▼Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated

I just watched power in politics, and Mr. Solomon made the issue VERY clear.
Harper gov't says procurement costs of the fighter jets are going to be around $75 mill each.
But Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition management at the US General Accountability Office, said he doesn't know where that estimate comes from.

We do need to invest in our military but our leaders need to stop deceiving us on the true costs passed down to the tax payer.

This money should be spent on ground forces instead of fighter jets. Any country with a decent military could destroy us with or without our air force. We are better off scratching the Americans back with the other parts of our forces (navy, army) and relying on them for air support.

**edit*
adding a link, for my source

F-35 cost more than $100 mill each

Originally posted by InnerTruths
I just watched power in politics, and Mr. Solomon made the issue VERY clear.
Harper gov't says procurement costs of the fighter jets are going to be around $75 mill each.
But Mike Sullivan, director of acquisition management at the US General Accountability Office, said he doesn't know where that estimate comes from.

We do need to invest in our military but our leaders need to stop deceiving us on the true costs passed down to the tax payer.

This money should be spent on ground forces instead of fighter jets. Any country with a decent military could destroy us with or without our air force. We are better off scratching the Americans back with the other parts of our forces (navy, army) and relying on them for air support.

**edit*
adding a link, for my source

F-35 cost more than $100 mill each

edit on 30/3/2011 by InnerTruths because: add a link

Im not so sure i agree.

We have the second largest country in the world with vast areas of space that is undeveloped. In order to project military power, we need mobility to be a top concern. The current main concern of the Canadian military is our claim to the arctic areas that are suspected to contain vast oil wealth. The Russians have constantly been testing our resolve, and if you look back over the last few years, their flights over sovereign Canadian airspace have been increasing, and especially around the areas of contention in the North. Ground troops will not help us in this respect, we need modern aircraft to pose a threat to Russian provocations.

I would almost suggest that perhaps half of the budget alotted to the new aircraft should go towards our navy, and especially submarines.

All this being said, i would dread a military confrontation with Russia, but we simply cannot let them push us around.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Rook1545

 

Do we need to upgrade our forces? Yes.

Do we need to waste a crapload of money and time buying American fighters that don't even suit us? Nope. The F-35 contract is purely political. Tactically, we don't need 135million dollar, single engine, STOL fighters.. Eurofighters are a much better option.

I agree, I even said as much in my post. But can you think of any political party party in Canada that would be willing piss of the US to the tune of $6billion?

I can understand what your concerns are nightbringr, and I share them as well. Troops in the arctic is not very feasible in those regards, but neither is spending over $100 mill for 65 fighter jets.

OK, I read the source material until this:

The Conservative government has maintained that a security perimeter with the U.S. will not impact on sovereignty, but a poll issued last month suggested that Canadians remain concerned. The Vancouver Sun reported that a survey conducted by Ipsos Reid found that 68% believe Canada, “will compromise too much power over decisions about immigration, privacy and security to get a perimeter security agreement.” The poll also found that 51% of Canadians don't, “trust Stephen Harper to negotiate a deal that improves border access but doesn't give up powers that are important to Canada maintaining its own independence.”

If there wasn't an election going on I might have read further. Not that it's anything new, this has been done many times in the past, But this is just a campaign ploy. Not worth my time. Same as Harper's attack ads on Iggy. Man I hate what Canadian politics has devolved into.

Originally posted by nightbringr
We have the second largest country in the world with vast areas of space that is undeveloped. In order to project military power, we need mobility to be a top concern.

I had to read through a bunch of Canadian Forces strategic planning pamphlets a year ago for a project, and our high command has two priorities: to further enhance interoperability with the Americans (ie, basically give Americans control over our own forces via NORTHCOM), and to reform the Canadian Forces into a quick-deployable, highly mobile force in order to deal with threats or disasters all over the country.

The quick-deployment strategy is a good call, interoperability with the Yanks isn't. The F-35 issue is just one political aspect of interoperability; the Americans command NORAD and they firmly believe that they have the right to patrol Canadian skies for us, and we should only serve as backup for threats in our own skies (the SPP is now calling for the same nonsense for navy and ground forces aswell).

