View Full Version : F-35's
Scrap metal or genius?
Can you really make a fighter that can do it all? Serve all arms of the military?
Some say it's the next sh1t, others say it's a failed attempt to build on a bad idea. For example, small wings let it launch vertically, yet limit it in maneuverability. Apparently this tit for tat trade off is affecting all aspects of the plane. Stealth what? I call bullsh1t on that one. Stealth my ass. Ask Bosnia how hard it is to shoot down a "stealth" plane!!!
And now the affordable price tag is up up up, so far. We'll see. Anyone up to date on this? I heard over 200 mill per unit. That is a base cost, not operational cost. OUCH!!!
You gotta wonder, with so many great nations backing this build, how bad could it be? On the other hand, we've seen worse. When people won't admit defeat they tend to waste even more time and money. We're better off with the CF-188 Hornets, lol. I feel like this is another cash grab at the expense of our economy and safety.
What's even worse, after the Canadian Gov was exposed in being shady and/or incompetent, they won't even talk about it. They spend YOUR money but won't even return a phone call about what they spent it on. I don't understand how this became acceptable? Who decided this was ok?
When Norway was thinking about going with the Swede plane, The US bullied them into going with the f-35. Wikileaks show us the threats made. It's all in the cables. And it says this tactic should be used against any country thinking of bailing on the program. Something is very wrong here. Good plane or not.
I think maybe the US is bullying nations to join the program so that they can scale back their own commitments to a failed idea. Make everyone else buy the mistake rather than owning up.
The Harper Gov promised a competition for the best plane for us, then all the sudden all is secret and we are locked in to this crap? After investors started freaking out and the plane started showing it wasn't working out, all the sudden Canada and Israel are on board? Why the rush? Why the lies? 65 planes for 9 billion and they said it was a total running cost. Turns out it was a base cost not counting anything but the plane itself. With weapons, gear, upkeep, infrastructure etc Harper papers say 16 billion. I think that is way low, but we'll see.
Also, why did they hide the statement of requirement if they have nothing to hide? And where is this cost guaruntee contract that Harper swears we have? That guy just str8 up lied, again.
Why do people just live with this? Drives me nutts. Those of us left to try on our own get stomped out for it while everyone else hides in their lil holes.
sanjuro_ronin
10-01-2012, 05:33 AM
Air "superiority" fighters are an easy sell because people think they are getting "more plane for less coin".
Outside the F-4, F-14 and the F-15, I don't recall any really good "all around" fighter.
The Raptor is a great plane but I don't think it is as good as everyone says it is.
In my time most pilots had lots of issues with the F-18 hornets, but the plane supposedly got better as the years went by.
Honestly I am not sure how much "dog fighting" still happens nowadays and it seems that what planes are used for (manned) is as bombers more than anything else.
David Jamieson
10-01-2012, 06:59 AM
I see that the F-22s aren't being put up for sale.
I hear they are pretty good at most stuff.
Air "superiority" fighters are an easy sell because people think they are getting "more plane for less coin".
Outside the F-4, F-14 and the F-15, I don't recall any really good "all around" fighter.
The Raptor is a great plane but I don't think it is as good as everyone says it is.
In my time most pilots had lots of issues with the F-18 hornets, but the plane supposedly got better as the years went by.
Honestly I am not sure how much "dog fighting" still happens nowadays and it seems that what planes are used for (manned) is as bombers more than anything else.
Well, it depends who you're fighting, where the you're located etc. If there are going to be dogfights, best to be ready for it.
I understand the desire to cut costs in these hard times, but this is NOT the way to do it. It was a bad idea from the get go. Where we're at technologically, one all round plane isn't a good idea. As I understand it anyways. You wanna bomber, build a bomber. Sure, make it as versatile as you can, but don't sacrifice it's bombing capabilities any more than you have to. If your bomber needs support, then it needs support. But don't sacrifice it's abilities so far as to make it half a bomber and half a dogfighter but 100% of nothing. Know what I mean?
I see that the F-22s aren't being put up for sale.
I hear they are pretty good at most stuff.
You think we'll end up with the 35's anyways? As I understand it, anyone in the program can opt out at any time.
Does the timing raise any flags for you?
Drake
10-02-2012, 05:26 AM
Stealth means undetected by radar. It isn't a cloaking device.
