segnosaur

I dont believe in God = There is no God = Atheism Usually, when someone capitalizes "God", they are referring to the god as portrayed in the bible and/or koran. It is possible for someone to reject "God" (as portrayed in the Bible/Koran), yet still hold beliefs in other religious figures. They could (for example) be a Hindu. Or they could also be a deist (someone who believes in a god who "created" things but has left the universe to evolve; this is different than the biblical god of christianity/islam who regularly interferes with humanity). An Atheist rejects the notion of all dogs. A deist/hindu/etc. would not be an atheist because they still believe in some god, just not the same as yours.

Having a "belief" implies that you think something is true even if there is no evidence to support it. This is religion... there is no evidence that "god(s)" (that of the bible or koran, or of any hindu deities, or the old greek gods, or the norse gods), so its a "belief" to say that one exists. Rejecting a god does not require "belief"... it is a simple examination of the evidence for god(s), finding there to be none, and taking the default position of "if no evidence exists for something, then we should not believe it is true". I think the best quote of the situation is as follows: I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - ..Stephen F Roberts Humans have "created" hundreds of gods over the centuries... Egyptians had Ra, Horus, etc. Greeks had Zeus, Apollo, etc. Vikings had Odin, Thor, etc. Christians/Jews/Muslims have God. Christians/Jews/Muslims look at the gods of the Egyptians, Greeks, Vikings, Hindus, Polynesians, Japanese, and say "That's silly. Why believe in those?" Well, us Atheists do the same thing when we look at your god.

Don't think this one has been mentioned yet... Lucifer... the devil gets tired of ruling hell and decides to move to earth and open up a nightclub. While he's there, he ends up meeting a woman cop, so he ends up being a "consultant", helping her solve cases. Currently in its second season. This is probably the funnest show I've seen in a while. So many little jokes thrown around, yet they've built a rather interesting mythology and long-term plot lines.

It is true, the Liberals (and the NDP for that matter) both had election promises of election reform. However, I doubt whether such a single issue was the deciding factor for a significant number of voters. So, they voted for parties that promised reform, but they may not have voted for the reform itself. It should also be mentioned that while reform was promised, the exact nature of the change wasn't specified. So its hard to say people "voted for reform" when there was no consistency of what people thought it meant. The way I see it, the promise of reform was a very badly thought out election promise by Trudeau. It would have made sense to promise "We'll hold a referendum on it", or promise to start the process of change even if things aren't ready for the next election.

On the other hand, some may say the 'point' is to have a political system and voting methodology that gives us governments that are as fair and efficient as possible. People who prefer the first-past-the-post as compared to proportional representation or ranked ballots aren't doing so because they think fptp better allocates seats based on votes cast.... they typically prefer it because they see flaws in how those systems might work in practice.

And nobody ever expects the spanish Inquisition. Sorry couldn't resist. Its true, the chance of the NDP forming the government is remote, but its not an impossibility. (They have formed the government in various provinces before, and I believe they were in the lead in the polls at one point prior to the last election (I think they were anyways.) And even if they don't win, if you are a conservative due to policy beliefs then you will still want the NDP to have as few seats as possible, since even if they're in opposition, the more seats you have the more you can push your own agenda. I see the problem of the NDP potentially getting more seats, and a conservative (low tax, low spending) voter deciding "I don't want that to happen... better give my vote to the Liberals since, even though I have differences, they are still closer to my preferences than the NDP." That's just tinkering, and I don't really think it would make much difference in what I see as the ultimate problem... that a ranked ballot would give the Liberals an advantage because of the largely 3-way split in our politics.

Yes, but if you're opposed to the policies of the NDP, even giving them the chance of more representation in parliament (even if they may not form the government) is something you might not want to do. In the last election, there were 64 ridings where the NDP came in second, many of them won by less than a clear majority. In theory, under a ranked ballot some of those seats could have been won by the NDP. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-numbers-1.3281210

While in theory it would be possible for an individual conservative to do that, I don't think its realistic to expect all conservatives to employ such tactics. The other purpose is to potentially absorb votes from Conservatives who are more interested in policy than other factors (like personality). If I were a conservative voter who wanted (for example) lower taxes and social spending, and I considered it a critical issue, I would be more likely to throw my second-vote to the Liberals, since even though they may not be as keen to cut taxes as the Conservatives, they'd also be less likely to raise taxes as the NDP.

