Harper and MacKay ‘vandalise’ Wikipedia
p2pnet view P2P | Politics:- The Stepehen Harper Conservatives want to turn Canada into another America where military spending rules.
Canada needs the single-seat F-35 joint fighter to “meet the threats of the 21st century”, according to defence minister Peter MacKay, reported p2pnet.
And the price doesn’t include maintenance.
But, says MacKay in an Ottawa Citizen post today, “With this procurement, Canadian industry has a golden opportunity to participate in the largest defence program ever undertaken, a program estimated to be worth more than $383 billion. This purchase will allow Canadian industry to contribute to the F-35 global supply chain of approximately 3,000 aircraft, advancing its technology, while bringing jobs and sustained economic benefits to regions across Canada.
“Our government is making the decision at the right time for the Canadian Forces, Canadian industry and Canadian taxpayers. We are getting the best aircraft for the best value.”
Riiight.
Canada needs $16-billion-worth of new-age jet fighters like a hole in the head — which we already have with MacKay and Harper, of course.
Not surprisingly, the news generated a storm of outrage and now, to further exacerbate the anger of Canadians, it seems MacKay and his minions have tried to ‘adjust’ a Wikipedia page that’s critical of their scheme.
“Nine attempts have been made to change the online encyclopedia’s entry on the Joint Strike Fighter, including the removal of any information critical of the Harper government’s plan to spend at least $16-billion on the new aircraft”, says the National Post, going on >>>
Defence Department computers were also used to insert insults, aimed at Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, into the Wikipedia Joint Strike Fighter page. Mr. Ignatieff has questioned the proposed purchase.
Quotes from news articles outlining opposition to the purchase by University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers, a former NDP candidate, were also removed.
But “Wikipedia traced the alterations to three computers owned by Defence Research and Development Canada’s Ottawa offices”, says the Montreal Gazette, adding:
“The online site has labelled the July 20-21 alterations as vandalism.
“The attempts to change the web page, made during work hours, stopped when Wikipedia administrators locked down the entry on the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF.”
Opposition MPs “point out that just months ago the military received the last of the modernized CF-18 fighters which can keep flying until at least 2017 or 2020″, says the story.
“They question why the Harper government is rushing now to spend billions on new fighters.”
Stay tuned.
… and identi.ca
p2pnet – Nine Billion Dollars to protect Canadians, July 17, 2010
Ottawa Citizen – We exercised options to purchase F-35 jets, July 29, 2010
National Post – DND computers used to delete criticism, July 29, 2010
Montreal Gazette – DND computers used to alter Wikipedia, July 29, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
July 29th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Look at this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Canada is hardly a huge spender on defense, even if you just compare us to England and France. So I’m not getting this criticism of this deal for new fighter jets.
We have a huge territory. We need fast planes to cover it. Do you really want to outsource our defense to the US ?
We have to put in the order in now to get them by 2017. We can’t keep the old CF18 eternally. At some point maintenance outweight the price of new planes. This simple logic. Why do you change your car once in a while.
We will indeed get economic benefits from maintenance and even the fabrication.
I’m not getting it. This is a good thing. Come on.
If we don’t do this, what’s the alternative ?
July 29th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
@ Captain555:
Defense against what?
Cheers!
July 29th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
@ Jon
I’m kind of bewildered that you ask a question like that.
Let me just say that fighter jet can also be use for internal security & search and rescue.
Also we (Canada) are a member of NATO. We have specific obligations stipulated in the agreement that this contry has sign. If you really want this country to have no fighter jet at all, than you need to elect somebody that will take Canada out of NATO first. Is that something you would like ?
July 29th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Why not spend 383 billions in biomedical or energy research instead? That will make the economy going to better than developing this fucking F35! Why Canada need to spend $383 in fucking stupid and useless defense spending?
July 29th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
@Captain555:
BS1: “Let me just say that fighter jet can also be use for internal security & search and rescue.”
BS2: “Also we (Canada) are a member of NATO. We have specific obligations stipulated in the agreement that this contry has sign.”
You are a fat liar just like the corporate parasites of the entertainment industry.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“We have a huge territory. We need fast planes to cover it.”