And regardless... EVERYTHING has a signature.
sanjuro_ronin
10-02-2012, 05:35 AM
My personal opinion in regards to the Canadian military has always been the same:
Make it the BEST possible military for the budget it has.
In short, quality over quantity.
Stealth means undetected by radar. It isn't a cloaking device.
And regardless... EVERYTHING has a signature.
AH, cloaking device. I wish. If only............. :D
"Stealth means undetected by radar." A bit of an oversimplification don't ya think? I know what stealth means. I said what I said because the media plays it up as something it isn't. And Lockheed has done nothing to dispel that myth. They even encourage it.
If it was your call, would you choose the 35? If it was your @ss? Is it even an issue where you're at? The only reason it got any attention here is because of the massive cost increases. Then people started asking about the plane itself, looked at other countries in the program and all this came out. There is a lot of opposition to this program and this plane. A LOT! But then again, it does have a ton of support. It just seems that the defense is from those who have interest in the program, whereas the critique is from outsiders and insiders who have retired. I imagine any staff have strict confidentiality agreements, so they won't speak out regardless of how they feel. So nobody on the inside is going to criticize this plane as long as the program is a go. If anyone did speak up they would be ruined, whether they were right or wrong.
Drake
10-02-2012, 05:24 PM
I don't think anyone here is qualified to discuss intelligently if we do or don't need it. However, that being said, I personally feel we should focus on the improving basic equipment before we try inventing the hovertank.
Lucas
10-02-2012, 05:49 PM
If they stand in horse stance for the next three years, in ten years they will be able to learn how to be a complete system.
My personal opinion in regards to the Canadian military has always been the same:
Make it the BEST possible military for the budget it has.
In short, quality over quantity.
No doubt. Unfortunately not everyone agrees.
I don't think anyone here is qualified to discuss intelligently if we do or don't need it. However, that being said, I personally feel we should focus on the improving basic equipment before we try inventing the hovertank.
are they actually building a hovertank? or were you just making a point?
We? as in the US or everyone in the program?
Bacon
10-02-2012, 07:45 PM
The problem is with the basic idea of building an all round plane. Two things to consider...
1. Dogfighting is a thing of the past with long range AA missiles and long range air to air missiles being the way planes are usually taken out in the air.
2. Specialization is the key to building the best tool for the job. You don't slap the big guns from a ship onto a sub and go "look now it can be a sub AND a ship. Bombers should be bombers, interceptors should be interceptors, you then round everything out if you need to by deploying in squadrons who have a varied compliment of aircraft.
But regardless of whether we get these or not Canada has always made do with sub par equipment. We make up for it will good training and skills. Either way we'll still do pretty well.
sanjuro_ronin
10-03-2012, 05:26 AM
No doubt. Unfortunately not everyone agrees.
Yeah, it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks.
The modern military is more "specialized", more "elite training" oriented BUT the mentality is still "more is better".
David Jamieson
10-03-2012, 12:30 PM
I don't think anyone here is qualified to discuss intelligently if we do or don't need it. However, that being said, I personally feel we should focus on the improving basic equipment before we try inventing the hovertank.
Dude, if my tax dollars are gonna pay for these things, then I'm at least qualified to talk about the expenditure and whether or not it is worth that at the very least.
The F-35 program in Canada is a bit of a meatball as our PM isn't that good at sorting these things and the guy on point (McKay) is not the most clever person and the reform party peeps who run the country seem to enjoy making policies in the dark and flying by the seat of their pants quite often on many issues.
Drake
10-03-2012, 12:59 PM
Dude, if my tax dollars are gonna pay for these things, then I'm at least qualified to talk about the expenditure and whether or not it is worth that at the very least.
The F-35 program in Canada is a bit of a meatball as our PM isn't that good at sorting these things and the guy on point (McKay) is not the most clever person and the reform party peeps who run the country seem to enjoy making policies in the dark and flying by the seat of their pants quite often on many issues.
Not really. Do you know what it's for, the research supporting either for or against it, it's purpose in the order of battle, and what warfighter gaps it intends to cover?
In one thread we lament about the shortsightedness of the military, and now we lament about them thinking ahead?
You do realize we live in a diff country with a diff military with diff goals, right?