Why should I be forced to support your choices in personal entertainment?

My suggestion... loosen up the rules that force party unity during votes. Like in the U.S., allow MPs to vote how they want (except for money bills and on issues directly related to campaign promises).

The reason that I only discus the 'cons' of the Castro regime is because there aren't really that many serious 'pros' to discuss. Anything you've held up as a 'pro' has been shown to be false... that "people are happy", that they "have food and health care". Anything that you've pointed out as a pro is either completely incorrect, something that Castro didn't actually do well (even if he didn't mess it up), or overshadowed by problems. At the risk of Godwinning this thread, by your logic we couldn't even condemn Nazi Germany, or Italy during WW2 because "Hey the facists made the trains run on time so not everything was bad".) I'm not defending Batista's record. What I'm doing is pointing out how he wasn't worse than Castro. Its like comparing Malaria (Batista) with Ebola (Castro). Both of them are horrible, I wouldn't want either one. The fact that I'm saying Malaria is not as bad as Ebola doesn't mean I'm defending Malaria, its just pointing out that Ebola is just worse. Ummm... I posted a reference that showed that prior to the revolution, the number of doctors per person and infant mortality rates were among the best in the region. And unlike today, the medical system had access to basic supplies like antibiotics. Now, things like antibiotics are unavailable, patients often have to supply their own bedding, and patients often suffer malnutrition during their stay. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/01/justin-trudeaus-claim-that-castro-made-significant-improvements-to-cuban-health-care-and-education/?utm_term=.ca53f03f4438 Yeah, sounds like such a wonderful health care system under Castro. Its not the only measure but it is significant. And its fairly easy to measure. # of calories /day cubans had pre-revolution: 2730 # calories mid-90s: 2357 Canada recommends that an adult male should have between 2500-3000 calories/day (depending on activity). Having fewer Calories than required means an individual becomes sluggish, muscles are often canibalized, Now, I could have pointed to other factors... For example, did you know that parts of Cuba have problems with Anemia, caused in part by not having enough meat in the diet? I'm not suggesting you're wrong... I'm stating it outright, along with evidence. All you've done is that, when presented with actual hard evidence (such as incomes or health care before the revolution, and similar information after the revolution) launch into some bizarre irrelevancies. "Hey kids eat junk food in Canada so its equivalent to thousands of Cubans starving to death!" (No, no its not.) Actually no you haven't. When I pointed out that his "success" with health care was over-rated, you claimed I was wrong (without any evidence). When I pointed out that there were significant problems with food under Castro, you jumped in and suggested that "food wasn't everything". He took over a corrupt regime... and replaced it with one that was just as corrupt, if not more so. Cuba literacy early 1950s: 76%. Literacy rate 1995: 96%. Rise: 19% Want to brag about that? Well, in the same time period, Columbia's literacy rate went up by around 30% (to 91%). While their literacy rate in 1995 wasn't as high, they were also starting from a much lower rate. The Dominican Republic went up by 39% in the same period. And while Chile's literacy rate is currently 97%, they are managing to maintain that rate (and they've transition to a democracy in the 1990s.) I wonder what people would prefer... a high literacy rate and a brutal dictatorship that keeps you from reading anything the government disagrees with, or an almost as high literacy rate but one that allows you a significant amount of free speech. [quote[Cuba is not the US. When compared to country's of the same populations ize in Latin America like Bolivia, El Salvador and Columbia it does not have the uneven extremes in income level between the elite 2-3% and the masses at or below the poverty line. Its done away with the extremes.[/quote] Actually no it hasn't. Its just that in Cuba, the "extremes" are between the ruling elite (Castro is extremely wealthy) and the poor, rather than the business class and the poor. Actually those rules allowed Castro et al to become very rich. Oh, and by the way, while you may decry the idea of a "wealthy" minority, keep in mind that such a system is not any better if the regular person is dirt poor. Yes, the U.S. does have their 1%ers (and I have no problem if the government decided to increase taxes on them), but I have never heard of even the poorest in the U.S. being forced to eat cats on a regular basis, as they have in Cuba. Ahem... Bull. From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/keithflamer/2016/11/26/10-surprises-about-castros-extravagant-life/#75e3f1f47302 A decade ago, Forbes estimated Fidel Castro’s personal net worth at $900 million.... Luxurious living arrangements were especially appealing to Castro. .. retired to the gated community “Punto Cero” (Point Zero), his top-secret 75-acre suburban Havana home Yet when I point out that people don't have enough food to eat and that their heath care system may not be as good as claimed, you seem to argue against it. Yup. Thanks to economic reforms, China's poverty rate fell from 88% in the early 1980s to 6.5% in 2012. Pretty good don't you think? We're talking people going from situations where they may not have enough food to eat on a daily basis to having a stable food supply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China Not really. As I pointed out, people under Castro were forced to eat house cats to survive. In the U.S,? Not so much. Yes, poor people exist. But even the poorest person usually has access to things like welfare, medicare, etc. Actually, only around 11% of all cubans have cell phones (2011 numbers). http://www.ibtimes.com/cuba-technology-development-cell-phones-internet-remain-rare-island-stuck-past-1913349 People should have the right to go to Casinos or fast food restaurants if they choose to. Whether you agree with it or not, it should not be your choice (or Castro's) to make. As for your continual references to "the mafia", as I pointed out, Castro has his own class of thugs that are just as brutal as the mafia. Already gave a reference showing Cuba had one of the highest number of doctors per capita in the region. What he did was replaced a system where some were wealthy and some were poor, with one where HE and his buddies were wealthy, and everyone one else was even poorer than they were before. Its not romantic... its just plain wrong. I've already given figures giving wages pre- and post-revolution. Castro is not "taking care of its poor". Why didn't Castro initiate those reforms decades ago, when China started? Well, they have certainly taken care of the population of Cats on the island. Ok, lets consider that, shall we? The figures in that link were from 2006-2008. The ones I counted earlier were from the 1990s. So, what could the reason be for the difference? Simple... foreign aid. From: https://www.devex.com/news/un-plans-to-send-food-aid-to-cuba-45920 ($3.7million in 2005 from World Food Program) From: http://reliefweb.int/report/cuba/wfp-appeals-emergency-food-aid-615000-victims-el-niño-induced-drought-eastern-cuba ($20 million in 1998 from the World Food Program) From: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/23/better-economic-relations-with-cuba-could-be-a-win-win (References food aid started under Bill Clinton) Yeah, that sounds great... Castro was such a great leader my making Cuba so pathetic that other countries are giving food to feed his people. Why would we need to discuss that? Yes, there was a U.S. embargo (although that didn't mean they couldn't sell food and medical supplies, albeit with a bit of paperwork). But you know what? There was over a hundred countries that Cuba could have traded with to provide the food they needed. But they didn't. Why? Because their economy was in shambles thanks to Castro and didn't really have anything to trade. Cats are cheap. Wait a sec... earlier in the thread you were bragging about how people there were happy because they had "food to eat"... now you're saying they are more or less eating leftovers? The embargo didn't cause the food shortages. Poor management by Castro did. There are over a hundred different countries with which Castro could have traded. Heck, after a decade or 2 he could have said "I'm done being a dictator. Democracy for all!" (much like Pinochet did). But he didn't. He stayed around until the very end. Independent polls show that most people dislike the government and Castro. What he did was try to replace one brutal dictatorship with one that was even more brutal. This is not 'cold war rhetoric'. This is people getting annoyed by someone glorifying a dictator by heaping praise on him while ignoring the brutal things he did.

