Election Coming Soon???

[HOZ]

With the Conservatives offering Liberal-like promises every day now....
I mean they are not far off "A women for everyone!" promise just to sway the Lezbian vote their way.

Line them up!
One
Two
Three
and more

12 billion or so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Slava]

The name of the party is wrong for the CPC's. They don't really want to "conserve" anything! Its the same thing provincially; Stelmach gets into trouble and pulls out the wallet. Heopefully he calls an election soon so that the spending stops.

[mykalberta]

Conservatives in this country cant win on a Conservative platform - plain and simple - Harper and Klien both knew/know it.

I think it would be suicide to run an election before the Afghan situation is settled. Their only chance for a majority is to pull out from Afghanistan and then call an election. That will limit the "scary" tactiucs the Libs can use against them. That might also be enough to push their support in QC to 15%.

MYK

[Slava]

So if the Conservatives can't win on a conservative platform does that mean that the Liberals are the party of destiny?

Sorry, I couldn't resist...and since you an I have had these talks before, I know that you can take it!

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Slava

So if the Conservatives can't win on a conservative platform does that mean that the Liberals are the party of destiny?

Sorry, I couldn't resist...and since you an I have had these talks before, I know that you can take it!

No, it means that the Libs were the first ones to whore themselves to the middle.

The cons will run a Centre Right platform instead of a Right Centre platform. The Libs will continue to try to drive us to EU style politics where no citizen has to take personal responsibility for his or her own actions.

Alberta was the only place where a Right Centre platform would work. That is no longer the case with the influx of out of province workers.

MYK

[LIP MAN]

I'm just glad we live in a country that would lend itself moreso to the middle, instead of polarizing itself so far to the left or right that common sense gets thrown out the window at times.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

No, it means that the Libs were the first ones to whore themselves to the middle.

The cons will run a Centre Right platform instead of a Right Centre platform. The Libs will continue to try to drive us to EU style politics where no citizen has to take personal responsibility for his or her own actions.

Alberta was the only place where a Right Centre platform would work. That is no longer the case with the influx of out of province workers.

MYK

That is hilarious, actually made me laugh out loud!!

Well, all I can say is that if people are in the center mre or less, and tend to vote that way then its not really whoring for votes. The fact is that if most people are moderate than a moderate policy wins the most votes...that my friend is known as deomcracy. One day, when a fiscally conservative, socially liberal party rises then they will dominate elections based on policy and it will not have to do with them buying votes.

[FanIn80]

When the Liberals decide to run a campaign that focuses on clear solutions to todays issues, instead of a smear-centered campaign that tries to make people fear the other parties, then maybe I will start to consider them as a legitimate option.

Right now, the NDP has more political credibility with me than the Liberals do - and that says a lot, believe me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

When the Liberals decide to run a campaign that focuses on clear solutions to todays issues, instead of a smear-centered campaign that tries to make people fear the other parties, then maybe I will start to consider them as a legitimate option.

Right now, the NDP has more political credibility with me than the Liberals do - and that says a lot, believe me.

I don't like the Liberals either...but I would would take any of them over Layton.

Everytime someone gets killed in Afghanistan...he brings up the 'pull out' issue.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't like the Liberals either...but I would would take any of them over Layton.

Everytime someone gets killed in Afghanistan...he brings up the 'pull out' issue.

Yep...and if you want to talk about "whoring" for votes, look no further than the ol' used car salesmen.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't like the Liberals either...but I would would take any of them over Layton.

Everytime someone gets killed in Afghanistan...he brings up the 'pull out' issue.

I share your view of Layton 100%... which just underlines my view of the Liberals right now.