What he knows is that the Harper Gov sold them to us as an 8 billion dollar project that has since doubled. That pis$ed alot of people off. Then Harper swears he has these magical agreements that get us all great head and some candy too, yet he won't produce any evidence. They sold us a base cost as an operational cost and purposely mislead the people who are paying for it. That is bullsh1t any way you look at it, and it's only the beginning. There are so many legit complaints here. The timing is very suspect and ties right in to the quality of the craft.
The questions about the actual quality of the craft came out of the financial story. Nobody was looking to trash the planes at first.
David Jamieson
10-04-2012, 06:03 AM
Not really. Do you know what it's for, the research supporting either for or against it, it's purpose in the order of battle, and what warfighter gaps it intends to cover?
In one thread we lament about the shortsightedness of the military, and now we lament about them thinking ahead?
You see, this is what I should be sold on by my government who intends to make the purchase. It is pure asshattery for them to say "oh it's too complicated for you to understand, but we're going to take your money and direct military policy.
So, yeah really it is incumbent on the government at ALL times to explain itself and account for monies spent. They work for me, not the other way round. I think more people need to get aware of that.
Quite frankly, I'd like to see less military hardware not more. Less soldier, less wars and ultimately none at all. So, yeah, I'm not cool with spending billions on military machines that have not been explained to the public purpose wise and so on. I don't live in an authoritarian regime country and we need to remind the elected folks of that now and then.
And what are you doing about that? Just curious.
David Jamieson
10-05-2012, 06:33 AM
And what are you doing about that? Just curious.
Directly? I communicate with my MP's office on about a monthly basis in regards to expressing my opinion on the matter and offering possible pathways to solutions etc. More people need to do this.
Political activeness is more than waving a sign on a street or posting in facebook. Any citizen is fully entitled and fully enabled to communicate with their representative in parliament and civic government etc.
Political activeness is more than just voting too. Seriously, more people need to speak up and write to these folks we put in office to make policy on our behalf.
Why do you ask?
Like I already said, just curious.
You seem like somebody who may actually do something rather than just talk.
Why else would I ask? I told you why right off the bat.
It really depends on your representative. Some will give you the time of day, some won't.
If you have managed to form a relationship with your MP, that's great. Lucky you.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/independent-report-says-9-billion-may-not-enough-202944444.html
Nice :rolleyes:
9 Billion my ass!
MasterKiller
12-12-2012, 08:24 PM
My tax dollars support this!
http://www.freewebs.com/soldierfun/womenpilots/brasilsyw6.jpg
Kellen Bassette
12-12-2012, 11:06 PM
Quite frankly, I'd like to see less military hardware not more. Less soldier, less wars and ultimately none at all. So, yeah, I'm not cool with spending billions on military machines that have not been explained to the public purpose wise and so on. I don't live in an authoritarian regime country and we need to remind the elected folks of that now and then.
Imagine how we feel in the States...they cry like babies that we're gutting the military when all we did was decide to increase their astronomical budget less than what was originally planned. Only in America is spending even more money also the same thing as budget cuts.
On the fighter jets, I'm no expert, but it seems dog fighting is a bit outdated. The focus appears to be shifting to drones, where they get a lot more use for a lot less money...why wouldn't they continue developing those technologies that require less man and machine power?
Imagine how we feel in the States...they cry like babies that we're gutting the military when all we did was decide to increase their astronomical budget less than what was originally planned. Only in America is spending even more money also the same thing as budget cuts.
On the fighter jets, I'm no expert, but it seems dog fighting is a bit outdated. The focus appears to be shifting to drones, where they get a lot more use for a lot less money...why wouldn't they continue developing those technologies that require less man and machine power?
And it's not just a homeland thing. The US spends more money on Israels military than Israel. How ****ed up is that?
I know dogfighting is kind of passe, but on the off chance somebody got thru our long range and mid range defenses and we had to actually defend ourselves, it might be nice to be able to scramble a few jets that have people in them. Drones are cool, but not the same. Better in many ways, yeah, for sure.
That being said, the F-35's are starting to look like a waste of time. And I have no doubt that most countries that made "promise" orders will back out and that will just increase our costs even more. I mean do we really need to buy a bunch of **** we don't need just to keep Lockheed in the black (like they would be in the red these days, right)?
