous capacity to miss the blatantly obvious point. We should not be making this purchase in the first place. You want to show Canadians you have a platform and spine of your own? Then make a stand against this vacuous prestidigitation, try for once to make a principled stand you might like it.
The planes we are purchasing are used to rain death down on people who do not have planes of their own to shoot back with. Has the mighty Harper decided that Canada needs its own imperial air-force to lay the smack down on some poor schmo(s) on the ground armed with an AK-47 and faith on the brain? The ludicrous stupid burns nova hot on this one. You would think as the principled opposition of Canada you might point out that we do not frakking need
any more fighter planes for the defense of our country and maybe the money could be used elsewhere to benefit the children and families of Canada.
Do you know why according to Military Analysts that we need these pricey Edsel?
“Military analyst Mercedes Stephenson told CBC News that the purchase is “absolutely necessary.”She added: “We have to have fighter jets. Canada is a massive country, and when you think purely about response times, there is nothing else that can get across the country as fast as a fighter jet.”Also, when you are dealing with the Arctic, there is very little that has the kind of survivability of a fighter jet in the air under those kinds of harsh conditions. She added that the purchase is also important for Canada to meet obligations to its international allies.”
“But the NDP argues even if Canada needs fighter jets, it’s not clear it needs these particular ones.
“The issue for the Canadian defence department is, is the F-35 what we want?” said NDP MP Malcolm Allen.”
Holy Plastic-Jebus on a pogo-stick! Is this the best we can do for spirited opposition? It is okay to say that this is waste of Canadian money, and that this is a particularly bad idea coming from Stephen I wanna be a Neo-Con Harper’s private circle-jerk cabinet. This deal needs to be scrapped immediately, put the money toward combating child poverty and do some good for once.
What I fear is that no one from any of the opposition benches has the spine to take a stand against this fiscally and morally boneheaded move on behalf of the Canadian Government.
22 comments
July 22, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Bleatmop
I see you’ve confused all of our political parties in Canada with people who represent us and work towards making a better and more equitable country. I think you forgot that they are only there it protect and enrich the pockets of their corporate friends and ensure that they get their cushy CEO jobs once they retire so they don’t have to live on the meager 6 figure MP pension.
Its easy to do, really.
LikeLike
July 23, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Alan Scott
Go Canada go. I’m liking your country more all the time. Maybe when Obama is finished destroying America, I’ll be an illegal immigrant into the Great White North. I’m really sorry for anything derogatory I ever said about Canada. You have a Conservative government, right ?
LikeLike
July 25, 2010 at 8:40 am
The Arbourist
I would like my country more if our focus was more on people and their welfare as opposed to neat new ways to kill other people. I think my MP gets it though, but I am in the process of contacting the office and making sure my concerns are understood.
LikeLike
July 25, 2010 at 8:42 am
The Arbourist
You have a Conservative government, right ?
Unfortunately we do at the moment, although it is a minority government so it manages to do some good, often by accident or retraction.
LikeLike
July 25, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Alan Scott
The Arbourist,
” Unfortunately we do at the moment ”
Funny how we have identical opinions about our own leaders. I propose a trade. Yours’ for ours’. I am quite serious and I am willing to sweeten the pot.
For a limited time, I will throw in a soon to be ex Liberal Governor of Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
July 26, 2010 at 1:31 am
Bleatmop
You are aware that Obama is more conservative than Harper?
Obama – Threw a public option under the bus, which is a far cry from the Universal system we have here that Harper publicly states he supports.
Obama – Against same sex marriage. Harper considers that it is allowed here in Canada a closed issue.
Obama – For extending the war in Afghanistan, had his government putting pressure on us to extend our commitment. Harper – Committed to ending our combat role at the end of our current commitment.
Obama – Has worked to actively regress woman’s rights by signing a bill that forces them to buy health insurance for reproductive health separate from all other coverage, almost ensuring millions of Americans who did have this coverage before won’t now. Harper has defunded many many Status Of Women organizations, effectively silencing women on many issues.
Well, I guess Obama and Harper are the same on some things.