The F-35 is a tactical fighter. It is NOT an air-supremacy fighter that will perform effectively at long-range interceptions in all weather climates. The Americans know this and plan to us NORAD as an instrument to deploy fighters like F-22s over our airspace. On top of this, the F-35 is so bloody expensive at over $135million a pop that we are getting screwed over twice here. In fact, in seems that the US only wants us to have the F-35 so we can use them to support US invasions in the Middle East and North Africa (look up the Canadian Forces-funded future combat manual "Crisis In Zefra").

That moron Harper has been campaigning that we need F-35s to protect our northern sovereignty, but the reality is that if we invest in F-35s, we will need American fighters to fill in the vast gaps for us. We would be MUCH better off in investing in something like the Su-33MKI, which is a third of the price and twice as capable, especially in arctic conditions (which will probably screw with any stealthy advantages and complex avionics of the F-35).

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Why is the Su-33 MKI so much better? Its a Russian-Indian produced aircraft, would it be compatible with our Nato logistics and command and control systems? Would we be able to launch these from allied Nato carriers?

These all strike me as being important concerns. Also, why do you suggest we shouldnt have a strong military ties with out US brothers to the south? They are our Nato allies and honestly, if the SHTF we really have not much of a chance of defending out vast lands without their help.

I agree with you that they should not be violating our airspace, but i do not see why we would move away from strategic ties with our Nato ally and really, our only chance of defense if say, the Russians wanted to take our Albertan oilfields in a Tom Clancy "EndWar" type scenerio. I do not want them violating our sovereignty any more than you do, and our government should do more to make this point clear.

You call Harper a "moron", so might i ask who you would vote for? Or perhaps more to the point, if Canada had a communist party on the ballot, would you vote for them? You avatar strikes me as being very Communist.

Originally posted by nightbringr
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Why is the Su-33 MKI so much better? Its a Russian-Indian produced aircraft, would it be compatible with our Nato logistics and command and control systems? Would we be able to launch these from allied Nato carriers?

First of all, I totally screwed that up. I meant Su-30MKI; Su-33 is the navalized Flanker.

I say Su-30MKI because that appears to be the top-tier 4.5 generation fighter that is available for export. My second choice, if politics were not a concern, would be the Typhoon.

I say that that the Su-30MKI is a better tactical option because it is a fraction of the price, has two engines, is much larger, and carries a larger payload. It is also developed by the Russians and has been designed to operate in all-weather conditions (I'm not saying American fighters aren't, but face it, Russians built fighters to defend their northern country, not to invade countries where snow is non-existant).

The F-35 just isn't worth it. We don't need stealth fighters for protecting our land. Stealth compromises weapon capacity, maneuverability, etc. On top of this, stealth is far from undefeatable and considering the Russians are not stupid and have stealth tech of their own, they develop technology, such as the S-400, that can track stealth craft and will eventually export this technology, making our stealth aircraft obsolete (important since we plan to fly these for like 40 years).

As for NATO interoperability, that all depends on technological modifications. We don't fly off of other nations' carriers either.

The F-35 decision is political, 100%. It is to make the US happy by buying their crappy exports for a insane price, which will give them the excuse to use their own fighters to take over where we cannot.

These all strike me as being important concerns. Also, why do you suggest we shouldnt have a strong military ties with out US brothers to the south? They are our Nato allies and honestly, if the SHTF we really have not much of a chance of defending out vast lands without their help.

NATO was the counter to the Warsaw Pact. Now, NATO is nothing more than a US-led war machine that invades other countries to exploit them.

And you know what? Even if we weren't in NATO, or all that close with the US, the US would still intercept any invasion to North America. We are basically negotiating what we already have, plus giving away our sovereignty and industry to the Americans.

Oh, and if we weren't involved in warmongering, then why would anyone want to attack us? We weren't targeted by Islamic terrorists before Afghanistan, and I am skeptical that we even are now.

