White Doors

I know you don't mean that and would be horrified if it happened, so why say it? What they mostly are are well-meaning fools. Most are not really up on what's going on. Most have simplistic beliefs and simplistic answers without nuance. "We should only be peacekeepers" they whine, even though that era has long-passed, and we haven't really been peacekeepers for many, many years. Military leaders have said repeatedly, most recently the lionised Romeo Dallaire, that the era of smiling, blue-hatted peackeepers ended long ago. But these people, ignorant of the world, still have stars in their eyes and still want to see us as these tall, noble, shining examples of peaceful intervention. Our mere presence will stop war as all about us stop to gaze on us with awe and admiration. They're horrified by militarism, by Canadians actually shooting at people. They seem to believe that we just need to talk with them, be understanding, and all will be settled. Like I said, they're well-meaning, but no one would ever allow such people to make important decisions. Exactly! Good post. They are cute little kittens.

Uhhh, I believe breaking the GST pledge would have been Chretien's and or Martin's idea.... Uhhh, in case you didn't notice this thread is about income trusts. And in case you hadn't heard, Ralph Goodale had ideas about them last year which the Cons promised not to impose. Well I for one am glad that The Conservative party decided to do what is best for the country instead of doing what is best for the Conservative party. It has been so long since we have had a government that did not govern by opinion polls. No matter how you feel about this particular issue, you have to admit that. And here is a piece of advice: If something looks and feels to be 'too good to be true' it almost always is.

Palestinians are represented by the Palestinian Authority which recognizes Israel, Hamas is a party that holds a majority in the PA legislature at this time. Confusing the two is like saying that the Labour party is the UK. If the UK elected Nazi's, Communists, or Israel-hating Hamas-ians, I'd support cutting off trade with them too. We're not discussing who you might like to trade with. We're discussing the formal question of diplomatic recognition between states. But they don't regard them as terrorists. Because they've been wrongfully deprived of their rights and freedom. Yes, they have been deprived of their rights and freedom's by the PA. Who cares what 'they' regard Hamas as? They are terrorists, plain and simple. Most Western countries do NOT recognize the Hamas led legislature and hav ecut off funding because Hamas has refused to renounce violence and Recognize Israel's right to exist. Proudly, Canada was the first nation to do this.

The afghan mission is supported by the UN, Nato and any sensibly thinking person. Only a person with a self-obsessed, provincial mind-set can think that the Afghan war is bad. Peace IS NOT the absence of war.

Right -- Israel started it. (Also, it's highly questionable that Israel's neighbors had any serious intention of attacking.) wow, 2 false statements in one short sentence! 1. Your own sources confirm that 'pre-emptive' amounts to starting it, so that's not false. 2. Senior Israeli officials are on record acknowledging that the Arab rhetoric in '67 was pretty much empty. holy jezus. They 'pre-empted' the invasion by attacking them first. That is not starting it, that's pre-empting it. And as per my source (The BBC which is hardly a friendly Israeli source) disagrees with you. So you will have to do better than that.

And, as I said, in order to spend half of what they do, we would have to double our current spending. And yeah, I'm sure our high GDP means we could handle the increae: but why? Why do we need to spend as much as South Korea, Russia or India and more than double what Israel spends? We're not facing any major military threats. We're not exactly lagging behind the pack (we're 12th in military spending world wide). If there's a problem, it isn't in the amount we're spending, but how we are spending it. We rank last in NATO, after luxemburg in per capita spending. That's not us pulling our weight. We need more capability to be able to project Canadian influence on the world stage. To have a voice. Like it or not, that is how people listen to you. Walk softly but carry big stick. I want Canada to be relevant, don't you? Also, the Islamic extremist problem is going to be with us for decades. Not to mention our troops should have the best kit available. Anything less is a national disgrace.

