backtop

Print 67 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Jul 21 at 4:40 PM

  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
Lockheed Martin will sell 65 F-35 aircraft to Canada, with other nations expected to sign some checks

Lockheed Martin recently announced it will sell 65 F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter) aircraft to Canada, as the company continues to battle development and cost issues in the United States.

Lockheed Martin believes this partnership with the Canadian government "could also start a series of long-awaited orders from JSF partner nations," said Richard Aboulafia, and this is "the first export customer commitment for a production batch of F-35s."

Canada is buying the cheapest model JSF, but the aircraft will still cost around $50 million per F-35.  The decision to purchase as many as 65 has led to criticism from Canada's Liberal Party -- group members saying it's an irresponsible purchase at this time.

Even though the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps plan to utilize the next-generation JSF aircraft, there have been numerous issues along the way.  Late last month, it was also announced that the Lighting II may not be the ideal aircraft, but that remains to be seen.

Additional U.S. allies will also have access to the JSF, with the U.S. already offering it to Israel, while several other nations have expressed interest.  However, there is concern from Lockheed Martin that order numbers could drop in the future if current problems aren't solved as soon as possible.

U.S. military officials are under increased pressure to control their budget, and the costly F-35 is seen as less important since there are so many lingering issues with the program.

Meanwhile, the F-35 Lightning II was tested by the US Navy for the first time in June -- a major step forward for Lockheed Martin -- but the government contractor must answer constant  from lawmakers and military officials.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What's the need
By seraphim1982 on 7/19/2010 11:37:02 AM , Rating: 1
As a Canadian, I don't see the need for getting these F35's.
It IS an irresponsible purchase by our government.

The current build cost of these is outrageous and why we are buying it at the beginning of its product lifecycle is honestly, a waste. Moreover, we upgraded our F18 variants, within the past 10 years. We are pulling out of Afghanistan by the end of the year and these would be used for national defence at most. I can see the need for the navy buildup moreso, as they will be built in Canada and will create jobs and stimulate our economy.

Our PM is a douche, who bends over for the American government on everything.




RE: What's the need
By omnicronx on 7/19/2010 11:55:13 AM , Rating: 3
As another Canadian, I actually have a brain and realize our F18's are 30+ years old! The previous upgrade process was merely scheduled maintenance for our aging fleet that had to be done regardless, it was never meant to give us the ability to forgo upgrades all together.

We have also already spent money on the development F35's in the first place.

My disdain for Harper is fairly large, I don't like the man one bit (Was never fooled by his tricks and never once voted for him or his party), but this plan was in place long before the man was even in power and goes back to the Chretien days.. (i.e 10+ years)


RE: What's the need
By BernardP on 7/19/2010 2:17:21 PM , Rating: 1
And as another Canadian, I'd say that relying on only 65 fighters for a country the size of Canada is pathetic. In the 1980's Canada bought the then-low number of 138 CF-18's.

Either there will have to be a subsequent F-35 order, or Canada will have to get a second-tier fighter to complement it. The Advanced F-18 would do perfectly, as there is no need to go after people on horses with the ultimate stealth fighter-bomber.


RE: What's the need
By corduroygt on 7/19/2010 10:00:12 PM , Rating: 1
The Canadian army doesn't go and invade other people's countries or force them to do their bidding like the US army, so no one would attack Canada anyways.


RE: What's the need
By Gul Westfale on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the need
By sebmel on 7/20/2010 11:27:36 AM , Rating: 1
That was a little over-the-top and your post, unfortunately, has been hidden as a result. There is a historical fact it throws up, however, which is that Canada has been invaded by the US twice: in 1775 and in 1812.

As for fighter planes. It is curious that Canada has bought these planes at a time when an American generals, fighting in Afghanistan have made it very clear that they consider unmanned drones more effective... and much cheaper: $8 million each.

As for what trouble Canada might see in the future... with Russia planting flags by submarine over Arctic oil reserves I don't think that's too hard to work out.


RE: What's the need
By afkrotch on 7/19/2010 10:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
F-35 has stealth technology, but it's not all encompassing like the F-22. Course, it's still pretty kickass. F-22 shows up as a small marble. F-35 as a golfball.

But the F-35 is a perfect replacement for the F-18s. Superior in almost every fashion with low observability.