I think the issue that needs to be looked at when examining any voting system is the current landscape of their political system. Yes, Germany is successful, and they do use a system that has elements of proportional representation. (Although they don't actually use full proportional representation.) But, Germany really only seems to have 2 major parties that have a reasonable chance of forming a government (with a variety of smaller parties to grab the electoral crumbs.) Part of the reason their system works as well as it does is because of the way party support is distributed. The problem with Canada is that traditionally we have had 3 major political parties that, due to history or geography, have a reasonable chance of forming the government. That means that in any sort of proportional representation, the party occupying the political center (i.e. the Liberals) will always hold an excessive amount of power (since, in a minority situation, it is unlikely the NDP and Conservatives would form a coalition because of policy differences.) So, a proportional representation will basically consist of Liberal governments, with regular coalitions with the NDP, continuing until the sun burns out. And while I'm sure those on the political left may be thrilled with that possibility, it could lead to a certain amount of arrogance and complacency from the government, as well as a feeling among many voters that "their votes don't matter" because its always going to be a Liberal/NDP coalition. A ranked ballot would have been a problem for almost the same reason... having 3 main political parties would have favored the only party in the center, which would have caused a certain amount of arrogance to set in. The time to have tried proportional representation (or some sort of mixture or variation) would have been when we had both the Reform party and Progressive conservative party. The possibility of a more even split (with the progressive conservatives possibly joining the Liberals closer to the political center) might have worked. But such large-scale shifts in the political landscape do not happen very often.

