Derek 2.0

First, how is my response wrong? The member stated Canada could only challenge Russia with our own nuclear weapons........ As to the UN and International law versus Russia, though I would tend to agree/hope with your assertion to be true, I'm reminded of Georgia and the Crimea........and the recent reoccupying and expansion of Cold War era Soviet bases by the Russian military..........

You answered it here: As a member of NORAD and NATO we have no need to challenge Russia alone....... You're wrong, for example, the majority of our fighter force for nearly the last 60 years has been committed to NORAD.....likewise the primary mission of the navy since WW II being the defense of our own and international sea lanes......Until the army left Germany in the 90s, its primary mission was the defense of Western Europe and Norway. A nation's military is nothing more than an extension of its "diplomacy and foreign policy"........Two examples, in the early 50s, prior to the formation of NORAD, the Americans made it quite clear, if we had then passed on the shared defense of North America, that they would have been forced to defend their own nation against Soviet bomber streams, over Canadian (populated) territory with nuclear weapons.......as opposed to the Arctic and our remote North. Another example, in the 70s, several member nations of the European Common Market tied our declining defense commitments through NATO with trade negotiations and our political relationships in general....When PET attempted to be a leading voice in support of the NIEO in the 70s, much of Western Europe and the United States simply ignored him.........furthermore, well Trudeau was attending a conference on non-nuclear proliferation (IIRC in Japan) in 1974, one of the few issues (like NIEO) he attempted to put to the fore front of a diminished (then) Department of External Affairs, the Indian's detonated their first Atomic bomb, well making it known that they did it with the aide of Canadian nuclear technology......... The point, a country seen as a weakling or laggard on defense, has diminished influence on the World stage........as Al Capone once said:

Actually, your post that I quoted was nearly verbatim to a two sentence passage from within a multi-page report..........I assumed you were just making it your own.......mea culpa

Its no different than believed past Soviet aims, which through an invasion of Western Europe, would see the then Soviet Empire secured by politically and economically muting their enemies..........if remaining conventional, Putin still has the material and force structure to march on Paris inside a few months against a NATO that is greatly reduced in size and politically divided. If Putin's aim is to reunite all ethnic Russians in the Baltic under a single flag, this could likely be achieved through subterfuge and not so overt political gamesmanship with the affected nations and the West/NATO. Physically yes, politically is the part that is open to debate.........in not doing so, that would be the end of NATO. At this point, with the fractured leadership in many European nations, and the questionable resolve of the Obama administration, I would think the most likely outcome would be another round of toothless sanctions on a Russia that supplies the majority of Europe's energy..... Using much the same tactics and equipment, with only slightly better training, then Iraqi forces in Kuwait........fighting the Russians isn't the problem, having the will to fight the Russians is. That depends on who is sitting in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the reaction of the majority of NATO........

No real difference with the majority of NATO forces either......though the West's technological lead over Russia has further widened, the Russians still have deep, deep reserves, due in part to decades of 24/7/365 production of armaments and munitions.........A conventional war with the Russians, though of lesser scope, could be expected to go much the same as an expected war with the Soviets ~30 years ago. NATO with a semblance of air superiority over the battlefield, a ground war of high-tech attrition with the Poles replacing the West Germans, playing the role of speed bump, and the war being decided by logistics.......with the Russians having to resupply overland, well contending with continuous NATO airstrikes, with NATO reliant upon material crossing the Atlantic, shepherd by NATO navies, fending off a diminished Russian submarine threat, with a greatly reduced perspicacity to conduct anti-submarine warfare......

No, I'm not, nor do I discount it. Well no, you didn't answer the question, nor refute the cited experts that say policing levels have no direct correlation on crime rates. Why is that? The United States has a far greater rate of police per population, yet far higher crime rates than Canada.......using your logic, since the United States has more police per capita than Canada, the United States should have less crime than Canada................ In which ever communities across Canada that have seen consistent drops in crimes............ And you're unable to refute data, instead reliant upon bombastic personal tales and personal insults I misread the data, I correct myself to increasing police officers nearly twice the rate of population growth despite a decrease in crime.......... Now make up another one of your tales, maybe work in how the untermensch are to blame, then contradict yourself, well decrying empirical data cited from topical experts ........you're on a roll!!!!

I'll cite the rest of the report that you're paraphrasing, well including the actual conclusion:

I know what it says, I cited it.........but you citing something would be a first, so by all means. So more police will address this how? Who cares???? I bet the police per population is greater in North Korea or China, doesn't mean we should follow suit.... In areas where crime has been significantly reduced, yes we should reduce policing numbers, not increase them at over twice the rate of population growth, when overall crime is declining.