I agree with you that they should not be violating our airspace, but i do not see why we would move away from strategic ties with our Nato ally and really, our only chance of defense if say, the Russians wanted to take our Albertan oilfields in a Tom Clancy "EndWar" type scenerio. I know this is extremely unlikely, but again, could we defend ourselves?

Tom Clancy is a joke and knows nothing about real geopolitics. All he thinks is that the US is superior to everything and is the world police, as evidenced by ALL of his work and especially from his own words in interviews.

And I'm not saying we should ally with Russia either. We should go back to being an industrial powerhouse like we were in the 50s, before the US started taking over our industries, especially our own domestic military production. If those stupid pigs didn't cut up our Arrows, we would be a generation ahead of the Americans in avionic tech by now.

As for the oilfields, you can blame the Albertan government for that, inspired by stupid free trade ideals. They are selling our oil at liquidation prices, and there's more nations involved than just the US there (Norway and China are prospecting big time).

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Agreed, Tom Clancy is a moron, and his books are a joke, but the scenerio in there makes sense. Russias' Baku oilfields have run dry and they desperately need oil. But just because we are not "warmongering" doesnt mean we are safe in our little corner of the world. We hold vast oil wealth in the sands, and as time goes by and reserves are depleted worldwide, im am fairly convinced nations with the might to do so will become more aggressive in their search for natural resources. Political pressure will ensure that countries who can push their weight around will. Its already happening.

And just because the USA will defend North America since its in their best interests means we should turn our back on them and leave all the costs onto them? Sounds like you want us to be USA's little welfare brother. When trouble comes knocking, we expect them to come save our asses. While this is exactly what would happen, shouldnt we contribute? Saying "leave it all up to them" is irresponsible and shameful.

While i agree Nato is perhaps a thing of the past, as we no longer have to check Warsaw Pact aggression, we are still allies. Until the day comes when we withdraw from Nato, we must act as allies.

Again i ask. Would you vote for a Canadian Communist party? It seems a fair question, as this thread was started to discuss the upcomming election. If not, for whom would you vote?

Originally posted by nightbringr
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Agreed, Tom Clancy is a moron, and his books are a joke, but the scenerio in there makes sense. Russias' Baku oilfields have run dry and they desperately need oil. But just because we are not "warmongering" doesnt mean we are safe in our little corner of the world. We hold vast oil wealth in the sands, and as time goes by and reserves are depleted worldwide, im am fairly convinced nations with the might to do so will become more aggressive in their search for natural resources. Political pressure will ensure that countries who can push their weight around will. Its already happening.

There's so much more to the tar sands than just simply extracting oil. In fact, we cover the tar sands a lot at in our studies here.

The oil in the tar sands is bitumen. What that means is that it is really just soil soaked with oil. It actually costs at least two barrels of oil just to produce one barrel of this stuff and even then, it is dirty oil that isn't for casual use.

The tar sands are seen by Harper's government and the Albertan government as just the beginning of "100 years" of development there. They are insane if they believe this. The fact is that peak oil will hit us in a decade, and afterwards it will become exponentially more expensive to extract it and the whole tar sands project will become a flop. It is the exact same with oil derricks; they don't extract all of the oil, but just as much as it is profitable to extract.

If you want to get into invasions for the tar sands, then let me make this clear to you: Russia has its own oil supplies, and China has enough oil supplies imported to it and an army big enough to keep those resources flowing. Our only threat, AND IT IS A THREAT, is the USA. We supply the US with over 1/3 of its energy, and it will do whatever it can to preserve that.

In some ways I like to believe that the pro-American policies of our federal government are just to keep the Americans from invading us, because I am sure that is exactly what would happen if we nationalized again and actually became our own damn country again like 50 years ago, not some bitch state. Things like NAFTA and the SPP are produced by Washington in order to ensure that we remain compliant to their resource needs; if we declared that we would drop out of NAFTA in six months (the protocol time limit), then you would see the US amassing troops along our border, claiming that we are out to get them and they need to "liberate" us.