The U.S. military is right on it... https://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/military-green-us-air-force-flies-on-biofuel/ .. a test flight on March 25 just might allow a flowering weed known as camelina to replace petroleum as part of the military's energy mix. ...

Not sure if you're getting tired of being shown how wrong you are, but just in case you're not: From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/12/01/justin-trudeaus-claim-that-castro-made-significant-improvements-to-cuban-health-care-and-education/?utm_term=.0d163bb8358f ...per capita consumption of calories in Cuba was 2,730 in the mid-1950s — and 2,357 in 1996. Meanwhile, other countries in the region saw an improvement; for example, Mexico went from 2,420 to 3,137 calories. In other words, Cuba declined about 13 percent, while Mexico gained almost 30 percent. So much for your argument about people having "sufficient food". And what about that access to doctors? I've already pointed out that prior to Castro, Cuba had more doctors per-capita than even many western nations. From the same article: ...when Castro became ill in 2006, a specialist arrived from Spain to treat him, Wait, what? I thought all Cubans had equal access to doctors. ...pharmacies stock very little and antibiotics are available only on the black market. So you can see a doctor, but he can't do anything to help your pneumonia. Do you consider basic medication to be one of the "fundamental basics"?

Not as many as you might think. There are issues like situational awareness (drone pilots don't have the ability to view their environment to the same degree as regular pilots) and capacity (current drones don't have the ability to carry as many weapons as manned fighters.) Here's something you might want to think about... the U.S. military has huge R&D expenditures. They're working on everything from Robotics to biofuels With all the advanced tech that they have, why exactly do you think that they aren't already flying fleets of unmanned drones?

A couple of things here... First of all, you are assuming that only the communist dictatorships get criticized, but that is far from universal. Some people that you might consider "right wing" would likewise be willing to condemn right-wing dictatorships under similar circumstances. Secondly, for better or worse, there tends to be a shorter shelf-life for right wing dictatorships. Heck, Pinochet had his little death squads, but amazingly he voluntarily gave up power. Meanwhile, Castro clung to his little socialist revolution, letting his people survive on cat meat and other luxuries long after Pinochet retired. Same with Nicaragua, Panama, etc.If I'm going to live under a brutal dictatorship, I'd rather it last for a short period of time rather than a long period. Lastly, I think the nature of the support for the different dictatorships is important. When a left-winger praises Castro, they point to his "successes" in things like health care, suggesting the country is some sort of socialist utopia. (Its not... but its the lie that gets passed around.) On the other hand, a right winger may not see it as a case of the right wing dictatorship as being superior, but more as a necessary evil. At least that's my opinion. If someone wanted to criticize Harper for being too generous in his condolences to the King of Saudi Arabia, I'd probably agree that you have a point.

What makes you think we'll be flying the F-35 in 2056? It may be true that there are no guarantees. Maybe there will be some giant technical or social change tomorrow that will make all fighter jets obsolete. But, by the time they are retired, Canada will have flown the CF18 fleet for roughly 4 decades. Other countries with similar military considerations have likewise maintained jet fleets for 3-4 decades. Heck, part of the reason the Liberals and NDP attacked the Conservatives with the "contempt of parliament" charge was because the Conservatives weren't giving F35 purchase costs for 40 years. You also have the fact that our federal government (regardless of whether they are headed by a conservative or liberal PM) is usually hesitant to spend money on the military. So even when technology has changed enough so that our hardware is obsolete, the government will continue using the equipment past its "best before" date. So, while there are no guarantees, past history suggests that whatever planes we purchase will be in use for least in 3 decades, if not 4 decades. I know many people here are thinking "replace our CF18s with Drones", but the technology is not yet at the point where that is feasible, and likely won't be for many years to come.