David Jamieson
12-13-2012, 07:49 AM
Drone technology is on the cusp of being what air superiority is.
Imagine vehicles that can travel 10x as fast with all the same weaponry??
I don't see the point of putting people up there anymore.
I don't see the point of attacking civilian targets ever.
Seriously, the people who want war?
Let's just put them in stadium with some equipment and let them solve it there and then.
We have to move away from war and we have to move away from thinking it's necessary. It's not. the more we learn about ourselves through this amazing mass information and exchange, the easier it is to see the things we should put away from humanity.
Pandoras box should not even be a factor eventually. We are smart enough to close it I think.
Drone technology is on the cusp of being what air superiority is.
Imagine vehicles that can travel 10x as fast with all the same weaponry??
I don't see the point of putting people up there anymore.
I don't see the point of attacking civilian targets ever.
Seriously, the people who want war?
Let's just put them in stadium with some equipment and let them solve it there and then.
We have to move away from war and we have to move away from thinking it's necessary. It's not. the more we learn about ourselves through this amazing mass information and exchange, the easier it is to see the things we should put away from humanity.
Pandoras box should not even be a factor eventually. We are smart enough to close it I think.
While I like your thoughts, David, "this amazing mass information and exchange" is polarizing our society like never before. It would be nice, but I don't see us all holding hands anytime soon.
sanjuro_ronin
12-13-2012, 02:46 PM
The problem with information is HOW it is used.
RenDaHai
12-13-2012, 03:38 PM
Drone technology is on the cusp of being what air superiority is.
Imagine vehicles that can travel 10x as fast with all the same weaponry??
Drones are the future. I think we will see drone tanks and subs and eventually soldiers. Just think, soon we will be able to wage war without even having to risk our soldiers lives. In fact we would be able to wage war without even the complicity of our soldiers... or anyone. I have mixed feelings about that.
Drones are the future. I think we will see drone tanks and subs and eventually soldiers. Just think, soon we will be able to wage war without even having to risk our soldiers lives. In fact we would be able to wage war without even the complicity of our soldiers... or anyone. I have mixed feelings about that.
Yeah and we can exploit our own people even more to pay for these disposable proxy wars. Sounds awesome.
sanjuro_ronin
12-14-2012, 06:27 AM
The more "civilized" you make war, the less reason NOT to go to war.
David Jamieson
12-14-2012, 08:38 AM
The more "civilized" you make war, the less reason NOT to go to war.
we'll eventually evolve away from warfare.
war has changed all through it's history in regards to how it is waged.
Huge changes came in the 1500's (guns and formations etc)
Then again in the 1800's (skirmishing a guerilla warfare)
The again in the 1900's (gas, armour, air superiority)
Then again in the 2000's (drones, stealth, smart weapons)
It will eventually become a situation of strategic limited engagements that target the specific threat only.
You won't see a WW2 again where 25 million soldiers are killed and double that in civilians.
You will see mistakes, but moving forward, "karma" is going to be a drone putting a red dot in the middle of your head because you built a bomb to blow up a mall.
International warfare will be a thing of the past and regarded as barbaric...because it is.
sanjuro_ronin
12-14-2012, 08:49 AM
we'll eventually evolve away from warfare.
war has changed all through it's history in regards to how it is waged.
Huge changes came in the 1500's (guns and formations etc)
Then again in the 1800's (skirmishing a guerilla warfare)
The again in the 1900's (gas, armour, air superiority)
Then again in the 2000's (drones, stealth, smart weapons)
It will eventually become a situation of strategic limited engagements that target the specific threat only.
You won't see a WW2 again where 25 million soldiers are killed and double that in civilians.
You will see mistakes, but moving forward, "karma" is going to be a drone putting a red dot in the middle of your head because you built a bomb to blow up a mall.
International warfare will be a thing of the past and regarded as barbaric...because it is.
Perhaps, hope so.
The thing is that the more civilized you make war, the less people see it as "war".
They see it as a "conflict" or a "per-emptive action", whatever.
We may never have a world war that claims 25 million in 5 years, but we still have "conflicts" that claim more than enough.
just from 2003-2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%932010
Making it easier and less personal to kill is NOT gonna make wars less "attractive" to those in power that view war as a viable option.
David Jamieson
12-14-2012, 09:19 AM
Perhaps, hope so.