Most ppl just look at their country and the world as a whole. As in, Canada doesn't really mobilize against any kind of foreign threat. Thus, they think there is no need to have any kind of defense. Which can be true, but they never look much further than that.

With natural resources dwindling and Canada with a vast amount of uncharted space, I would expect Canada to at least update their current force. I'd hate to see what happens with the North Pole area. Russia looks poised to take it.


RE: What's the need
By Hieyeck on 7/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: What's the need
By gamerk2 on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the need
By Hieyeck on 7/20/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the need
By deputc26 on 7/19/2010 12:18:41 PM , Rating: 3
As another Canadian, and a commercial pilot with a lot of friends in the air force I'll tell you right now that not buying these F-35s is pretty much a declaration that Canada is content with being a parasite on the american military umbrella. Your suggestion is an insult to our sovereignty and the insult you threw at the PM is just another example of liberal cluelessness, Harper isn't the greatest but he's the best we've had for some time, and unlike his predecessor he won't win any "Ugliest Head of State" contests. But liberals don't care about how our economy is now the envy of the world, they only care about being allowed to avoid hard work and have sex with dogs.


RE: What's the need
By omnicronx on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the need
By gamerk2 on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the need
By deputc26 on 7/19/2010 11:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hahaha! Harper has terrible interpersonal skills??? I suppose yours are better? You can't have a political career if you have "terrible" interpersonal skills, and you certainly can't be the head of state of a first world nation. I grant that his interpersonal skills are sub-par *for heads of state* but not on a normal scale. I also grant that he's a boring speaker. Who cares??? What matters are results, Harper gets it done and Canada is the better for it.

Your Harper hatred just goes to show that liberals are incapable of thinking objectively about politics, doesn't matter if your country is standing tall in the worst financial meltdown the globe has seen in almost a century. You still try to conjure ways to make him "bad" (interpersonal skills... seriously???? you're grasping at straws...). There is absolutely nothing that will convince a liberal that a conservative can be a great PM, the lens is permanently distorted.


RE: What's the need
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2010 1:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
I know jack about Canadian politics, but based on what you're saying Canadian Liberals are just as small minded judgmental arrogant elitists pricks are our Liberals! It's nice to have something in common :-)

"He doesn't talk like us, isn't from the right area and family, so he must be dumber and less worthy to lead than us"


RE: What's the need
By Ammohunt on 7/19/2010 3:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
Factor in the agressivenes of other nation to make claim to areas of the North Pole traditionally owned by Canada. It behooves Canada to modernize in order to defend its northern border.


RE: What's the need
By rmlarsen on 7/19/2010 3:41:39 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly! As a Dane I must advice you to invest heavily in counter measures to our dog-sleigh commandos that will kick (or sniff) your Canuck butts of Hans Island :-p


RE: What's the need
By rmlarsen on 7/19/2010 3:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
"off" not "of"

@$#@#$@<,!.,[]#$%^$%#! missing edit button!


RE: What's the need
By Ammohunt on 7/19/2010 6:33:03 PM , Rating: 3
Just goes to show there is always a dane hidding in the bushes ready to steal an island from you!(Those Tricky Saxons!)


RE: What's the need
By saganhill on 7/19/2010 3:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
Better than the USA bending over for your PM.


RE: What's the need
By Captain Orgazmo on 7/19/2010 5:03:50 PM , Rating: 5
First of all, you are the douche. Canada has already invested almost a billion dollars in the JSF program since it started, and the spending was done by Chretien just so we could have the opportunity to buy some planes at the head of the line.

Of course you don't see the need for buying these planes, as you are a typical Canadian who thinks everyone in the world is your friend, except of course our biggest ally, trading partner, and neighbour across the largest undefended border in the world, who hasn't shown the slightest bit of aggression towards us since the british empire stopped harassing them just under 200 years ago.


RE: What's the need
By falacy on 7/19/2010 8:46:49 PM , Rating: 5
As another Canadian...

Yup, Def shouldn't have canceled the Arrow. It was expensive for its time, but when one compares the cost it was around ten times cheaper than these jets. Factor in sixty years of research, resales, upgrades, and subsequent models and it's safe to say that we could have been producing similar aircraft in Canada for less money. But hey, that's the past I guess and ain't nuthin ta be learned from it!