And defend ourselves against the bears the trees the fishs and the bees.
RIIIIIIGHT!
July 29th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
@ Jon: You forgot to turn on the profanity filter.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
@Captain555
“You forgot to turn on the profanity filter.”
Your F35 is ugly and so are you.
July 29th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
@Captain555
Harper and MacKay ‘vandalise’ Wikipedia
This article is not very much about if we need or not a new F35 it is about the attempt to vandalize Wikipedia by Harper and Mackkay.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
@ Captain555: ‘Jon: You forgot to turn on the profanity filter.’
Sorry. I don’t understand what you mean.
Be that as it may, I don’t think citing a jet fighter as tool for “internal security & search and rescue” works very well. Nor do these roles have much to do with ‘defense’.
Meanwhile, we already have the CF-18s. I questioned spending billions of dollars on another fighter.
Cheers!
July 29th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
@ Jon
“Meanwhile, we already have the CF-18s.”
Let me give you an example. Last month I had a car, a 1997 with 250000 km. I already spent 3000$ of maintenance over the last year or so. Engine blew up. Now I’m face with spending another 2000$ to replace the engine, and risk having to put even more money in a near future because something else broke. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use that 2000$ to buy a new car that will last me again for the next 13 years. I have a payment for the next few years, but I won’t have to spend on maintenance or at least a lot less.
“‘Jon: You forgot to turn on the profanity filter.’ Sorry. I don’t understand what you mean.”
I know you don’t have one. It was just a sarcastic comment on troll who like to throw f-bomb thinking it make them big man.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
@ Captain555:
I don’t believe Canada needs to spend any more money on jet fighters, however you want to slice it. There are numerous far more urgent needs.
Cheers!
July 29th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I happen to agree with Captain 555 on this one as well as Jon to a certain extent, what I’m bloody wondering is why we don’t build our own jet fighters, does anyone remember the CF-201, aka The Avro Arrow? That fighter was designed, and built in Canada, without any outside help. We had the fastest, most technologically advanced jet fighter in the world and the only reason it was discontinued was the fact that the U.S. couldn’t compete with Canadian ingenuity, hell, at the time they were still using the super saber, what we knew as the voodoo, which was completely useless. The other reason was the fact that Diefenbaker didn’t like A.V. Ro, so they killed the program. Just where do you think all the new interceptor fighters come from? All the designers of the Arrow went to the States after the program closed, if you want proof just look at the designs of the planes today, and you’ll see they are all descended from the Arrow. We should be putting money into building our own jets, submarines, etc, to help OUR economy instead of spending billions supporting the economy of other countries. If you look at the news articles concerning the new subs we bought from Britain, there’s more problems than enough that need to be fixed. Hell, if they had invested the money here in Canada we would have world class submarines that we could be proud of and more than likely more advanced technologically than those of the States or anywhere else in the world.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Our CF-18s are pushing close to 30 years of service. They need to be replaced now, as we won’t be able to simply get new jets the moment we need them.
National defense, patrol, and sovereignty is important to every nation. Especially Canada, with one of the largest land masses on the entire planet. Not to mention North American Air Defense (NORAD), Defense of Europe (NATO), and International Assignment (UN) missions. Our military’s equipment needs upgrades every few years.
Russian aircraft are already flying through Arctic airspace, and China has built icebreakers (even though their coastlines have no ice). The mere presence of Canadian military jets can make them turn around and respect our nation.
Whether you like Harper and the Conservative government or not, Arctic sovereignty is an incredibly important issue to all Canadians. If you think it is unimportant, well, the Russians thought that Alaska was unimportant when they sold it to the USA. The Canadian North is rich in resources, which will not only eventually grow industry and create employment, but also increase our overall wealth as a nation and help pay for things like medical research, health care, sustainable agriculture, infrastructure, education, police, public health initiatives, research and development into alternative energy, etc.