A demonstration on how Canadians feel about crime, despite your suggested "unreported crime wave". Right, inversely it doesn't mean "unreported crime" increased, just that Canadians are reporting less crime Has there every been one instance in Canada where the RCMP or other police services have stated they have a surplus of resources? This of course goes back to the previous point (I linked to) that crime rates do not directly correlate with policing staff levels. It can't be measured? The cited criminologists disagree (with data) with you your opinion.......I'm being disingenuous? I'm the one basing my opinion on both cited data and the opinion of experts, not on some claimed conversations and emotional opinions......... As I said, what good will further police do playing catch and release with petty criminals, namely drug addicts and the mentally ill, the when the police do pick them up, they are largely released onto the streets in hours.........As such, how are Mulcair's "boots on the ground" going to contend with addiction and the mental illness, both drivers in the majority of crimes committed daily in crap-holes like Surrey?

Right, but the very same data (I provided) also stated that Canadians outlook on crime hasn't changed......likewise, a decrease in reported crime doesn't directly correlate with an increase in crime. Furthermore, assuming unreported crime is increasing, how are additional police officers going to address crime that is not reported to them, as the majority of policing (as confirmed in the data I linked) is reactionary in nature? Huh? So adding additional police won't cause a decline in crime, but the number of police will impact crime? Doublespeak much? Your assertion runs clearly counter to the above piece I linked to that quoted criminologists saying the exact opposite...... If Mulcair, Trudeau or Harper likes German Shepherds that's fine, I just don't want to pay for them when they will have little impact on their supposed purpose. Explain to me how additional RCMP members in a Surrey, playing catch and release with meth addicts and the mentally ill, will impact crime rates to the good?

How are several thousand police officers, spread across the country, going to address the major issues facing Surrey (or any other crap hole) that cause crime, namely poverty and drug addiction? Are you suggesting said "boots on the ground" will clean-up Surrey's Whalley-ring of meth addicts and the mentally ill homeless?

I have no idea if "unreported crime" is increasing since its not reported........but clearly reported crime has decreased.....hence sans supporting data, I see no reason as to why thousands of more police should be funded. I'd criticize the policy just as much if it were put forward by the Liberals or the Tories.........You say Harper failed to deliver, perhaps actual crime figures led to a change in policy? I don't know, I don't remember the actual past Tory promise and when it was tossed. Who cares? Per this article, there is no direct correlation between the number of police and crime rates

No, the inverse. The assumption being, if I were a "progressive social democrat" (I'm not fyi) voter, which party of the three (NDP/Liberals/Green) would align closer to my own values. Furthermore, if the assumption is based on selecting a party that could form Government, which party would I select (this discounting the Greens)? So far, from what both parties propose, to my surprise, and leadership style, I'm to now assume that Justin Trudeau's Liberals would make the more viable choice. I'd assumed the Liberals were still promising daycare, since they've been promising it since the early 2000s (later 90s?). What makes you feel an NDP Government would be different? I mean to actually pass legislation, it would have to receive assent from a Tory led Senate, either forcing Mulcair to fill vacant Senate seats and/or relying upon Liberals senators and some number of Tories to support would be NDP legislation. Do you feel Tories and Liberals are going to rubber stamp legislation for an NDP Government?

Just a quick search of the scourge that is unreported crime in Canada, and found this from 5 years ago: But the same survey found: So the vast majority of Canadians are satisfied with their personal safety from crime.......... So if reported crime is decreasing by leap and bounds, but unreported crime is increasing (from five years ago), how are Mulcair's "boots on the ground" going to address crime not reported to police? After all, the majority of policing in Canada is either reactionary or a combination of reactionary and proactive measures........hence how are Mulcair's "boot on the ground" going to contend with this? --------- I find this report from the Star last year telling: So police officers are increasing at a greater rate than the population, despite a decrease in crime........and Mulcair wants to add more? If this was a Harper proposal, surely there would be claims as to this being the making of a "Police State".........

Do you have one of such surveys handy?

I'm quite aware of both the Liberal and NDP tax policies........only the Trudeau Liberals plan to raise both mine and my wife's taxes......."social and civil liberty issues" I don't really care about, and if I'm not mistaken, aren't the Liberals also proposing some form of National Daycare? What Labour participation policies are the NDP promoting? I thought they were after "small business", I would think further unionized labour would be a net-negative for "small business"....

Still waiting......

Sure, likewise, its just as possible that his thinking hasn't changed, or changed very little........... Don't get me wrong, if Mulcair subscribes to a form of neoconservative economics, further to the right of Harper, I'm not put off the least.......likewise, if suggested by others in this thread, Mulcair would ignore the socialist policies of the NDP and govern from the neoconservative right on tax and economic policies, pay some lip service to the environment and working poor, I'd consider that fairly centrist......If he left my guns alone, I'd considered voting for him.

By all means, explain how.

Which point? That all violent crime dropped 17% or that crime overall dropped 23%?

Why? I would think the Trudeau Liberals Eat the Rich tax hikes would very much so lend to their "progressive street cred".......likewise their promise to legalize pot......

I can read just fine

Fine, is Mulcair another Doer? Or Thatcher? Or somewhere in between? A better question, are the Trudeau Liberals more progressive than the Mulcair NDP?

I did, and went to the embedded link from within the link posted by Waldo, clearly showing violent crime and crime overall has dropped!!!

No its not, as my property taxes will go up to pay for unneeded policing.........