Anyhow, I question what exactly we need stealth fighters for. If we go to war, it will be with Russia over the north and they will win regardless of how many jets we have, because we're not stupid enough to try and stop them. Nope, instead we'll strike a deal and avoid the war aspect of it. So, we won't ever actually "go to war" in the life span of these gets, unless we do something like GO to war in a place like Afghanistan. And if that's the case, I just don't see the Taliban getting their own stealth fighters any time soon, so why do we need them?

Trust me, I am not at all optimistic about the state of Humanity, but I still can't see Canada actually having a need to use these jets. Sure, we'll fly them around when we get them, but they won't actually save anyone's life, like our helicopters and coast guard ships do. Perhaps we'll send them to a far off country and kill some poor folks in "collateral damage", then sit back in our laziboys an watch some Canadian Idol.

Yay us. Canada rules.


RE: What's the need
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2010 11:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyhow, I question what exactly we need stealth fighters for. If we go to war, it will be with Russia over the north and they will win regardless of how many jets we have, because we're not stupid enough to try and stop them. Nope, instead we'll strike a deal and avoid the war aspect of it. So, we won't ever actually "go to war" in the life span of these gets, unless we do something like GO to war in a place like Afghanistan. And if that's the case, I just don't see the Taliban getting their own stealth fighters any time soon, so why do we need them?


Once again, someone misses the point of having a standing military force.

It's not so "if" you go to war. It's so you don't have to go to war in the first place.

Of course being Canada, you have the unique position of never having to really worry about either one. Even if the U.S wasn't your ally, we would never allow an enemy to gain a foothold that close to our borders anyway.

p.s I wouldn't call the F-35 a "stealth fighter". It has some stealth properties from certain angles, but it's far from stealth.


RE: What's the need
By afkrotch on 7/20/2010 12:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
Might want to look it up, the F-35 is very much stealth. It's not all encompassing like the F-22, but it's very much still stealth.

The biggest foothold someone could gain is Iceland. Hence the US holding a position there until recently. Iceland doesn't even have a military, so it's extremely easy for an opposing force to take.


RE: What's the need
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2010 12:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
Look something is either "stealth" or it's "radar resistant". How can you claim the F-35 is stealth, then also say it's not all encompassing?

It's either stealth or it's not. It's not, it's simply radar resistant from certain angles and in some situations.


RE: What's the need
By Jeffk464 on 7/19/2010 9:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
Do a internet on Chinese 5th generation fighter that are in the works. After you check out what they have up their sleeves I think you might understand. Scary stuff.


RE: What's the need
By falacy on 7/19/2010 10:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not for Canada, says the over 1 million Chinese Canadians.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-621-x/2006001/t/41...

Not at all worried about China. They'll come around in time.


RE: What's the need
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: What's the need
By Gul Westfale on 7/19/2010 11:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
you said it yourself: billions to provide 33 million with free healthcare

millions to buy only 65 airplanes...

the US is the only western country that spends more money on defense than on healthcare or education. i'm glad i live in canada.


RE: What's the need
By Reclaimer77 on 7/19/2010 11:44:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
the US is the only western country that spends more money on defense than on healthcare or education.


Maybe because the US is the country all other western ones rely on to pull their ass out of the fire every time they need it?

If only you could comprehend how ironic it is to see someone denouncing the U.S military while at the same time safely living inside it's bubble.

By the way, do they not have SHIFT keys in Canada??


RE: What's the need
By roadhog1974 on 7/20/2010 12:06:00 AM , Rating: 2
Feel free not to save us from the fire.

War is so 18th century don't you know.

We used to have fighter planes too.

One of them shot real bullets once ... once!


RE: What's the need
By n00bxqb on 7/20/2010 12:09:50 AM , Rating: 2
YeS, wE hAvE sHiFt KeYs In CaNaDa.

It seems pretty silly for either country to mock the other when Canada and the US both rely so heavily on each other. However, for Canada to sit back and solely rely on the US for protection is completely irresponsible not to mention disrespectful to our American counterparts. While Canada will never be able to fund an elite military like the US can (due mainly to a lack of population and a lack of public desire to have an elite military at the expense of public services), it should at least have a second- or third-tier military capable of self-defense.

American taxpayers shouldn't have to pay to defend Canada because Canadians don't want to fund their own military. It's simply unfair.