The thing is that the more civilized you make war, the less people see it as "war".
They see it as a "conflict" or a "per-emptive action", whatever.
We may never have a world war that claims 25 million in 5 years, but we still have "conflicts" that claim more than enough.
just from 2003-2009:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%932010
Making it easier and less personal to kill is NOT gonna make wars less "attractive" to those in power that view war as a viable option.
I agree that by diminishing the horror in favour of marveling at the precision of technology is an error on our part. especially here in the cozy virtually untouched west.
But I also think the construct of power is going to change.
Having a single leader for instance. I don't think that is going to survive the future. I don't know what the new model will be, but people even now are no longer satisfied with placing power into one persons paws. And definitely we've pretty much had it up to our eyeballs with using violence to get sorted.
It diminishes the image and power of a person now to declare war on someone else. It makes them look stupid and incompetent when they do it. Diplomacy and working through things is the only reasonable way and war is more and more seen as unreasonable. However, I don't think there are many who think sending a special unit in to kill OBL ws a terrible idea. Maybe killing him was and perhaps they should have captured but hey, heat of the moment stuff happens.
RenDaHai
12-14-2012, 10:03 AM
Making it easier and less personal to kill is NOT gonna make wars less "attractive" to those in power that view war as a viable option.
Even more so if AI gets really good and we don't even need humans back home piloting the drones, they just pilot themselves. Then we just need a few people at the top making decisions.
Drake
12-14-2012, 10:15 AM
Even more so if AI gets really good and we don't even need humans back home piloting the drones, they just pilot themselves. Then we just need a few people at the top making decisions.
Bad idea, for obvious reasons.
http://images.wikia.com/terminator/images/archive/4/49/20100204104618!Terminator.jpg
sanjuro_ronin
12-14-2012, 11:13 AM
I think that the only people that are "gung ho" about automated stuff on the battlefield are people that have never been on one.
I think that the only people that are "gung ho" about automated stuff on the battlefield are people that have never been on one.
Word. And people who want war.
BTW - I dunno the details in the OBL thing, but I'm sure orders were to capture if possible. Pretty scary mission tho, to drop into a compound like that. I'm not surprised they iced him. I mean, with all the fear and adrenaline, all he had to do was look the wrong direction and somebody would take it as a threat. And all the emotional **** doesn't help either. It's not like these guys were hunting some little known warlord they never heard of. It was the most wanted man on earth(from an american perspective anyways). Him dying was almost inevitable.
IMO capturing the man would have sent a bigger message than killing him. No trial, no tv cameras. Just a deep dark hole and all those wonderful techniques the intelligence community loves so much, but ofcourse never use.:rolleyes:
Drake
12-15-2012, 09:48 AM
I think that the only people that are "gung ho" about automated stuff on the battlefield are people that have never been on one.
If a machine was in my place while deployed, a lot of innocent people would have died over stupid mistakes and misunderstandings.
Kellen Bassette
12-15-2012, 10:05 AM
we'll eventually evolve away from warfare.
war has changed all through it's history in regards to how it is waged.
Huge changes came in the 1500's (guns and formations etc)
Then again in the 1800's (skirmishing a guerilla warfare)
The again in the 1900's (gas, armour, air superiority)
Then again in the 2000's (drones, stealth, smart weapons)
It will eventually become a situation of strategic limited engagements that target the specific threat only.
You won't see a WW2 again where 25 million soldiers are killed and double that in civilians.
You will see mistakes, but moving forward, "karma" is going to be a drone putting a red dot in the middle of your head because you built a bomb to blow up a mall.
International warfare will be a thing of the past and regarded as barbaric...because it is.
The world powers are positioning themselves for the acquisition of the world's resources. The U.S. does it through coercion and economic strong arming where possible, war where it is not.
The need for oil, minerals and arable land against the population trends makes it inevitable. Stronger countries will either coerce or invade developing countries. The other alternative is biological warfare, mass reduction in populations, then seizing control.
There is no coming Utopia.
Drake
12-15-2012, 10:17 AM
The world powers are positioning themselves for the acquisition of the world's resources. The U.S. does it through coercion and economic strong arming where possible, war where it is not.
The need for oil, minerals and arable land against the population trends makes it inevitable. Stronger countries will either coerce or invade developing countries. The other alternative is biological warfare, mass reduction in populations, then seizing control.