[FanIn80]

As for people getting "upset" about Harper upgrading our military... Let me make a few counter-points:

1. It's been a very long time since we've upgraded anything. Most of our military vehicles and equipment have moved beyond irrelevancy and are now considered just outright dangerous.
2. We are a sovereign nation. If we want any kind of respect on the world stage, it's time we started acting like one. When I say "respect," I'm not talking about "military-installed fear." I'm talking about the same kind of natural respect that the world affords you just for the simple task of moving out of your parent's basement and becoming self-sufficient - a respect that Canada does not yet enjoy. We are perpetually the little brother tagging along at all the grown-up functions.
3. Canada is NOT the 51st State.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HOZ

With the Conservatives offering Liberal-like promises every day now....
I mean they are not far off "A women for everyone!" promise just to sway the Lezbian vote their way.

Line them up!
One
Two
Three
and more

12 billion or so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have no problem with any of those stories.

The Halifax class frigates hit thier effective required half life refitting about 4 years ago, and the Liberal's chose to ignore it. With the end of the Iroquis command and control destroyers effectiveness in our fleet, the Halifax class frigates will have to be able to co-ordinate information and data on thier own, so they need the upgrades. They also need to do crucial servicing on the engine plants, upgrade the sonar and radar systems and the prepare these ships for thier new helicopters. It probably would have been slightly cheaper if they had done it on schedule.

The arctic patrol ships were part of an election promise to enforce northern sovereignty. These ships are a less expensive alternative to the original plan as well.

The quebec military college should have never been shut down in the first place, it basically lead to an attrition of french officers that are really required. It also helped the local economy which from what I understand is stagnant right now.

On the airforce wing being installed in quebec it will go a long ways in ensuring the proper integration of our incoming air lift capability, it will also speed up the unpcoming retirement and replacement of the CF-18 which are effectively 9 years past thier effective point of usage.

None of these spending points would have been required if the Liberal's and the previous conservative governments would have taken proper care of our armed forces.

As it stands these points are nice, but the military is still facing a severe rustout in the next 10 years without massive spending.

I'm surprised that you didn't mention the 1.3 billion dollar purchase of new Leopard tanks including upgrading in Quebec that was announced about a month ago. These tanks will replace the nearly 40 year old tanks that we're currently using, and have been upgraded beyond thier recommended point of use.

[Slava]

I don't think that anyone here is upset with the military upgrading, myself included.

My thought here though is that while this is important it is not the be all and end all. If Canada is the "little brother tagging along" then its not purely based on our military might, or lack thereof. If you want to be a world leader then you have to provide innovative and effective solutions to the worlds problems. That is not always found at the end of a gun.

I get tired of all of the comments about the pea-shooters and canoes and talk about the weak military. It's funny that it is even called "Defence Spending" to me. What are we defending ourselves against? Who is ready to attack? Seems to me that while our sovereignty is critically important we are being bamboozled into protecting ourselves against enemies who don't really exist.

[KAI]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Conservatives in this country cant win on a Conservative platform - plain and simple - Harper and Klien both knew/know it.

I think it would be suicide to run an election before the Afghan situation is settled. Their only chance for a majority is to pull out from Afghanistan and then call an election. That will limit the "scary" tactiucs the Libs can use against them. That might also be enough to push their support in QC to 15%.

MYK

There is no way they are going to pull out of Afganistan. And to be honest I don't think it would do them any good. The liberal "scare tactics" as you call them are founded in many other areas not just Afganistan.

And how do you figure that Klein didn't win on a conservative plattform? All those cuts in the early 90's and the middle class tax cuts...

[KAI]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think that anyone here is upset with the military upgrading, myself included.

My thought here though is that while this is important it is not the be all and end all. If Canada is the "little brother tagging along" then its not purely based on our military might, or lack thereof. If you want to be a world leader then you have to provide innovative and effective solutions to the worlds problems. That is not always found at the end of a gun.

I get tired of all of the comments about the pea-shooters and canoes and talk about the weak military. It's funny that it is even called "Defence Spending" to me. What are we defending ourselves against? Who is ready to attack? Seems to me that while our sovereignty is critically important we are being bamboozled into protecting ourselves against enemies who don't really exist.

I think you have a good point here, but i think that the USA have proven that they are the world leader and they have a military that no one even comes close to. Sure they have economic stregth that keeps them on top too but I really don't think any country can do much in this world if the US disagrees with them.