RE: What's the need
By Gul Westfale on 7/20/2010 1:27:18 AM , Rating: 1
i don't want to live in the US's bubble. oh, and the "millions" for the 65 planes is actually 9 BILLION... what a fucking waste.


RE: What's the need
By Reclaimer77 on 7/20/2010 1:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i don't want to live in the US's bubble.


Well then I suggest you pick an ocean and cross it. Like it or not if you live in North America you are in the bubble.


RE: What's the need
By Gul Westfale on 7/20/2010 1:48:07 AM , Rating: 1
you have a bubble in your head.


Maybe...
By danobrega on 7/19/2010 11:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
... they are thinking of invading the USA.




RE: Maybe...
By GreenEnvt on 7/19/2010 11:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
We already have, you just haven't realized it yet.


RE: Maybe...
By Motoman on 7/19/2010 11:17:44 AM , Rating: 3
I for one welcome our new Canuckian masters. Maple syrup and hockey pucks for all!


RE: Maybe...
By Helbore on 7/19/2010 11:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
Surely the US build emergency killswitches into military hardware they sell to foreign nations. I know I would!


RE: Maybe...
By Aloonatic on 7/19/2010 11:26:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm not sure that people would buy them in that case somehow.

Now if you want spare parts...


To do what exactly ?
By armagedon on 7/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: To do what exactly ?
By ClownPuncher on 7/19/2010 1:33:04 PM , Rating: 3
Do you buy what you need for today, or do you buy what you may need tomorrow as well?


RE: To do what exactly ?
By danobrega on 7/20/2010 4:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
I hope the day where you need these kind of technology never arrives because if it does...


RE: To do what exactly ?
By ClownPuncher on 7/21/2010 3:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
...we will be more prepared than those who aren't?


RE: To do what exactly ?
By afkrotch on 7/20/2010 12:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, jet fighters only have to worry about other jet fighters. Cheap man portable SAMs are like tiny rocks against a jet. Pffffff.


WTF kind of grammar is this?
By Lord 666 on 7/19/2010 11:08:20 AM , Rating: 3
"Meanwhile, the F-35 Lightning II was tested by the US Navy for the first time in June -- a major step forward for Lockheed Martin -- but the government contractor must answer constant from lawmakers and military officials .




By Amiga500 on 7/20/2010 8:05:36 AM , Rating: 1
Is to aid Canadian aerospace companies in getting contracts for work on the F-35.

It is all just posturing at this stage.

Obviously, the aircraft they really should purchase is a Gripen NG. 95% the capability (probably more like 98-99% for local air defense) at less than 50% the life-cycle cost.




Free Beer, eh?
By MrBlastman on 7/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Free Beer, eh?
By Deaks2 on 7/19/2010 11:01:54 AM , Rating: 2
Support your economy? LockMart and partners are spending quite a bit of money in Canada on F-35 dev and construction, we're supporting our own economy...
The ecnomic befits over the course of the programme (40+ yrs) will total several billion dollars more than we're spending on these planes.


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By MrBlastman on 7/19/2010 11:11:03 AM , Rating: 1
You're looking at it all wrong.

Canada gives us money, we develop higher tech aircraft which we then can sell to you. We also are able to provide "jerbs" to our people while we do so.

You get to blow more stuff up. How much stuff? MORE stuff. Quantify the more and then you see the true benefit to your purchase.


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By omnicronx on 7/19/2010 12:01:59 PM , Rating: 5
You've got it all wrong. We develop aircraft tech 30 years ahead of its time, and then scrap and burn the entire program in exchange for costly Arctic ballistic missiles and a contract that would all but nullify our ability to create any military tech in exchange for the ability to buy it all from you instead!!

40 years down the line, we are still buying the very planes that were based on our designs! Yay!

What a great concept!! Really makes me wonder why the Canadian military/air force/navy etc is the laughing stock of the entire world..


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By Iaiken on 7/19/2010 12:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really makes me wonder why the Canadian military/air force/navy etc is the laughing stock of the entire world..


As much as Canadians like to disparage our own military capabilities, doing so is a monumental disservice to our men and women in uniform.

As I posted below, our troops are easily the equals of their counterparts in other modern nations. The only difference is that we don't have nearly as many of them. I've seen the level of professional respect paid our troops by other nations soldiers first hand and that is nothing to laugh at.

