Derek 2.0

Canada had a role as a participant, indirectly and directly, with the deliverance of both tactical and strategic (American) nuclear weapons until the end of the Cold War….. As to your partisan dig, I would suggest it does a great disservice to those members of the Canadian Forces that participated in the 1991 Gulf War, operations in the FRY and our post 9/11 contribution to the global war on terror initiated under the Chrétien government, and then further expanded into a greater combat role under the Martin government. Define “warrior nation”………I would assume our participation in both world wars, Korea, etc as a valid reason for Canada to share that moniker. The political atmosphere is hardly congruent enough to fund the replacement of a handful of modern fighters, ships and trucks…….let alone the purchase of the required infrastructure and support for a Canadian nuclear deterrent.......

Certainly. A wider conflict will certainly play negatively on the world’s economy……..just as the tanker wars in the 80s did, which saw both the West and Soviets playing a part in it’s conclusion.

I don’t know about stability, I suppose that’s a subjective term, but once the West achieves energy independence, the Middle East will certainly have the same level of geopolitical relevance as Africa.

The Government has already stated they won’t legislate teachers back……In the past, BC Governments (Liberals, NDP, Social Credit) have been willing to legislate the teachers back, which always allowed the BCTF a parachute, but this time the refusal to do so has thrown a wrench into the BCTF’s strategy…. This will very likely go into the new school year, and will only likely be partially resolved once teachers start having difficulty paying their mortgages……Only then can I see teachers willing to bend on class composition…… What’s funny, the Government negotiated into the recent CUPE settlement the hiring of new education assistants, which would have the added benefit of addressing some of the BCTF concerns, but the BCTF doesn’t acknowledge this, since of course CUPE members don’t pay dues to the BCTF and don’t have the same level of education……because of course one needs a University degree to help a student with severe downs syndrome go to the washroom or eat their lunch…..

Seems like you're catching up with us out West........What's funny, from the very gas station I was at the other day, the Chevron refinery, the terminus of the current Kinder Morgan pipeline, is only a 15-20 minute drive (in traffic) away…….

Why not........it clearly meets your criteria for a “safe” vehicle (4x4, large size, room for the whole family), and one could even go so far as to suggest that it’s safer then your selection (a truck is less prone to roll-overs then an SUV) and more practical because it tows and hauls for more then a SUV.

4x4....size....good for a large family.........sounds like you're describing my choice:

What safety reasons?

I own a camper, boat and ATV............As for your practicality definition, why don’t you apply that to SUVs, sports cars and larger sedans also? Are they also status symbols of the bourgeoisie?

Why?

You might not mind, but if this conflict widened and drew in Iran and Saudi Arabia, anyone that purchases fuel from the Middle East certainly will.

Clearly the current Iraqi government doesn't.

My point on taxes is that currently the Lower Mainland has one of (if not the highest) rates on gas taxes in North America.....I expect, gas taxes in Ontario will be on the rise in the months ahead.

I answered you above, no, I don’t agree with your relaying of the press conference from last Thursday, via the Bloomberg link you shared. Certainly they are one and the same……If a given part was engineered to last “x” number of hours, but said part was coming up short in expected lifespan, clearly that would add to sustainment costs……As such, if both senior military and civilian officials are identifying such problems, then have the expectation that manufacturers and maintainers will solve such issues, that is clearly a successful approach.

I disagree with your skewed portrayal of the press conference, but agree and support both Kendall’s and Lt. Gen Bogdan’s actual proposals and suggestions to reduce F-35 sustainment costs. That is clearly a good thing.

In Port Moody regular gas is ~153.9 as of about an hour ago.....and diesel 149.9.........A good portion of that current price is taxes....If you're in Ontario, expect your prices to go up.

Monopolistic practices are hardly new. What regulations are those?

And what will happen if Iran openly involves itself in Iraq.......You don't think Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf States will mind?

Indeed......So how did Saddam ever control Iraq?

Outside of “moral” support, with the current state of our Armed Forces, Canada would have very little to offer in such a conflict.

That’s a very real possibility…….But with the geopolitical realities of the world as they are, the West has no choice but intervention…… To further expand upon on your meme though, a potential conflict could see the Americans and Iran supporting the Iraqi Government against Saudi supported ISIS forces.

It was present under Saddam……The Iraqi Republican Guard were namely Sunni loyalists and kept both the Shia and Kurd populations inline through use of force. As to any intervention by the Americans, I think they have no choice, fore if they don’t, the Iraqi Shia lead government will turn to Iran for support, which will then force ISIS to seek (further?) aide from Saudi Arabia……Once/if that happens, unlike Syria, I don’t see how this can remain a proxy war.

In my opinion his conclusions are largely correct, but the concept of the United States being the world’s policeman/umpire are hardly new.

I can’t speak for Big Guy, but I would suggest the “civil war” will begin once the Shia population comes into direct conflict with the Sunni/ISIS fighters…..then, devoid of outside intervention, I suspect the conflict will devolve along the same lines as that in Syria.

I've already read the book....