And just because the USA will defend North America since its in their best interests means we should turn our back on them and leave all the costs onto them? Sounds like you want us to be USA's little welfare brother. When trouble comes knocking, we expect them to come save our asses. While this is exactly what would happen, shouldnt we contribute? Saying "leave it all up to them" is irresponsible and shameful.

What the hell makes you think we need the US to take care of us? In the 50s, we were the fourth largest industrialized power. We were at the top of the world until our leadership decided that we should ally more with the US than Britain and started to sell off our assets to them.

Look at Canadian history. Before Trudeau, foreign ownership of Canada was a serious problem and brought us down big time. Trudeau came in and nationalized our resources; he was iconized for it because he gave use sovereignty and power again. Then that shrill Mulroney took power, dismantled the nationalization act and implemented NAFTA claiming that selling off our resources and industries would somehow help us grow as a nation. Then the leadership has gone along with free-trade and American integration ever since. Our country is nothing like it was decades past and we would be damn fools to believe that we could ever prosper again without becoming an official American state.

And you know what? Canada is quite capable of taking care of itself. Why would we be invaded by anyone unless they have a serious agenda concerning us (Like America's "Operation Crimson")? The US is and always was our biggest threat. They have always been out to take us over AND IT IS NO DIFFERENT NOW. In fact, they need our resources now more than ever if they ever hope to survive as a global empire.

Just wait and see how friendly you think Americans are when we deny them bulk water exports. They will come and take our water with fire!

While i agree Nato is perhaps a thing of the past, as we no longer have to check Warsaw Pact aggression, we are still allies. Until the day comes when we withdraw from Nato, we must act as allies.

NO.

Canada used to be a morally high-standing nation of peace-seeking and socially-advancing people. Now what are we, as allies of the US? The world sees as a lapdog. And that is exactly what we should be called.

We are in Libya right now, supporting the US coalition as it bombs civilians and the Libyan government, which is legally defined as TERRORISM. We are also terrorists for supporting it. We are only in these coalition invasions to please the US; It has NOTHING to do with helping people around the world.

We, the Canadian people, will pay dearly for this crime some day even when there are extremely few Canadians who would even support such a bullsh*t military mission that is KILLING people.

Again i ask. Would you vote for a Canadian Communist party? It seems a fair question, as this thread was started to discuss the upcomming election. If not, for whom would you vote?

1) What makes you think I would vote for the Canadian Communist Party? Voting for a communist party is pretty much against everything I know and believe in when it comes to communism (I'm not communist either, but I certainly know Lenin's theory).
2) In order for me to do so, I would need to be living in a constintuency of the CCP; as far as I know, the CCP really only exists around Ontario.
3) Since I am involved in Canadian political science, I am a realist and I am more interesting in supporting a party that has a real chance of winning and actually supporting regular Canadians without massive reforms. I am more NDP or Green Party when it comes to Canadian politics. I firmly believe that neither the Liberals or Conservatives care about regular Canadians, or BC in general.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


We obviously sit on different sides of the political spectrum, as i would never vote for the tax and spend socialist NDP. Thankful, neither would most Canadians as their popularity is the lowest of the three major parties.

Your policy is obviously driven by a deep seated animosity towards the USA, some justified some not. They are certainly not my favorite country but i do not believe they are the root of all evil in the world along with Israel here that many, many ATS'ers do, I tend to believe the blame is a little more homogenously spread about.

I would like to see your information or the link you said that shows the wastefulness of the oilsands. Everything ive been told or made to believe says that the higher the price of oil, the more profitable to be. This makes sense to me, so if i am incorrect, i would like to know. Please provide some information.

This article here debunks most of what im sure you will show:

albertaenterprisegroup.com...