There is no coming Utopia.
Because Afghanistan is such a cornucopia of natural resources?
And the stuff A-stan DOES have, the Chinese already own.
Kellen, that's a weak argument based on assumptions and a sense of paranoia. As far as history has shown over the last few decades, the superpowers don't invade weaker countries over resources.
It is far cheaper and profitable to simply build strong relationships. Notice how we don't invade Kuwait, but instead have a deep friendship? Or how China doesn't crush Taiwan, but is instead playing the diplomacy/waiting game?
Even NK, as bat **** crazy as they are, have left SK alone for the most part, because they know how war doesn't create resources. It consumes them.
Kellen Bassette
12-15-2012, 10:55 AM
Because Afghanistan is such a cornucopia of natural resources?
And the stuff A-stan DOES have, the Chinese already own.
Kellen, that's a weak argument based on assumptions and a sense of paranoia. As far as history has shown over the last few decades, the superpowers don't invade weaker countries over resources.
It is far cheaper and profitable to simply build strong relationships. Notice how we don't invade Kuwait, but instead have a deep friendship? Or how China doesn't crush Taiwan, but is instead playing the diplomacy/waiting game?
Even NK, as bat **** crazy as they are, have left SK alone for the most part, because they know how war doesn't create resources. It consumes them.
I think we do use economic means as often as possible, I also think when we can't do it diplomatically we tend to strong arm...aid, sanctions, political pressure, labeling groups terrorists or funders of terrorism, ect...
I also feel this is why we have such intense interest in the Middle East. If were not arming a country then were backing a coup. If we don't have military bases there were probably engaged in propaganda against them. If we don't have oil contracts were helping them set up new leaders. I may be cynical but I doubt this is all about protecting us from terrorists. We've been active in the Middle East for better than 60 years.
Now with the world superpowers involving themselves more heavily in Africa's resources, seems "Al Quida" is expanding faster than Wal Mart. Time to get more involved in the Sub Saharan front.
It's not paranoia, it just math. Resources will become more scarce, prices will rise, at some point demand will exceed supply. To think otherwise would require an incredible feat of denial. Anyone who follows current events can plainly see China, The U.K., the U.S. and Russia are positioning themselves for both trade and military options.
Just seems like a rational conclusion that control will be seized by those with the power, whether by signing a contract, or finding a reason to invade and occupy.
David Jamieson
12-15-2012, 11:23 AM
I think there are more players than that Kellen.
The European union acts as an economic unit ...well, it's supposed to. So they are probably going through some adjustments but still have a lot of economic power as the community they are.
As for resources, the change over to reuse and recycle has to be factored in as well right alongside innovation. Not to mention the very real probability of commercialized resource gathering beyond earth.
Humans themselves recycle all the time in that sense. I mean we get born, consume and live, then die and consume no more and the hard resources we leave behind us are dispersed and used or converted, traded etc.
I think we are clever enough to get new energy sources or alternate and even probably to the effect of using as of yet undeveloped sources that are sustainable and renewable, such as solar, tidal, wind, and even gravitational or helium 3 tech which will come into play after we are able to mine our moon and asteroids.
There is no doubt we need to consume, but I think we change before we run out of anything.
@Drake. I think it will be another 10 or so years before we really understand what Iraq and Afghanistan are as far as reasons were and are for those wars. Right now what is told to us in Canada is that it's a fight the good fight type thing against oppression. But that is obviously hypocritical and people on one end buy it and on the other reject it out of hand and see it as corruption. Meanwhile soldiers do their job and people pay their taxes.
