kward

Define: "perform our role". Deploy a squadron? Where? Why? How much is all of this going to cost?

No, land ownership controls who owns the resource. The best thing the government can do is to lift the designation of so-called "Crown" lands, and sell them off to the highest bidder. Then resources can be owned and controlled privately and they can in turn sell or lease their resource-rich land to the highest bidder - and the regional economy makes more money in the process; a lot more money than it otherwise would with Canada's top-down management style of "Crown" lands.

Yes, lets take on a military industrial complex that erodes our sovereignty, and bankrupts us slowly as money is removed from the private sector immorally and allocated to the public sector to pay for war machines in the interest of a "we know best" mentality. Great idea.

Gear porn. I certainly hope the Canadian government isn't wasting taxpayer dollars on all that crap.

Why stop at 3 squadrons? It's a big country. Maybe 6 squadrons would be better? Or 12?

I've already elaborated on this in previous posts. You protect yourself by talking, befriending, and trading with nations...by maintaining diplomatic channels...not putting up walls to anyone willing to talk turkey. Much of this can be done in the private sector, and the costs therefore to government are small. Of course diplomats would have to be paid, none of the above comes free. And I don't advocate spending zero dollars...I am saying spending tens of millions or even billions on something that cannot ever be achieved is a massive waste of money. That should be readily apparent to anyone not invested in gear porn.

Protectionism is never a good thing. We're all connected, whether we like it or not. Borders are imaginary lines through the eyes of money.

You're separating public money from private when it's all just money. You think a public royalty somehow gets put into the economy better than a privately earned wage? Why, because the worker will just put that wage under a mattress? No, people buy things, those things get manufactured, they get shipped, they get stocked, they get sold. Every step of that chain employs people, and those people spend their wages, and the chain goes on. A person spending their money in the private sector is as pure an economic stimulus as exists. A "royalty" going into the government coffers adds layers of filtering and middlemen, and by the time that royalty is allocated for something that might benefit you and your family the amount is far less than might otherwise have entered the economy via workers earning a living and spending it freely. So, yes, a job is a royalty, and a damn sight better a one than anything an expensive government bureaucracy can provide.

60k "jobs". What kind of jobs? We don't need more service-industry, minimum wage, temp holiday worker type jobs. We need productive jobs, and the government certainly does have a hand in this. For starters they persist in keeping a minimum wage, and for another thing they refuse to get out of the way of the economy and allow it grow free of impediments. Having a job is not enough if the net benefit overall is tiny, or worse, negative. Productive jobs are the true measure, and I'm sure the number of those created was nowhere near 60k.

Why stop at 100, maybe we should buy 500 or 1000 or maybe 10 000...y'know...just in case.

Not buying fighter jets does not mean we let all threats through, it means we find ways of making us safer than an F-35 ever could, without spending billions in the process. It's fine to try and stop force with force, but not in the case of charging taxpayers millions upon millions for it.

If you want to be revisionist fine, but you're re-defining terms. What I've said is it doesn't matter whom you vote for...as in, right now at this time in Canada. I'm not talking about not voting for anyone ever. I'm decrying the lack of a real option right now that stands out as different from the pack. The major parties are all in the same corporate pockets. The corporations and banks are in charge, not the parties. And no one in Ottawa has stepped forward to put an end to that reality. Al Gore winning in 2000? Who knows? You could drive yourself mental playing that game. Would 9/11 have happened? Would the War on Terror have taken place? Would the US have invaded Iraq? Would Would Would Would Would It never ends. In the here and now Harper is no different than whomever the Liberals will put out there, and no different than Mulcair. Of course that's not what we're fed by the media, and who owns them? It's all a game. Everyone in Ottawa is making a handsome salary playing it at the expense of the Canadian people. You advocate playing into their hands, apparently...I don't.

Okay, so at first it was nearly all media, then it was nearly every major print media, now it's nearly every major media. My point is there are plenty of media out there...papers, magazines, radio shows, podcasts, blogs, webzines, websites, TV personalities, etc etc etc who support other parties besides the Conservatives. If you'd like to redefine terms again to "nearly every major media outlet", we might have to figure out what's considered major, but then yes...you may have a point. In saying "nearly every media outlet"? Not so much.

The long point by point quote posts are silly. I've made my point already which is you will never, ever stop someone from attacking Canada no matter how many jets, boats, guns, or bombs you buy. In fact, the more we spend, the less secure we become, and the more unstable we appear. Everything else is just fantastical thinking fed by Hollywood action movies and fantasy plots.

Good luck, indeed. I'm in a country full of control freaks.

You've re-defined terms to make my point appear non-relevant. You said nearly all media originally...that is what I took exception with...you did not say "the majority of major print media outlets" in the original post I quoted.

So, let me get this straight...one of your grievances with Harper is based on things that he didn't do when he wasn't in charge? I sit here and say it doesn't matter who's in charge among the major political parties because it's true. We've seen each of the Cons, Libs, and NDP in charge at some level or another, and the laundry list has always been there. In reality, can that change? Yes.

1. Not this voter. 2. "The best defense is a strong offense." A herd phrase if ever there was one.

1. The dumbest and least motivated don't pull off terrorist acts that do widespread harm - just the opposite in fact. 2. I'm pretending that there are not people out there who want to attack Canada? Since when? Not wanting to throw money down the drain chasing some arbitrary idea of "security" is not the same thing as pretending a threat doesn't exist. It means recognizing the threat will always exist forever and ever, no matter how much you spend. 3. Protected land is owned land. The cheapest way for Canada to protect the north is to sell of its "Crown" land. Let the land owners incur the expense of protecting their property. They want to buy jets, go right ahead. But don't increase everyone's taxes trying to hold onto every iceberg within Canada's political boundaries. 4. You know what's scary? Reality. In reality, any place can be attacked at any time. It's just a fact. The likelihood is what counts. And you lessen the likelihood of being attacked when you do business, befriend, talk, and trade with others. Putting up walls, and buying ammo makes you seem paranoid, and people are less likely to trust you. When there's a lack of trust there's a greater likelihood for conflict. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 5. Of course, let's spend millions or even billions on fighter jets on the off chance that a passenger plane somewhere at some time may have to be "escorted" because of a "threat". Brilliant idea.

Please remember that I said "media".

1. Correct, and should they? 2. Projection of force is offense, not defense.

Define "media".

How much money are you willing to spend on a lock for your door? You've just basically admitted that you lock your door even though you know if someone wanted to get in badly enough, they would. You've just made my point for me.

1. There is no deterrent strong enough to stop someone so hell bent and determined. And you'll drive yourself nuts, and go broke trying to make yourself terrorist-proof. Not to mention you'll make everyone in the country miserable with constant suspicion, and wiretapping, and warantless searches, and check stops. There's no end. 2. Take whose resources out from under whose noses? Talk about an over-simplified world view. And run to the US? The US is going broke trying to chase the very idea I've mentioned in number 1. 3. You don't "hand over" your defense, there are more ways to defend a nation than just wasting money on war machines. Buying these expensive toys make us poor - so then what are we protecting if we've hollowed out the country to pay for "securing" it?

It's not giving up, it's called listening to reason, and stopping the endless spending on something that cannot ever be achieved. Cops? Are they a reactive force or just the opposite? Be honest. Are they a deterrent? Does crime exist? If we go broke chasing some arbitrary feeling of security we'll have nothing left to protect.