LikeLike
July 26, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Alan Scott
Bleatmop,
You have now depressed me. I really did not know all of this. As American and Canadian money are different, so are the American and Canadian languages. That a Canadian Conservative is more liberal than a neo Communist American President means that when I illegally immigrate to Canada, I will have to learn a new language. Unless I go to Quebec and rely on my 3 years of High School French. Though my French teacher was once in Quebec and could not understand a word they said.
LikeLike
July 27, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Alan,
Canada is BINO – “Bilingual In Name Only”. There is by no means the same value in knowing French up in Canada as there is knowing Spanish in the US, unless you want a cushy government job or a fast-track with one of Canada’s two airlines.
Arbourist,
Hate Harper as much as you want, but the Liberal spending programs would have run Canada into the ground eventually like they do in each of the provinces. Besides, Martin and the Liberals were infamous for making wildly overinflated election promises (especially in their desperate hour) at the time this day care program was announced.
Canada not only has an obligation to defend and monitor its airspace, but it also has an obligation to NATO and NORAD. I’m happy to see them finally get the upgraded planes they need, and to finally be smart and buy new planes instead of some other country’s throwaways.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 12:11 am
The Arbourist
“Hate Harper as much as you want, but the Liberal spending programs would have run Canada into the ground”
I was reading about the wikileaks on Pharyngula, when I saw this…
“The military is a pointless waste of resources that does nothing to prevent the kins of issues we struggle with in modern times and exists as a glorified parasite on our nation’s back. I think Eisenhower put it best, all those years ago:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. … Is there no other way the world may live?
Eisenhower — dirty rotten hippie…”
I’m happy to see them finally get the upgraded planes they need,
I’m not happy Mr.Kaine because warplanes and more bombs and more destruction fail to solve things. The US army has failed in Iraq and is failing in Afghanistan. They are the most deadly, best equipped and most expensive military force in history and are currently making things worse security wise for the USA and her citizens. How long before another fanatic slips through? Or will the F35 pick him or her off before they carry out their grim task?
Bigger and shinyier guns do nothing with regards to an enemy that engages in asymmetrical warfare. Short of starting a nuclear exchange, the conflict will not be one by strength of conventional arms, at least not without wholesale slaughter.
Not a fair comparison I realize Mr.Kaine, but you argue against helping kids and communities and support policy in its stead that favours the purchasing implements to kill other peoples families and children.
If, by helping Canadians via socialized programs that help the poor and downtrodden we run our country in the ground, so be it.
I would choose this option in every instance rather than fund the military industrial complex of the US that is bleeding your country dry (see being run into the ground) with the added bonus of killing thousands of people indiscriminately and ruining their respective nations just because it happens to be profitable.
So, after you win in Iraq, and after you win in Afghanistan, then perhaps you can tell me about how buying more fighter jets is a better idea than helping the people of Canada out.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 11:13 am
Vern R. Kaine
To put Canada’s purchase of these jets in the context of the US wars in the middle east is, with respect, naive. Canada gets more than just a chance to bomb “innocent civilians” through our involvement with NORAD and NATO. It also get access to vital intelligence and technology to not only deal with foreign threats, but domestic threats as well, even in peacetime.
Canada relies on the US and the UK for its protection, as they rely on her for theirs. That requires contribution – whether it’s through allowing US planes in Canadian airspace, training UK tanks and troops on Canadian soil, or making sure a plane or missile can be responded to without having to ask forces in another country to do it for them.
Regardless of the goings-on in the middle east, Canada has an obligation to defend its borders, and to also help if other countries need assistance in defending theirs. Perhaps you want them to do that with CF-18 technology that will be 20-years obsolete once these new fighters come online even more dangerous to our troops then as they are now (look at the maintenance records of the Sea Kings and CF-18’s), or perhaps you think we should at least have something that flies and will do the job, like I do.
And as for wars in the middle-east, I don’t know what Canada’s involvement there will even be in 10-15 years, if any. Canada has domestic military responsibilities nonetheless, and they spend less than even Brazil does on their military expenditures (<1.5% of GDP in 2009) which is hardly anything to freak out about. (This military budget, btw, also produces and supports a number of civilian jobs).