I'm not too worried about the discovery and/or cheap production of cleaner energies. I am more concerned with the "free market" interfering in developments that better us all but will gut certain industries. Like a carb that gets 5000 km/l. These things are suppressed and beaten on by well established industries that have a vested interest in NOT moving foreword in those directions. Thankfully we have many higher learning institutions that have open patents. Schools like MIT have basically dragged us onto the right paths when we steer off in order to chase fantasies. Partisan thinktanks are a direct response to these universities. And now we are in the information age and it is polarizing us like crazy. Literally tearing us apart. But ultimately I think this is a good thing. As long as the intellectually curious stay friendly, we're good. Nerds run this. Spoiled old money twits just pay for it. Despite the fact that the largest redistribution of wealth in human history peaked in 08, in the big picture, wealth is slowly but surely starting to level out. There are more non violent self made men than any other time in human history. We're doing okay. We just can't let our guard down, because this is a war, make no mistake. The enemy is our own expectations and those who presume to lead without permission from all of us. Like large corps that are "too big to fail" or in the case of HSBC "too big to jail". Apparently if you are big enough, funding Al Quaeda and Drug Lords isn't a crime. A small fine of one months profit and a small percentage off bonus cheques for the next five years. Hardly a punishment IMO. We should gut that bank and let it die. Making 100's of billions off illegal funds then paying a 9 billion dollar fine is a freakin joke!
Kellen Bassette
12-15-2012, 05:55 PM
@ David, I don't doubt we have the ability to innovate and adapt, but I doubt we have the political will. The US government is so in bed with Big Oil that any meaningful changes have little chance of being implemented. I know, I don't sound like it, but I do remain hopeful...
I don't think the problem is necessarily, running out of resources....the problem is the exponential increase in consumption tied to China and India's rapid development. Resources consumed by these and other developing countries will quickly exceed what is being used in industrialized countries where the population rates have stabilized. When demand exceeds supply, driving up the cost of everything oil related, (which is everything) the natural response of the powerful countries will be to exert pressure to ensure they continue to receive their share.
I find it troubling when it's suddenly profitable to extract oil from Canadian tar sands, where it takes 2 barrels of oil to produce 3, or interest becomes more intense in Rocky Mountain Shale and extreme deep sea drilling which was previously considered unrealistic because of the prohibitive costs. You'd think if they read the writing on the wall they would aggressively pursue other avenues...but it seems to me the unholy alliance between Congress, the MIC and Big Oil will remain until it has run its' natural course.
On a side note, you mentioned 10 years from now what we may or may not know about Iraq and Afghanistan...we've already been in those countries for 10 years. It seems our wars used to run about 3 years. The U.S. desperately needs to change the way it approaches these endeavors.
@Drake. I think it will be another 10 or so years before we really understand what Iraq and Afghanistan are as far as reasons were and are for those wars. Right now what is told to us in Canada is that it's a fight the good fight type thing against oppression. But that is obviously hypocritical and people on one end buy it and on the other reject it out of hand and see it as corruption. Meanwhile soldiers do their job and people pay their taxes.
I think it's in between those two extremes. We aren't saviour champions and we didn't go there for them, we just use it to justify the entry. That being said, the quality of life has impoved DRAMATICALLY for many people who want a more progressive lifestyle. There is a higher percentage of women in afghan gov than there are in the US gov. That's progress, intended or otherwise. Women are going to school. Traders are getting better prices for their goods. Now that doesn't excuse raining missiles on a hood that may or may not have insurgency issues, but nobody can say that things aren't at least in some ways getting better for the people in general.
Ofcourse, IMO, I still don't think we should have gone. Like Syria, I think these things need to be earned. Syrians will respect the outcomes of their efforts. Whereas you look at Lybia, for example, they won that too easy and are starting to take their freedoms for granted already. Egypt was unique in that it was already a VERY polarized society, but already had a somewhat progressive government. Especially compared to their neighbours. It's hard to watch, but we need to let these people have their own revolutions. Any support we give should be humanitarian and maybe guidance on political and social issues. Although we seem to be starting to lose our way with the latter two. In many ways we aren't as qualified to help as we seem to think we are. Afghanistan will never be like N. America, NEVER. Trying is just retarded.
On a side note, you mentioned 10 years from now what we may or may not know about Iraq and Afghanistan...we've already been in those countries for 10 years. It seems our wars used to run about 3 years. The U.S. desperately needs to change the way it approaches these endeavors.
Unrealistic goals, patchwork everywhere = FAILING!!! I know it ****es Drake off when I say this, but I view Afghanistan as a colossal failure. Sure we completed many objectives, but not the overall purpose. As soon as we all leave, the Taliban will try to re-assert control in the regions it lost and Al Qaeda types will drift back in. You simply can't approach this kind of thing with a one by one mentality. The only way to do a military solution is to arm up and group up and take the whole region. And we all know that ain't happening.