One little thing I wanted to add... (My previous posts had the quotes screwed up so I'll post the addition here.) Does that "sufficient food" in everyone's stomach include cat? From: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/millions-of-cubans-facing-starvation-hunger-is-fuelling-an-exodus-of-desperate-refugees-writes-phil-1417691.html Under ever-tighter rationing... the poorest of Cubans began devouring the cat population last year. There's also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811770 A high malnutrition rate was observed among participating hospitals. Oh, and how about: https://food-aid.org/cuba-receives-57024-meals-from-food-aid-international.html The nation of Cuba has long been troubled by epidemic food shortages resulting in widespread hunger and malnutrition. So it looks like Castro hasn't ensured that everyone has "sufficient food" in everyone's belly. But at least he had his $billion dollars to console himself with. Glad to see Trudeau admit that everyone knew Castro loved the cuban people.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba#History In the 1950s the number of doctors per thousand of the population ranked above Britain, France and the Netherlands. In Latin America it ranked in third place after Uruguay and Argentina... According to the World Health Organization, the island had the lowest infant mortality rate of Latin America Or how about from: http://econweb.umd.edu/~davis/eventpapers/CUBA.pdf On the eve of the revolution, we find that incomes were fifty to sixty percent of European levels. They were among the highest in Latin America .. As best we can tell, current levels of income per capita are below their pre-revolutionary peaks. From, you know, actual references. You know, from universities. The world Health Organization. Places like that. And now its a playground for thugs working under Castro, with the claim that they are working for the people, but in fact are often working to line their own pockets. Its not an improvement. At best its a lateral movie. No, its not North Korea. Its Cuba. A country that has been run for decades by a man who has thrown dissidents in jail, and has killed thousands of its own citizens. Not sure why you think North Korea is the bar by which other countries should be measured. You see, that's the problem... I've quoted reputable sources... universities, mainstream media, medical professionals. These are sources that should be respected. Its not like I'm quoting some right-wing gas-bags or anti-castro activists. The fact that you are rejecting them (for whatever reason) is a failure on your part to illustrate rational thought. No, he smothered it with the intent of making himself wealthy. For the most part withstood the corruption of the Batista and earlier regimes. No, actually its quite a bit different. As big and powerful as Walmart or Ford is, I will not go to jail for saying "The Ford Focus Sucks" or "The Walmart happy face logo is creepy". And if I don't like what those companies are doing, I have the option of not purchasing from them. If I were in Cuba, I would not have the ability to crticize the government, nor avoid them in business dealings. So yes, the situation in Cuba is completely different than the situation involving North American companies. Then you are a fool. Cubans are oppressed. Yes, even the people who have been thrown in jail for criticizing the government have the basics! Free meals from the prison! A roof over their head and walls all around them! (Granted the walls have bars, but hey who's being picky!) Course there were thousands that were killled. But I'm sure in the time that they were alive they were quite happy with their clean homes and food, right before they were killed by Fidel's firing squads. You know, there's a saying... The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data". I suggest you make an attempt to understand it.. You've made claims that you know what's happening in Cuba because you went there and talked to them. Well, how do you know that the people you were talking to were representative of Cubans in General? How do you know you just didn't happen to stumble on the few people who were happy? Or how do you know that the people you talked to actually felt comfortable talking to you about how they really felt? That's why statistics are important. That's why looking at a survey giving people's low satisfaction with Fidel is more valuable than talking to a dozen people on vacation. There is a difference between government oppression of homosexuals (What happened in the years following the Cuban revolution) and violence/discrimination caused by other citizens. The first cannot be corrected by legal means because the government is in charge. The second has legal remedies, given the various laws we have regarding assault, etc. No, but they should consider what the average Canadian will think before they make statements on behalf of Canadians. And if they foolishly gush all over a man who had thousands killed, we have the right to say "You're an idiot". Because if they don't make at least some attempt to improve the lives of Canadians, they will get voted out of office in a later election. Castro had no such concerns.... he could make things worse for his people with no risk of loosing power. True Trudeau won't arrest anyone like his father did under the War Measures Act but what is he doing for the mass suicide of aboriginal children up North any different than Harper? No, he'd kill them himself if he thought they were making him look bad. Seriously, Castro had thousands of people executed because they opposed him. Not sure why you think he's some paragon of virtue who cares so much for his people that he'd "never let children commit mass suicide". Did you ever stop to consider that the reason that I'm one-sided in my analysis is because the other side actually has no validity? Yet you seem to claim that Castro "loved his people". Oh no! People might be able to make decisions about their personal life that you don't agree with! The horrors!