The main reason for this perception is because we are much more peaceable than the US or British and we are much less willing to get involved in a fight. However, when our troops have been placed in these situations (Korea, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Rwanda, Afghanistan and others) they have conducted themselves in ways that every Canadian can (and should) be proud of.

When you effectiveness of Canadian fighters and what they can and do achieve against the cost of the Canadian military at large and you quickly see just how efficient and effective our military is despite its small size.

Though I really must agree that the Canadian government needs to stop preventing Canadian industry from getting into the defense sector. There was no good reason for them to put that nail in Avro's coffin as all it did was close the door to a Canadian company competing with the likes of SAAB, Dassault, EADS and Boeing all while wasting millions of dollars on missiles that didn't work anyway.


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By Iaiken on 7/19/2010 12:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Blastman,

The only reason Canada got involved in the first place was so that Canadian companies could access F-35 contracts.

Thus far, our $790 million dollar investment in the program has netted twice that amount for the private sector and is on schedule to pay back the entire government sum in taxes by 2014. Over the life of the program, Canadians stand to see over 9 billion paid back into our economy by Lockheed Martin and around 20% of that going to the government in the form of taxes.

Though the current procurement plan is seriously flawed:

- 98 operational CF-18’s (another 30 in storage) with 65 F-35’s
- F-35 isn’t even done combat flight testing
- The JSF's capabilities in the arctic and winter conditions are currently unknown
- The upgraded CF-18’s don’t need to be replaced till 2020.
- They don’t actually need to start the procurement process until 2017
- We’re replacing practically everything in our military at the same time (EXPENSIVE!)

With so many other military upgrade and purchase programs underway (SAR Helicopters, Combat Helicopters, Main Battle Tanks, Naval Cruisers), what is the flipping rush and why are they not even bothering to open the procurement up into a contest and let the best plane win?

Perhaps it is because all indications point to the JSF not being the best suited aircraft for what we use them for or where we deploy them. The majority of our aircraft spend their time operating in regions where it is below freezing for the better part of the year. How will the JSF hold up to these rigors? Engine icing and flame-outs are a serious concern in the high arctic and if the F-35 cannot cope, we'll be forced to buy an additional supplementary jet that that can. This further complicates our situation as unlike the US, we cannot afford to have an air force of 10+ specialized jet aircraft. We need a single jack-of-all-trades fighter that is good enough for what we intend to use them for and which simplifies our procurement, training and maintenance.

In every single conflict we have been party to, we have been an effective supplementary force. We have been so because our troops and pilots were well enough equipped to get the job done. They've also demonstrated a level of adaptability and ingenuity on the battlefield that has led them to be the equals of their American, British and German counterparts. In some cases, it has lead to the Canadians succeeding where other allied troops had failed miserably. Canadians have even managed to school their American counterparts, surprising everyone involved including themselves.

We've got time to put some thought into this and I think we would be stupid not to take advantage of it.


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By MrBlastman on 7/19/2010 2:27:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The majority of our aircraft spend their time operating in regions where it is below freezing for the better part of the year. How will the JSF hold up to these rigors? Engine icing and flame-outs are a serious concern in the high arctic and if the F-35 cannot cope, we'll be forced to buy an additional supplementary jet that that can. This further complicates our situation as unlike the US, we cannot afford to have an air force of 10+ specialized jet aircraft. We need a single jack-of-all-trades fighter that is good enough for what we intend to use them for and which simplifies our procurement, training and maintenance.


Well that is a good point you make--we don't know how these airframes will operate and handle arctic conditions yet, at least, as far as I know. It is a bit of blind faith Canada is putting in LMT to deliver an aircraft that is capable in their conditions and, as we know from past experience, things come up when testing aircraft that lead to further delays and testing.

Lets hope due to Canada's involvement, these airframes receive arctic testing that is thorough so they can find any problems before an unfortunate active-duty officer finds out the hard way.

As far as jack-of-all trades, this is what the F-35 is supposed to be, while being best at nothing, like the F-16 was (though, the F-16 is incredibly maneuverable, I think its primary weakness has always been its powerplant, though with the engine update it has helped slightly. Get them down low in the mud while going slow and they're going to have a harder time versus an airframe that can go high AoA on them at a low speed.