To think that purchasing a few dozen new jets for National defense somehow makes Canada look like a bunch of war-mongerers is pure ignorance. A look at wikipedia shows how many of these jets are currently being bought by other countries:
- Australia is buying 100 of these for 2014
- United States, 2443 for 2012-2015
- Israel, 25, with options to buy 50 more
- Italy, 131 for 2014
- Norway, 48 for 2015
- United Kingdom, 50 for 2015
- Turkey, 116 for 2014
- Denmark, 48, postponed around 2020
- Netherlands, 85, postponed beyond 2016
July 29th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
@ Logan:
“I’m bloody wondering is why we don’t build our own jet fighters, does anyone remember the CF-201″
That makes an awful lot of sense. Right now, the only company that has the know how and the financing to do that, is Bombardier. To make the project worth the money, they would have to sell a lot of them to other country in order to amortize the development cost, enough to make the price affordable. With the Russian (MiG), the French (Mirage) and the US (F35), that’s a tough market to get into. Lookheed-Martin has 3000 aircraft to amortize their development cost.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
@ logan:
Funny you shoud mention that. My father was on the design team of the CF 100. But I still think we can do quite nicely with what we already have.
@ RobertR: ‘A look at wikipedia shows how many of these jets are currently being bought by other countries’.
So?
Cheers!
July 29th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I agree with the people who have said here that we need new jet fighters. We also need new helicopters for our coast guard.
however i dont agree with DND attemping to remove critism from wikipedia.
July 29th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
@Captain555
“I had a car, a 1997 with 250000 km. I already spent 3000$ of maintenance over the last year or so. Engine blew up. Now I’m face with spending another 2000$ to replace the engine, and risk having to put even more money in a near future because something else broke.”
This is definitively the wrong analogy as it is proven that it is a lot shipper to repair your old car than to buy a new one.
You could have try to say that the F35 is shipper to fly and maintain than the older CF18 but unfortunately this is the opposite.
You could have try to say that it is a better weapon than the other 4th generation fighers but it is not.
Also You don’t conduct rescue mission with a supersonic stealth fighter.
Finally your argument “We have a huge territory. We need fast planes to cover it.” does not make sense in this case since the F35 is short range.
Good one! You are not very smart are you?
July 29th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
@ eXstnZ: ‘We also need new helicopters for our coast guard.’
Now that I agree with.
Cheers!
July 29th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
I, too, agree with the fact we need more helicopters, the ones we currently have are more likely to stop working on the way to or from a rescue operation and kill both rescued and rescuers. The ones I’d love to see are the ones that look similar to the old airwolf model, the one that has the rear rotor enclosed in the tail. It’s the one that the U.S. Coast Guard use and it has a good range both out and back and a good safety record.
Logan
July 29th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
We will need those jets when the Americans come to take our water and claim it’s a human rights.
But then again, it’s known the American’s have kill switches in these jets that they can turn off at will like they did to the jets they sold to Saddam.
July 30th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Canadian jets repel Russian bombers
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/07/30/14874181.html
Canadian fighter jets scrambled to repel Russian bombers that made several attempts to probe Canadian airspace on Wednesday.
Good thing we just bought those jets! What good timing.
Anyone else find this media release funny, maybe bordering propaganda, right after the DND-wiki attempt?
NDP accuses Harper government of information control in Wikipedia incident
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/accuses+Harper+government+information+control+Wikipedia+incident/3338580/story.html
The NDP says the use of Defence Department computers to remove criticism about the Harper government’s plan to purchase a new stealth fighter raises questions about oversight at the department and misuse of public equipment.
August 1st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
@ Jon – “Defense against what?”
Against the evil music and film pirates, of course!
March 21st, 2011 at 12:04 am
Why can’t we build a 2015 version of the Avro Arrow? A Modern bubble canopy, Canards to help with turning tightly. We build it in house, and employ Canadians. Then we make OUR replacement parts for OUR long range figher. The landing gear needs to come out of the wing at a right angle to the airframe and not at an angle. Remember when one skidded off the runway landing when the wheel only came down part way, and off the runway she went. With wheels at aright angle the Arrow would probably have stayed on the paved runway even with a half opened landing gear on one side. Imagine the pride of Canadian Air Force pilots being able to fly a modern version of the Arrow. Let’s right the Wrong and prove to the World that we had the right idea in the Fifties and build our own modern Arrow. The Americans wouldn’t buy there main defence fighter from another country. So why should we spend billions elsewhere, when we could spend them on a Canadian build modern Arrow.