Our government subsidizing a private company in this manner would be unacceptable. However, giving tax credits on such things as natural gas needed to refine the oil is a normal, accepted way of doing business in Canada. Provinces will give tax breaks on everything from property to utilities useage to many different kinds of businesses to lure them into setting up camp in their province. I do not agree with this manner of doing business, but if you point the finger at the oilsands, you must also point the finger at any big business in Canada who has taken advantage of such benefits.

So if these companies are not profitable, why are they running? I want to know the mechanism that makes them more expensive to run the higher oil prices go. Seems very counter-intuitive.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
If American wannabe Ignatieff takes control... I suspect NAFTA and the NA Security Perimeter will be implemented within a decade.

And Harper isn't an 'american wannabe'?

reply to post by nightbringr


Great points. I find serious contradiction in anyone who says that Canada shouldn't depend on the US military, while also saying they shouldn't spend money on their own military.

Which is it? Do you want Canadian sovereignty, or do you want to be the 51st state? You cant have it both ways.

NO.

Canada used to be a morally high-standing nation of peace-seeking and socially-advancing people. Now what are we, as allies of the US? The world sees as a lapdog. And that is exactly what we should be called.

We are in Libya right now, supporting the US coalition as it bombs civilians and the Libyan government, which is legally defined as TERRORISM. We are also terrorists for supporting it. We are only in these coalition invasions to please the US; It has NOTHING to do with helping people around the world.

We, the Canadian people, will pay dearly for this crime some day even when there are extremely few Canadians who would even support such a bullsh*t military mission that is KILLING people.

]Again i ask. Would you vote for a Canadian Communist party? It seems a fair question, as this thread was started to discuss the upcomming election. If not, for whom would you vote?

We Americans got dragged themselves into Libya by our European allies. It's mostly Europeans war not ours. Libya was mostly the interest of Europeans, not North America. Plus UK and France are taking the lead role in it bombing to help the rebels against Gahffi. So get your facts straight before you mouth off

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Canada could reduce our dependancy and reduce our military spending while increasing military size and capability.

I've been thinking about this for a long time now and I have a fairly reasonable plan worked out for it.

Let's start with infantry and their basic equipment:
A) Firearms: We currently produce every single resource required to manufacture small arms (rifles/pistols/etc.). We currently have gunsmiths inside the Forces. There is no real reason why we couldn't produce ALL of our own light arms and ammunition for far cheaper than currently aquired.
B) Armor: Canada has some of the worlds leading synthetic material manufacturers. Everything from carbon fibre (including nano tube technology) to kevlar, etc...you name it, we can make it. Treat it the same as firearms.

Hell, there is not one thing our infantry currently uses that we couldn't manufacture cost effectively inside our own Forces.

I understand that armor, aircraft, and ships would be more problematic, but all savings count.

Add in gains from infrastructue...like why do I help train engineers in our Forces how to build homes and light industrial buildings if they are going to contract them out anyways...what a waste. They could easily shave 15-20% of all of their buildings if the Forces engineers acted as contractor/architect/consultant...those 3 areas have the highest markups in construction.

We have shipyards we don't use.

Like seriously, our military could cut it's budget by 20% easy without anybody noticing if they had decent management.

This would not only make us more independant of the US, it would drastically IMPROVE our relationship with the US.

You can't be friends unless you are equals...time to start making ourselves equals.

Originally posted by nightbringr
I would like to see your information or the link you said that shows the wastefulness of the oilsands.

Are you serious? At least in this province, it is commonly accepted here that the tar sands are an extremely bad investment.

If you want my sources, well first off you can try Peter Victor, a major economist and seems to be environmentalist. Michael Byers is another.

And it is really just common sense. Once you tap into an oil reserve, you will eventually hit the peak of oil production from that location. After that, you will need more advanced technology and more energy to produce energy from the source until it becomes more expensive to produce it than what the oil is worth. This is exactly what is the case with most oil derricks.

On top of that, the dirty oil from the tar sands is already super expensive to extract and even to refine because it is not crude oil; you need to separate the sand from it. In fact, we have to export most of it to the US and then buy the refined product back from them. We make little to no profit considering NAFTA regulations and the very low royalties imposed on this oil.