[Slava]

Well Israel and China also have huge defence spending; and enormous militaries in general. I would suggest that neither is a world leader in an enviable position.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think that anyone here is upset with the military upgrading, myself included.

Excellent, then we have some common ground. The fact is that if your going to have a military, and your going to put lives in danger by committing them to peacekeeping, or NATO missions then you have an obligation to provide the best possible equipment to the men and woman who put thier necks on the line. Even with a boost in our military spending we're still lagging behind our nato obligations in terms of spending vs our GNP.

Originally Posted by Slava

My thought here though is that while this is important it is not the be all and end all. If Canada is the "little brother tagging along" then its not purely based on our military might, or lack thereof. If you want to be a world leader then you have to provide innovative and effective solutions to the worlds problems. That is not always found at the end of a gun.

I think it was rosevelt who said "tread softly but carry a big stick". Canada will never be a big stick player no matter how much we've spent. However the Liberal's believed in soft or suggestion diplomacy, and we were rarely taken seriously. And I'm talking about more then nation to nation diplomacy, I'm talking about UN diplomacy. As a nation you won't be taken seriously unless you can apply some level of military strength or resolve. It was nice to say that we were one of the more pre-eminant peace keeping nations in the world, but really, that reputation ended about 15 to 20 years ago as we didn't have the military strength to commit to any of the relevant missions out there. So any weight that we had in the UN was effectively light and fuzzy. It was a suggestion as oppossed to being a force for change.

All of the equipment that Canada has, or is upgrading or is purchasing is relevant to UN missions, where the LAV III is an effective information gathering vehicle, the Halifax frigates helped enforce UN embargos, and they integrated with NATO and U.S. forces. The Coyote and Grizzly armoured personal carriers were extremely relevant to UN peacekeeping. Our CF-18's took part in the first UN war against Iraq. The Lepard tanks were part of the rapid response unit in the Fulda gap during the cold war and have found relevance again in Afghanistan and our soldiers are highly prized by the UN for thier training and diciplice.

Now where the government is doing the smart thing is in providing a better airlift component to support our troops instead of renting planes from russia, and we are extending our abilities to respond to humanitarian crisis both at home and abroad. If Canada ever builds the massive sea lift ships with helicopter carrying abilities we will be in a better position to respond to crisis abroad like New Orlean's or Lebanon.

No, chances are that no nation is going to invade our shores in the next 50 years. But its nice to have the equipment in case of unusual warefare.

Right now, if there was a terrorist attack in Toronto, and a forest fire in B.C, our forces wouldn't be able to address both without a lot of help from the Americans.

Originally Posted by Slava

I get tired of all of the comments about the pea-shooters and canoes and talk about the weak military. It's funny that it is even called "Defence Spending" to me. What are we defending ourselves against? Who is ready to attack? Seems to me that while our sovereignty is critically important we are being bamboozled into protecting ourselves against enemies who don't really exist.

Defence strategies no longer simply revolve around domestic defence, because we're trying to build a better global community and have some weight at the negotiating tables around the world, defence has to be a global concern, where our troops can get to trouble spots around the world where they're requested or needed.

[Cal-Gal]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Defence strategies no longer simply revolve around domestic defence, because we're trying to build a better global community and have some weight at the negotiating tables around the world, defence has to be a global concern, where our troops can get to trouble spots around the world where they're requested or needed.

Forgive my ignorance...and I've done a quick Google search but can't find the info:

is it true that Canada currently has less than 60 troops deployed in UN peacekeeping missions?? I think I heard that on the news recently. Seems shockingly low for a country that prides itself as a peacekeeper.

Is this a result of Canada pulling away from UN missions in favour of NATO missions, or is this just because of a troop shortage and because we lack the military capabilities to contribute?

[KAI]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well Israel and China also have huge defence spending; and enormous militaries in general. I would suggest that neither is a world leader in an enviable position.

Maybe so but there milirtary spending and capabilities don't even come close to that of the USA. And Isreal's spending is heavily supported by the Americans