The police said a few days ago that a lot of judges refuse to see the evidence of child porn because it is so disturbing. However, because they don't, they don't hand out the full weight of sentencing that they have at their disposal. Interesting. I never thought of it that way. They should have a 'judge watch' like O'Reilly is doing in the US to take judges, who are soft on pedophilia, to task. :angry:

So what? That makes no difference to my original point. And besides, you're wrong. Israel started the 1967 war. You'd do better to avoid posting on subjects you're ignorant about. Thanks for the advice, but they merely pre-empted an invasion by their neighbours. Right -- Israel started it. (Also, it's highly questionable that Israel's neighbors had any serious intention of attacking.) wow, 2 false statements in one short sentence! Pre-emptive Def: : marked by the seizing of the initiative : initiated by oneself <a preemptive attack> Also, Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/midd...six_day_war.stm

Because that's implausible. To get up to half of Britain's strength, we'd have to increase our total numbers by 26,000: not impossible. But if we were to start spending half of what they spend, we'd have to double our current budget and then some. Oh and did I mention their GDP is almost double ours? In other words we have to spend twice as much to get half as much with only half the money. To me, questions of size and equipment will always be secondary to the question of role. You have to figure out what you want you rmilitary to do befor eyou start thinking about how big it should be or what equipment it needs. Quite right. What's more their makeup is quite different, being an island nation that was, technically on the front line during the cold war.... UK force make up http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tsp1/gender.html Agreed, but we do have the largest coastline in thw world, so it would be a good model. ie: strong navy emphasis.

Because that's implausible. To get up to half of Britain's strength, we'd have to increase our total numbers by 26,000: not impossible. But if we were to start spending half of what they spend, we'd have to double our current budget and then some. Oh and did I mention their GDP is almost double ours? In other words we have to spend twice as much to get half as much with only half the money. To me, questions of size and equipment will always be secondary to the question of role. You have to figure out what you want you rmilitary to do befor eyou start thinking about how big it should be or what equipment it needs. I agree with the 'role' part. But your math is off. If their GDP is almost twice as big as ours, we shoudl only have to spend 1/2 as much as them to have a force that is 1/2 as big as theirs...

No I don't find it an oxymoron at all. I'm speakign of having the best, not the biggest. Perhaps the 'big leagues' is a misnomer. How about a military 1/2 the size of GB's with the same level of modern capability (minus the nuclear deterrant)

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways??? The northwest passage isn't 1/3 of our maritime terrirtory and as already pointed out, patrolling under the water isn't much of a visable presence. Aircraft do the job much better qalong with arctic ice breakers.....4 times the bang for the cost. The northwest passage is only a msall piece of the arctic. Quite right, the rest is land haha. hardly. you DO know where the NW passage is don't you?

yes, taxes are bad. Any economist worth his/her salt will tell you that consumption taxes are LESS bad than income taxes. plain and simple truth.

So what? That makes no difference to my original point. And besides, you're wrong. Israel started the 1967 war. You'd do better to avoid posting on subjects you're ignorant about. Thanks for the advice, but they merely pre-empted an invasion by their neighbours.

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways??? The northwest passage isn't 1/3 of our maritime terrirtory and as already pointed out, patrolling under the water isn't much of a visable presence. Aircraft do the job much better qalong with arctic ice breakers.....4 times the bang for the cost. The northwest passage is only a msall piece of the arctic.

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways???

Mussolini was a man, Israel is a state. So let's compare apples to apples. Israel is currently illegally occupying some else's territory. Italy at the time I refered to was illegally occupying others' territory. So, in that respect, they are comparable. Thanks for the history lesson. Unfortunately for you your comparisom is shite. Mussolini's GOVERMENT invaded and annexed Ethyiopia and Albania. Israel was acting in self defence when they first got the territory. I'm sure the differences are negligable in your mind though as you already have your mind made up on the subject. I also find it interesting that you choose to compare Israel with a fascist regime. You forgot to mention George W. so unfortunately you only get a B+ in "left wing rhetorical clap-trap" this session. Please remember this CRUCIAL step for your next round of your Israel bashing/terrorist apologizing efforts.