No one supporting Canada's purchase of these jets is in turn against child care as your binary argument seems to suggest. On an ideological level, sure, let’s sell all weapons and build day care centers and hospitals. Why not a bunch of Willy Wonka Chocolate Factories, too?! :) On a practical and realistic level, however, Canada’s way of life has enemies just as America and the UK do, and that way of life sometimes has to be defended (or fought for) by force. Canada owes it to the citizens of its country and the citizens of other countries it has pledged to help protect that it will be ready to meet that obligation if called upon, and planes that fly are vital to that role.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 11:39 am
Vern R. Kaine
“I’m not happy Mr.Kaine because warplanes and more bombs and more destruction fail to solve things.”
Interesting viewpoint. War is what stopped Hitler and the Japanese in WWII, what liberated Kuwait from the Iraqi’s, and what effectively ended slavery in the U.S.. It is what drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and if I recall Canadian history, it even saved Canada’s own sovereignty from the Americans back in the early 1800’s.
No, war does solve things – it just solves things in the most brutal way.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 11:47 am
Alan Scott
The Arbourist,
I am not familiar with the Eisenhower quotes or their context, but I speculate that he did not say them when he was leading the D Day invasion.
If as I suspect, it was President Eisenhower who said it, then he was wrong. Talk about all you want concerning the waste of the cold war, we avoided WW3. As opposed to what the Western Democracies did in the 20s and 30s . Gee, I guess they did exactly what you advocate now.
I wonder if Britain, France, and the US saved more when they skimped on their military budgets between the World Wars than they had to spend later. That’s a hard one. I wonder if there would have been a difference in the number of lives saved. Wow, that’s even harder .
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Bleatmop
I think a couple of people have completely missed the point of the Arbourists comments and what Eisenhower actually meant in his quote. Somehow I think Eisenhower wasn’t just talking about the US and her allies military spending.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 5:37 pm
The Arbourist
Mr. Kaine,
The problem is that the way warfare is going, going the high tech route is not going to yield the results Canada wants. Canada once had a reputation (of sorts) as a peacekeeping nation. Our troops were well trained, extremely disciplined and sometimes even well equipped. We fought mostly to protect the peace, as opposed to what has been happening as of late.
Regardless of the goings-on in the middle east, Canada has an obligation to defend its borders, and to also help if other countries need assistance in defending theirs. Perhaps you want them to do that with CF-18 technology that will be 20-years obsolete once these new fighters come online even more dangerous to our troops then as they are now (look at the maintenance records of the Sea Kings and CF-18′s), or perhaps you think we should at least have something that flies and will do the job, like I do.
The nature of the wars we will be fighting in the near future will most likely be of a asymmetrical nature. The advantages of the latest technology are largely nullified by how asymmetrical warfare works. I would be fully in favour getting surplus A-10’s, as they excel in close support work and are much less expensive than the f35 in terms of initial costs and maintenance.
(<1.5% of GDP in 2009) which is hardly anything to freak out about. (This military budget, btw, also produces and supports a number of civilian jobs).
I would much rather see less military spending, but I also see the necessity of having a viable military because, as stated earlier, it is hardly a perfect world. I think that we just have different ideas on the gun vs. butter issue as to where we would draw the lines.
No one supporting Canada’s purchase of these jets is in turn against child care as your binary argument seems to suggest. On an ideological level, sure, let’s sell all weapons and build day care centers and hospitals.
Perhaps not directly, but it seems as of the last time the universal childcare issue was brought up the prohibitive expense of it was echoed keenly through the acceptable media channels and Canadians were told of the bureaucratic house of horrors that they would be subject to if such a scheme was put into place. Instead, from our beloved Conservative government, we get a piecemeal scheme of 100 bucks per kid per month that, given market conditions, means no reasonable daycare services are available for that sum. So, speaking in terms of efficiency the program is a flop.