How do you know they loved him? By the throngs of people who come to see him? Hard to say that's love when not turning out to see him will end up getting you in trouble. From: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Dissident-Jailed-in-Cuba-For-Refusing-to-Mourn-Castros-Death-403684896.html The daughter of a Cuban dissident says her father was beaten and taken to jail for refusing to mourn the death of Fidel Castro. Yup, sounds like love to me. Trying to judge how Cubans feel about Castro is not easy... being a dictatorship, discourse is routinely silenced, and anyone not seen as appropriately praising Castro could end up in trouble. Accurate polls giving details about how Cubans actually feel are rare, but here is one: From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/poll-shows-vast-majority-of-cubans-welcome-closer-ties-with-us/2015/04/08/6285bfe4-d8c3-11e4-bf0b-f648b95a6488_story.html?utm_term=.c448b9a34902 ...the survey reveals deep national discontent. Fifty-five percent would like to leave the country... Nearly 8 in 10 are dissatisfied with the economic system... Fifty-eight percent give negative ratings to Cuba’s Communist Party, and 53 percent say they are dissatisfied with their political system... Fidel Castro — 50 percent view him negatively, compared with 44 percent giving him a positive response. Certainly doesn't sound like widespread love of Castro, or of the political system he created. Yes he was. The man who rightfully claimed that the "government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" was close friends with a dictator that had homosexuals rounded up and sent to "reeducation" camps. All that it shows is that Trudeau's morality was flexible and he had the ability to compartmentalize. He talked about how even his detractors believe he "loved the cuban people" (false by the way), and he talked about things like health care improvements without mentioning the problems. If you highlight all the good things and ignore the bad things, you are partisan. There are people living here in Canada and the U.S. who have seen relatives jailed by Castro for being gay. Or because they said something the leader did not like. Others have been killed for similar offenses. Do you really think people like that are just being "thin skinned" because they think its wrong to praise someone who was responsible for that? Trudeau is an elected representative of the Canadian people, and as such what he says reflect on Canada in general. People are pretty sure exactly what he meant. They just think he was an idiot for saying it. Freedom of speech only involves restrictions enforced by the government. It says nothing about freedom of repercussions for that speech. Under Castro, dissent was silenced. Trudeau was not in any way silenced. He has the right to say anything he wants (well, except for shouting Movie in a crowded firehouse or something similar.)... but the fact that he had the right to say stupid things doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have the right to criticize him for those stupid things. No, its not. Even under the corrupt Batista regime, Cubans had some of the best health care, and some of the highest incomes in the western world. Improvements may have been made, but they've been marginal compared to some of the improvements in other countries. Worse health care for one. Gay people rounded up and sent to prison camps. No freedom to criticize the leaders and choose ones that they might thing better represent their interests. (Some people consider that important.) Access to basic necessities of life. And why exactly is having a decent income considered a bad thing? While having money itself isn't a guarantee of happiness, it does have benefits... allows people to travel, access to the media provides entertainment and information. More money can also mean a longer life. (There is only so far that a plucky doctor can do without more advanced diagnostic tools like MRIs, which are expensive pieces of machinery.) How about the fact that in the poll I referenced earlier, the majority of Cubans would prefer to leave Cuba. And you don't think that's a bad thing? Heck, Snowden exposed the NSA for its snooping and people rightfully went nuts. What Cuba does is far in excess of what the NSA was doing. First of all, Castro can claim anything he wants. He can claim that he was doing what he thought was best. That doesn't make it so. (And keep in mind that while Castro was claiming "cuba was his children", he also managed to amass a fortune, becoming one of the wealthiest leaders in South America.) http://www.ibtimes.com/fidel-castro-net-worth-2016-how-cuban-leader-built-wealth-after-1959-revolution-2451623 Its ironic that someone like Harper gets condemned for his drug policies, yet you seem to be ok with Castro being even more authoritarian over some of the same issues. The fact that he was different than Stalin doesn't mean that we shouldn't view him negatively. After all, we can claim that Paul Bernardo was no Ted Bundy, but that doesn't necessarily make him "not evil". (And I'm sure that, had people like Hitler been interviewed, they'd probably make the same sort of "greater good" claim.) As for him supposedly "looking after the greater good"... once again, he can falsely claim that was his goal, but that doesn't make it so. And keep in mind that other countries (e.g. china, viet nam) have seen the plight of their people improve following economic reforms while Cuba remained relatively static. So, Castro was either: 1) a lying despot, claiming to want to do things for the greater good while really only doing things for his own benefit, or 2) an incompetent leader, who may have won the revolution with the best of intentions but was unable to see how other countries had been improving and enact the same reforms himself. I'm sure they do, but eventually governments change, and accurate information eventually gets revealed. The difference between what happens in Canada and Cuba is different by degrees of magnitude.