And beyond all this, we now have China and the US competing for tar sands oil because it is so deregulated that foreign companies can just walk in and take our tar sands oil for very little cost and high environmental disconsideration.

We Americans got dragged themselves into Libya by our European allies. It's mostly Europeans war not ours. Libya was mostly the interest of Europeans, not North America. Plus UK and France are taking the lead role in it bombing to help the rebels against Gahffi. So get your facts straight before you mouth off

Maybe you should get your facts straight. CIA was in there screwing things up weeks before the UN resolution came around, and it is all American-led now. Canadians are involved to protect our own oil interests, because any oil gained for the US means we can relax some more on our own oil export situation, hence why we were even involved in Operation Desert Storm.

Originally posted by Misoir
How about letting Canada have a real Prime Minister that wants Canada to be and remain Canadian?

The thing is, for over a century now Canada has been a place for Americans to exploit, namely it regard to raw natural resources like wood and water, as well as oil. So, in that sense, Harper IS allowing Canada to remain 'Canadian'.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by nightbringr

Maybe you should get your facts straight. CIA was in there screwing things up weeks before the UN resolution came around, and it is all American-led now. Canadians are involved to protect our own oil interests, because any oil gained for the US means we can relax some more on our own oil export situation, hence why we were even involved in Operation Desert Storm.

edit on 2-4-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

That doesn't make sense. You are saying that Canada is fighting in Libya and Iraq because they want to sell even LESS oil to the US? Help me understand how that could possibly make sense. Canada WANTS to sell their oil. The US gets a VERY large portion of their oil from Canada. FAR more than they get from Libya.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Libya has more oil interests in Europeans than the US. Get your facts straight before you mouth off to something you don't know off.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by nightbringr

Maybe you should get your facts straight. CIA was in there screwing things up weeks before the UN resolution came around, and it is all American-led now. Canadians are involved to protect our own oil interests, because any oil gained for the US means we can relax some more on our own oil export situation, hence why we were even involved in Operation Desert Storm.

edit on 2-4-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

That doesn't make sense. You are saying that Canada is fighting in Libya and Iraq because they want to sell even LESS oil to the US? Help me understand how that could possibly make sense. Canada WANTS to sell their oil. The US gets a VERY large portion of their oil from Canada. FAR more than they get from Libya.

edit on 2-4-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

Yes, that's right.

Except one thing. The usage of oil in the West is continually on the rise, and energy consumption here is projected to skyrocket during this century.

Canada has oil reserves, but it doesn't have strategic reserves. Also, most of our crude oil reserves are currently inaccessible in the arctic (mostly due to a law stating that in order to set up a rig there, you need both a main well and some emergency device installed within one season).

The oil that comes out of Canada and goes to the US is also produced by American corporations (NAFTA). Under NAFTA stipulations, we CANNOT disrupt the flow of oil to the US unless due to conflict or nuclear problems. Legally, we have to keep supplying the US with a constant rate even if we encounter a serious energy shortage here.

Also note that Canada produces more crude than we require, BUT we don't have the refinery capacity to deal with it all. We actually import a lot of refined oil, especially from the US.

So basically, we go to resource wars with the US to preserve our own oil situation. It is even documented that US military brass met up with our military brass years ago to discuss our middle east strategy to secure oil reserves and to promote the public image of the "war on terrorism".

If we don't help the Americans secure future fuel prospects, then at first, they will come for us looking for more of our oil to import. They will send more oil companies up here to extract more of our resources, and will probably try to buy out more of our own oil companies. If for some reason we refuse, then it would probably result in armed conflict if the US sees no other options to secure resources from third world nations (like if there is some major anti-US movement throughout Africa, South America, and the Middle East).

Paulioetc15-
Libya has more oil interests in Europeans than the US. Get your facts straight before you mouth off to something you don't know off.

What a big mouth you have. Maybe you should go to university and study these things for yourself just like I do and you might have something credible to say.