Conversely though, when it comes to big shiny jets, the stops seem to magically disappear. We *need* these planes for our defence and our sovereignty and you’re just not patriotic if you don’t want these jets (insert jingoism here) etc etc. I was trying to frame the argument for daycare similarly, we really do *need* universal daycare, the social and economic benefits would be huge, it would help all Canadians immensely. I find it hard to see jets doing the same things for all Canadians.
Canada’s way of life has enemies just as America and the UK do, and that way of life sometimes has to be defended (or fought for) by force.
That has not been working out very well as of late as it seems that most of the conflict has been a touch more on the side of imperialism than defence in any sense of the word. The second Iraq war (and the first, but I won’t argue that point, as it still quite contentious) has been a resource grab on the behalf of the western powers. There has been no defence ( a great deal of mendacity though, with regards to the reasons for war however) involved of the US or Canada. Afghanistan is another Vietnam that American Military Industrial Complex has profitably rushed to embrace, and will pay dividends in more terrorist attacks against the US and her allies. What could have been resolved as a police action, that is the apprehension of a criminal for his terrorist actions, bloomed into the sticky quagmire we have today.
The USSR was bled during its occupation of Afghanistan with disastrous results, the US is on the same unhappy path, it would be wise, I think, to get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible as the domestic cost is simply too high.
Canada owes it to the citizens of its country and the citizens of other countries it has pledged to help protect that it will be ready to meet that obligation if called upon, and planes that fly are vital to that role.
In a peacekeeping role yes; For imperial folly, a most emphatic ‘no’.
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm
The Arbourist
I wonder if Britain, France, and the US saved more when they skimped on their military budgets between the World Wars than they had to spend later.
In hindsight, it is very easy to justify the military spending or buildup of the respective military forces of the US, UK and France.
Would it not have been even easier to lessen the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles? It was the harsh reparations of the ToV that essentially pushed the German nation into a radical course of action that would plunge the world into chaos. If only we would have helped Germany more after WWI we could have stopped the slaughter that was to come next…
Arguing about the past and saying if we had done ‘X’ then ‘Y’ would be better (or worse) is not particularly helpful :)
LikeLike
July 28, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Arbourist,
You said: “The nature of the wars we will be fighting in the near future will most likely be of a asymmetrical nature. The advantages of the latest technology are largely nullified by how asymmetrical warfare works. I would be fully in favour getting surplus A-10′s, as they excel in close support work and are much less expensive than the f35 in terms of initial costs and maintenance.
I agree with your sentiments regarding the nature of future wars likely being asymmetrical, and also your comments that the wars we’re currently involved with being more imperialist than anything else. I think we’ve been in there for Western-friendly-oil-nation stability all along.
Rather than considering it from a role in actual war, I simply believe Canada needs interceptor aircraft that can cover the 2nd largest nation effectively. The A-10 is better for CAS and the types of wars we’re fighting right now, but that does little good for Canada back home as there’s no need for them domestically. Even if not at war, I believe Canada still needs a deterrent and patrols over Canada’s arctic and if anything, the ability to quickly respond to “wayward” Russian planes, or hijacked planes, or whatever else may venture unwelcome into Canadian airspace. We don’t need to train a new breed of pilot, we can contribute to our roles in NATO and NORAD more effectively, and we can also load-share with our allies. For an idea that actually started with the Liberals, I think it still makes sense and I’m glad to see Canada finally buying something that works for a change. :)
LikeLike
September 11, 2010 at 8:52 pm
A.g darmo
V.R.K must have been a bully in school. at best he’s a brainwashed imbecile. or perhaps he works for the arms lobby. how can enyone justify war or arms production or sales? only a country that wants to build an empire, or a country that needs to keep their faltering economy going. This is certainly not canada. Guess Who it is? War makes people,kill,maime,and hate each other. war destroys , it does not build. Yes it creates jobs , by people rebuilding destroyed countries. is this what we want.?
LikeLike
September 12, 2010 at 10:48 am
Vern R. Kaine
“V.R.K must have been a bully in school. at best he’s a brainwashed imbecile. or perhaps he works for the arms lobby.”