No its won't "rewrite" treaties.. (Well, technically the review could recommend withdrawl from either one of those, but that wouldn't happen.) But the treaties aren't specific enough to dictate just how many and what type of planes we deploy and in what locations. Our allies were satisfied enough with the previous government's use of risk assessment in splitting planes between NATO and NORAD,. The Defense review would have been the time to look at that particular plan and decide "Do we want to continue allocating our planes in that way or increase our fleet to cover cases that are possible but unlikely". No "Rewriting" of treaties was necessary.

Alright, lets take a look at some of those figures, shall we? First of all, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Economy Before Fidel Castro's 1959 revolution...Cuba ranked 5th in the hemisphere in per capita income, 3rd in life expectancy, 2nd in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, So, its not like Castro was taking a country that was destitute and turning it around. It was already successful (even under the corruption of the Batista regime). Secondly, lets look at some of the countries that you are suggesting have a worse per-Capita GDP... Venesuela... run by another left-wing authoritarian... while perhaps less dictatorial than Cuba, its far from being an example of capitalist failure. Brazil... Yeah, lower per-capita GDP. But, almost 1 million people are classified as 'indigenous' and many people live a traditional hunter/gatherer lifestyle. (i.e. they would not be contributing significantly to the GDP.) So the stats for Brazil may be a little distorted. Granada / St. Lucia: You're talking about some pretty tiny countries, without any sort of population base and limited resources. So comparing the "success" of cuba to those places is a bit like comparing apples with really tiny raisins. So, that leaves countries like Mexico, Columbia, Peru, etc. So lets look a little deeper. GDP is only part of the picture. Consider Average or Median income. Cuba: around $300-2000 / year (its hard to tell exactly, since there are differences between "official" salaries and what people earn on the side.) Mexico: around ~12,000/year Peru: ~$6000/year in Lima So, in at least a couple of cases, countries have lower GDPs than Cuba, but they have higher actual incomes. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article89133407.html https://www.reference.com/world-view/average-income-mexico-9ac363baf5bf6204 As for life expectency, yeah, they're pretty close. (Its slightly higher in the U.S., but not by a lot.) But, one major cause of death in the U.S. is car accidents. Given the lower number of cars per-capita, that's less of a problem in Cuba. ETA: One other point... Cuba has been the benficiary of significant aid... first from the Russians for several decades, then from Venezuela. So, keep in mind that at least some of its GDP figures may be inflated thanks to the generosity of wealthy patrons, rather than the success of its own economic policies.

This is not about our ability to deliver today, it is about the state of our ability in 2025. Look at the number of CF-18 airframes we are operating, the hours on them, and how long they will last. We have an obligation to prepare to meet our commitments, not wait until that capability is degraded beyond repair because nobody has complained yet. And once again... the latest upgrades would have kept the bulk of the CF18 fleet active until 2025 at the least. (I'm sure there might have been an occasional crash, but it wouldn't have made a significant difference in our ability to handle the commitments.) We weren't going to have a gradual attrition until we "ran out of planes" by 2025. The planes we have (the vast majority) would have remained airworthy. The only change was that the Liberals needed an excuse to engage in shady dealings, and they found it: Make a change to the way we handle airplane distribution, even though none of our allies were demanding it.

Once again.... both NATO and NORAD were satisfied with the way we handled our commitments previously. Nobody was complaining. Yes, he said that, after the Liberals changed the way we handle our commitments.

Keep in mind that Cuba: - Had diplomatic and trade relations with many nations throughout the world, so while they may have lost out on a major trade partner in the United States, they still had multiple other countries that they could have traded with - Has made little change to its command economy, unlike other communist countries (like China, Viet Nam and Laos) that have introduced reforms, and as a result have seen their economy improve Had Cuba decided to implement reforms earlier, if they recognized that a command economy was counterproductive years ago, perhaps the U.S. might have been willing to start trade relations long ago. Its ironic... Castro railed endlessly about the U.S., and the evils of capitalism, and then people complain that the U.S. and its capitalist system isn't being permitted to improve the lives of Cubans.