It kind of annoys me when this is classified as a humanitarian thing. Most Americans wouldn't even know what Afghanistan is if it wasn't for this war.
Kellen Bassette
12-16-2012, 02:18 AM
Ofcourse, IMO, I still don't think we should have gone. Like Syria, I think these things need to be earned. Syrians will respect the outcomes of their efforts. Whereas you look at Lybia, for example, they won that too easy and are starting to take their freedoms for granted already. Egypt was unique in that it was already a VERY polarized society, but already had a somewhat progressive government. Especially compared to their neighbours. It's hard to watch, but we need to let these people have their own revolutions. Any support we give should be humanitarian and maybe guidance on political and social issues. Although we seem to be starting to lose our way with the latter two. In many ways we aren't as qualified to help as we seem to think we are. Afghanistan will never be like N. America, NEVER. Trying is just retarded.
Couldn't agree more with this. Change has to come from within. You can't overthrow a regime and establish a new one and expect legitimacy to come from it.
Your always going to be viewed as an occupying force and people got to realize these people live there...your never going to wait them out. We'll get tired of sending our guys over there before they'll get tired of popping up with new insurgencies every 6 months. Every time you have "collateral damage" from a drone attack on a village that may or may not have harbored a target, you create a new generation of enemies. That's reality. I'm 10 years old playing outside with my tin cans and my A-K, look up and my parents and neighbors are dead and I don't even know why...these bombs have been falling since before I was born...you know full well that kids going to grow up and take out whatever Western target he can...
Let people fight their own battles, some take a lot longer than others...but hey, there's signs Cuba is coming around; and we wanted to wipe them out...It was the ONLY way to avoid nuclear war. Vietnam has changed, China has changed, after the Soviet Union fell, Russia changed...I'd be willing to bet if we'd just ignore North Korea's insanity for long enough, they'd probably start getting their backwards act together, eventually.
We got to stop fighting their battles, directly or through proxies. How many times do we have to get bit before we stop arming and training rebels? How many enemies do we got to make and how much blowback will we deal with before we stop funding the dictator we like, in hopes he'll kill the dictator we don't like? How many times are we going to play both sides of the field and end up looking ridiculous?
Change has got to come from within. When the Afghan people are fed up with their own nonsense they'll fight and change it to some new brand, maybe even a touch less screwed up then before...
Kellen Bassette
12-16-2012, 02:22 AM
The Humanitarian thing is a joke. We look the other way when genocide goes on in Africa. We backed Saddam and sold him arms in the '80s when he was doing all those bad things we used to justify our second invasion...frig we armed and trained Bin Laden's guys when the USSR was failing at the same thing we're failing at.
I don't think anyone buys the humanitarian thing...they're just lying to themselves.
And we knew Saddam had chem weapons at one point because we had the receipts! But we also knew he disarmed. The whole nuke thing was a joke.
Totally agree, if we we're really humanitarians, there are much better places to work at. People who would actually want us there.
I honestly think Raul Castro may be open to some major reforms. He's already opened the flow of goods wide open compared to what it was before. He's made a ton of economic reforms that are more inline with everyone else in that hood. I see a bright future for them. They are industrious and have decent resources still. I think they will be just fine. As long as we stay fine, that is. You know if the big boys get hurting, places like Cuba will be the first to be annexed.
We have such a different perspective from up here. And we've been smoking legal Cuban cigars since day one ;)
I have never been to Cuba, but everyone I know that has gone said they had a great time and want to go back soon.
Kellen Bassette
12-16-2012, 06:46 AM
I'm optimistic for Cuba as well, earlier this year there was news they were changing laws to allow the citizens to sell their houses and use the profit for small businesses...eerily close to smacking of free market...:eek:
I'm optimistic for Cuba as well, earlier this year there was news they were changing laws to allow the citizens to sell their houses and use the profit for small businesses...eerily close to smacking of free market...:eek:
Which is scary, but we'll see. I didn't really notice or believe the changes would come until all those dismissals a few years ago. Now I KNOW he has a plan. We will see. Hopefully they don't completely sell out the revolution. Just drag it into the 21st century!!!
Looks like Harper's Gov is starting to back down. Awesome. Now all we need is to see the invoice of how much this escapade has cost taxpayers now that there is a good chance it will come to nothing. So just how much does nothing cost in a Harper regime?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.