I supposed in your way of thinking it must be one of those three, but you’re wrong.
“…only a country that wants to build an empire.”
No, pretty much EVERY country has a military force, even the most peaceful ones. Canada is part of NATO and NORAD, and is part of the Western intelligence community and therefore it has obligations as such that like it or not, must be met in order to keep Canada at the global economic table and to keep the country safe.
To sit there and say that the only reason anyone wants new jets is because they are warmongers or bullies or “working for the arms lobby” is not only ridiculous, but it takes a position that is both ignorant and naive.
Canada has a military because it needs a military – not because it is “trying to build an empire”, but because a nation owes it to its citizens to be ready for war. You have helicopters that don’t fly, and submarines that sink. Guess you want “jets that crash” added to the list, too? At some point that equipment has to be upgraded. If you’re making the economic argument here – when’s the last time you bought a new car, and why?
Or maybe it’s completely a moral argument that you are making, and you want Canada to have no military force whatsoever? If so, then I suggest moving to Costa Rica or Grenada, because you don’t deserve the peace that past Canadian soldiers have fought for.
LikeLike
September 13, 2010 at 8:23 pm
A.g darmo
” V.R.K.”you missed my point … America is the empire builder…not canada, so we dont need a large and expensive military.If russia invades. america intervenes. if america decides to take us over. we surrender tomorrow. why a large military… to help sustain the american military industrial complex? We need leaders of vision who will try to solve the problems of global warming. energy conservation.water deplation.Etc. The chinese understand the benifits of better education.and are turning out thousands of engineers a year. Buying fighter planes ” is out ” in.2010 . investing in education , and creating non military hi tec jobs” is in” in 2010.-11
LikeLike
September 14, 2010 at 9:37 am
Vern R. Kaine
Morally I agree with you, A.G., but it’s unfortunately more complex than that in reality. I don’t think Canada risks invasion by any country, but if Canada doesn’t “ante up” militarily, it loses its seat at the NATO/NORAD table as would anybody who wants all of the benefits of a coalition intelligence and military network but doesn’t want to buck up its share.
Remember that Canada’s not just expected to protect Canada, but also its allies if asked to help intervene which means Canada needs to have the proper equipment to do the job. The CF-18’s have been great, but they’re way, way, old and ten years from now will surely need to be replaced. That’s not to mention the fact that our servicemen deserve safe equipment up in the air.
“Why a large military”
Canada’s military is hardly large, especially when it comes to planes and other equipment, and either way it’s cheaper for Canadians to protect their own borders and sovereignty than to let America do it for them. Besides – what if America decides to invade Canada and take BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan? Who would you want Canada to ask to intervene then? ;)
Our leaders on both sides of the border can maintain an effective military deterrent AND address all of the problems you mention. I’ve mentioned before that I’ve enjoyed seeing Canada finally getting some of the respect it deserves from its neighbors to the south who have for a long time bullied Canada on a number of fronts. I think the reason Canada has prevailed financial was due largely to its position on military and social spending, and its approach to capitalism which didn’t bring as many “highs” as the US has experienced, but also has avoided a large amount of the lows.
I don’t think Canada has to go stupid on military spending, but I don’t consider this investment to be stupid. I give Harper and the Canadian military a pass on this one.
LikeLike
May 8, 2012 at 6:43 am
Bowling for F35 Prices! – Conservative Mendacity on Display « Dead Wild Roses
[…] remember when we were only talking a paltry 9 billion dollars on new fighter jets (powered by the tears of Canadian children with no access to n… I though wow, this is a real super hyped up plus sell hunk of bullshite being foisted on […]
LikeLike
May 8, 2012 at 9:53 am
cyberclark
Well concerned people; the Conservatives have all this under control! You just have to believe!
Across this country a news banner is running time and again “Do kids need the summer off?”. The title varies but that is the crux of it.
With kids in school all year the costs of daycare takes a huge drop! The reason the public go along with unreasonable teacher raises is because they cannot find child care for the seemingly token raise given to teachers.
You gotta love Conservatives!
LikeLike