Can anyone tell me what "asserting our soverignty" m,eans, in practical terms? I mean, is it really worth spending millions of dollars just to say "this here bit of wasteland be our wasteland?" When was the last time there was a naval engagement of the kind you envision? World War 2? Quite frankly I don't see old-school warship to warship engagements being a fixture of the battlefield of the future. No. We're not. The only country that could possibly mount an invasion of Canada is the U.S, in which case we'd be screwed regardless of how many nuclear subs we have. But "asserting our soverignty" sounds like a coast guard role to me. Anyway, military procurement should be based on real threats and real needs, not fantasy scenarios. And most of the stuff everyone here is talking about sounds like gearing up to fight last century's wars. Another thing: Canada doesn't have the dosh or the population abse to sustain a "big-league" military. What we need to determine what role we want to play and focus on acquring the right equipment to do that job. IMV, those roles should be confined to territorial/maritime defense and mobile light infantry for overseas deployment in fourth generation combat zones where Canada would be supplementing a larger force. There is no reason we can't have a 'big leagure' military of a modest size. We shoudl ahve the best for the people we task with these things. fyi - nuclear powered subs and nuclear armed subs are two VERY different things. I'm only advocating the former. Soverignty is being able to prove we are soverign over our territory. It' used to settle these disputes in world court. And if you think Canada's arctic is a 'wasteland' you really need to read up on it more.

The cold war is over. Those are outdated doctrine's.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines........... I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts. The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards. Sorry, when Canada bought the Leopards, the military may have wanted them, but they didn't yet exists.....Canada received the first Leopards in 1978. The Abrams Beta versions didn't start until 1980. And given the price difference, I doubt the Military would have wanted to wait till after the US inventory was filled to start getting one Abrams for every 5 leopards....... Aren't the Leopards considered to be superior to the Abrahms anyways? I know our are not, but the next generation Leopards are billed as the best tank ever according to TLC anyways.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice? No, I'm saying that they can go underneath it. A lot of good that would do if there were mexican illegal immigrants on top of the ice........ What? It';s about asserting our sovereignty. You don't need to actually kill people to put good military kit to effective use. I do agree that they are down on the list, but they really make alot of sense for Canada. Oh, and the troop carriers are on the way. No more frigates I'm afraid, but there was talk about 2-3 more destroyer's. Not troop carriers....supply ships....big difference New generation supply ships that can act as multi-use roles and one of them includes being a troop transport.

Israel had no choice but to pull out of Gaza. The cost of defending a handful of settlers was horrendous, and even an idiot like Sharon had to recognize that Gaza is completely unmanageable. How many people have those rockets killed? Say compared to the constant extra-judicial helicopter gunship assassinations that Israel now carries out as an almost daily routine.... How many Jews do you think must be permitted to die before Israel takes action against Palestinian terrorists? Well, they could make peace.

The comment was about how many had been killed by the rockets. Stick to the subject. As for the link, the number of Palestinians, children and otherwise, greatly exceeds that of the Israelis. How many Israelis have died in the past 6 months? How many Palestinians? What kind of horrendous pictures do you think the Palestinians could put up? The quote you provide is typical of its type. "We are innocent and have never done anything wrong. Why do they hate us? It's all their fault. They are scum." The comment about Lebanon particularly shows the writer's ignorance. The death toll in Lebanon (over 17,000) from Ariel Sharon's little adventure in the 1980s (a response to 105 Israelis being killed by PLO terrorists) puts a whole new face on the concept of 'self-defence'. Yes Higgly. You know and that's it. Perhaps you will take a moslems' word for it? I'm sure that they, having lived there, would know a bit more than you, wouldn't you say? http://www.arabsforisrael.com/

No, the Arab world is perpetuating misery by funding the terrorists who attack Israel, and rewarding suicid bombers. Without Israel and the Jews, who would be their scapegoat? Each other, as in the way Sunnis and Shi'ites are butchering each other in Iraq or Janjaweed and other Muslims are butchering each other in Sudan. Yep, or how fatah and Hamas are in daily gun battles murdering each other. I'm sure some on here will find a way to blame the Jews or Harper for that too eh?

Who started which war? The facts of history might well surprise you. Hezbollah started the war. What would be right is demanding Israel obey international law and desist from oppressing the Palestinians. They are not oppressing the Palestinians. Actually, Israel has expressed willingness, but SHOWN unwillingness. The policy of illegal settlement outside its borders alone is sufficient to disprove any real willingness to achieve a negotiated settlement. Basically, it looks like Israel really wants the Palestinians to die quietly and be forgotten by history. Really, they completely pulled out of Gaza and got rocket attacks for thanks. Withdrawal from Gaza was not remotely sufficient to redress the causes of the conflict, and LO! the conflict continued. After Italy pulled out of Ethiopia, were the Allies wrong to invade Italy? Oh, i get it. Israel is akin to Mussolini in your eyes, is that correct?