This has been by itself my biggest worry about the F-35, is its reduced powerplant. You can be as maneuverable as you want to be, speed is still life and being able to sustain that turn rate is paramount. BVR is a different story of course, but, I'm just pointing out one spot I hope they do not skimp on. The alternative engine program is a start. If you only have one engine, make it a darned good one at least and pack all the thrust you can into it.


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By SittingBull on 7/19/2010 3:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
Is it only me or is anyone else concerned about a long range fighter that has only one engine? At least the F-18 has two engines, so if one goes out it still has the other to limp home on. But the F-35 has only a single engine and that seems like a disaster waiting to happen when you are intercepting Russian Bear bombers over the Arctic Circle.

But maybe it is just me ...


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By monkeyman1140 on 7/19/2010 4:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well there's always been a philosophy divide in the military over engines. The USAF seems content with the single engine F-16, the US Navy insists their planes have 2 engines, thus the F-18.
The J-35 looks more and more like a weapon without a mission, when compared to its european competition.


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By MrBlastman on 7/19/2010 4:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
The reason the F-16 has been and the F-35's are so appealing are because of them having a single engine. Their cost to operate is a fair bit less than a twin-engine plane, creating a far more cost-effective airframe to put up in the sky for extended rotation.

The F-35 is not built to be an interceptor--that role falls into the hands of the F-22, which, unfortunately, we will not have enough of.


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By roadhog1974 on 7/20/2010 12:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
how many would be enough?


RE: Free Beer, eh?
By tng on 7/21/2010 4:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
In the US the F22 was supposed to replace the aging F15C as an interceptor. I believe the original order from Lockheed at the time was close to 1000 fighters (someone correct me on this if I am way off).

The cost of developing the F22 was enormous, much larger than the F35 even without adjusting for inflation, but it is by far a superior plane to the F35. Years ago before the government here in the US canceled the program, they cut the number of planes they were going to buy. Lockheed had invested so much money into the program that they figured with just the cut in the order they would likely lose $800 million USD on the program. Who knows what they are at now. Point is that a F35 is $50 million, a F22 is 100 million. But it is that much better.

To replace the F15s now in service the US would have to buy at least an additional 500 planes I think (again someone correct me if that is not even close, it has been along time since I looked at this).


Politics as usual
By MrTeal on 7/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Politics as usual
By mmntech on 7/19/2010 11:19:06 AM , Rating: 2
The Liberals are the same party that put us in Afghanistan without the proper equipment to fight a war. They had to wear green camos in the desert because the military couldn't afford the tan ones!


RE: Politics as usual
By Taft12 on 7/19/2010 11:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
Our mission in Afghanistan is not a war....


RE: Politics as usual
By Hieyeck on 7/19/2010 11:32:28 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you so American about the whole thing.

Canadians are the most apatheic voters on the face of the Earth. We'll cry about all the bad stuff, then can't be bothered to do anything about it. We're OK with not being the best at anything, as long as we're second best at everything. Our healthcare is a mess, but at least we have healthcare. We don't protect our environment very well, but we make up for it in quantity (more Ma Nature than we can possibly screw up).

Canadians don't vote for who they like, only who they hate the least.


RE: Politics as usual
By Iaiken on 7/19/2010 12:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Canadians don't vote for who they like, only who they hate the least.


I know that's how I vote...

When all your options suck, you vote for the one that sucks the least. Thankfully, this prevents our elections from becoming the same sort of wanton popularity contests that we love to watch play out on US television.


RE: Politics as usual
By Hieyeck on 7/19/2010 12:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Even our political drama is second-rate.

On a side note: Overseas politics look even more fun. They get in fist-fights! (e.g. Ukraine, New Zealand)


RE: Politics as usual
By 3DoubleD on 7/19/2010 3:50:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Canadians don't vote for who they like, only who they hate the least.


That's how I vote too! The last election was a crapshoot and I don't expect the next one to be much different! I think this is the only reason why a higher percentage of Canadians vote than Americans (or at least it used to be that way). If I had to vote in the US, I'd be seriously depressed by the ridiculous BS that is carried on by both parties. I don't think our politicians are any better, but at least we can throw a vote to a more than two parties, which I feel keeps politicians on their toes a bit more.

quote:
Good point. Even our political drama is second-rate.


I don't think I could put it better


RE: Politics as usual
By gamerk2 on 7/19/2010 2:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The US puts popularity (in the form of who says more popular things) ahead of competentcy. And of course, the people wonder why nothing gets done...


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki