August1991

I fail to understand the question. Sorry if I wasn't clear. "What's that?" means what the Canadian military should have the capability to do. IOW, what do you think Canadian army people should do? Sorry, I don't see the connection with Canada's defence We're talking about 20% of about 40%. About 8%. I'd be unhappy if I lost 8% of my income. But would I be willing to give up 4% of my annual income to protect the small chance of losing 8%? More, a country is not a person. There are 6 billion people in the world. I'm sure Canadians could find others to trade with. Are you suggesting that, even though individual Canadians want to trade with Americans, the government should stop them and force them to trade with non-Americans? Are you a Communist? BTW, this is interesting. You make me think!

Are you comparing American troops (sorry, coalition troops) to Nazis? Credible threat? It was all a question of "maybes". There's a chance that a rogue state will assist some terrorist group to get WMD and cause havoc in the west. Chance? Almost a certainty. How do we go about stopping that. (I like my Lexus and I don't want to see it trashed.)

IOW, the root cause of these terrorist acts is the fundamental problem of injustice in this world: We rich westerners have ignored the poor. They are understandably rising up against injustice, but we must listen and teach them the peaceful way. And that explains perfectly why the WTC terrorists were from impoverished Saudi Arabia and not rich Syria.

I posted a CBC link about a BC Liberal on another thread here. The RCMP raid is weird too. I think everything in the case is closed. Why? Victoria, Vancouver Island, NDP? I thought the island would be Reform. Sorry if I sound ignorant, but I've only been there twice and I'm relying on hear say.

We're assuming the money is well spent, and we only do what we have to. What's that? Well: By that measure, you lose 50% of the vote. Heck, let's buy $13 billion of Viagra and make everyone happy. Is this what is meant by "military capability"? About 80% of our trade is with the US. What's to protect? I can understand that in the 18th century, we may have needed canals, fortresses, even railways. I happen to think Americans are largely peaceful people now. Live and learn.

There are many costs in dealing (co-operating) through markets. For one, people have to figure out what all those numbers mean exactly. Second, the lawyers have to explain exactly what you're buying, and what you're giving up - and these are often things in the future. There are many non-market ways to co-operate, and sometimes, the bigger the better. Microsoft seems pretty good, but then so did IBM. But, Hugo, I get your point. "Power kills?" WTF? What is socialism? Honestly, I don't know. If it means stealing from rich people to give to poor people, then I'm in favour with certain conditions attached. If it means the State should organize certain activities in a society, then I'm in favour but with certain conditions too. On balance, I consider myself "left wing" - socialist, I guess.

Another one. CBC Flags BC Braverman This was raised by the BQ in the House today, and reported on French CBC. The Quebec angle is the flag business. That's touchy. Landry changed the names of every institution in Quebec to "National". So, we no longer have the "Museum of Quebec". We have the "National Museum of Quebec", and so on. The flag deal is part of this saga. The Radio-Canada report was different from the link above. The issue was that Martin approved funds, in the budget, for sponsorship activities knowing fully that they were "off-budget". The Radio-Canada report implicitly tied Martin to the scandal through the BQ questions. Most scandals die through boredom. Maybe this one will too. But I don't think so.

Well, I assumed that if we increase military expenditure that would mean buying more military equipment and hiring more people to do military things. All of this, I assume, would increase the "capability of our armed forces" - if it was done well, of course. My question is: why do we need to increase the capability of our armed forces? (This is not a trick question. I'm genuinely interested to read what you think.) I'm inclined to think we don't need a more capable military. But I'm open to argument.

Lower taxes? No problem here. But why increase military expenditure?

I think that's because of the new boundaries. The card probably tells you your circonscription (riding, incidentally, is a purely Canadian term. No other parliamentary system uses it.) Impossible to disagree with you. 1. But I think Martin has planned a spring election. (These guys are competitive and ambitious. They all remember Trudeau and 1968. It bugs the hell out of them. PM PM wants this victory so bad. Redeems his father, makes him proud in his father's eyes...) 2. Harper's got it. Those are the key questions awaiting answers. Another? Layton, Martin, Duceppe, Harper in debate. I frankly think Canadian politics won't be more interesting than that - in English and French. Yeah right. Those Rosedale types and the people on Bay Street, Layton's got them in the bag. Here's the link to the old/new electoral map: Canadian Electoral Map For Ontario, separate the north from the south.

As we say in Quebec, what da 'ell? In 1867, this was not a problem because there was no Internet. Heck, there wasn't even MTV. (Think, people had to listen to music without video!) I think Macdonald lost in 1873 in his Kingston riding so, in the same election, he ran again in Manitoba - where he was safely elected. Macdonald had suppressed the Riel Rebellion and the anti-Macdonald vote had, let's say, fled the country. In the 1980s, prior to the Internet, at 8 pm sharp, the local polls closed and CBC/CTV could tell the story - usually starting here in the East with - Newfoundland has voted... Canada has, hmmm, Mountain, Central, Eastern, Atlantic, Nfld. That's 4 1/2 hours difference.

That sounds like Afghanistan to me. Honestly, I don't see the connection between democracy in Iraq and fighting terrorism. Why Iraq? Why not Syria? North Korea? Is it because we have to start somewhere and Iraq is as good a place as any? Well, then say so and move on. WMD? The Blair argument was that Iraq maybe had WMD and it will maybe pass these WMD to a terrorist group. The risk of these "maybes" was enough to justify a war against Saddam. In this scenario, who cares what government Iraq has as long as it doesn't pass WMD to terrorists. Where does democracy in Iraq fit in?

That, BD, is the whole point. And it's the point you've been missing from the very beginning. Since you'd be out of business, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE and the world would be a richer place - because we'd have the Toyota and whatever you produced too. What am I getting at? Think of typists, typewriter repairmen, secretaries, ice men, wheelwrights, filing clerks. They're out of a job. And it's good too. Now they can do something else with their time and society has what we had before, and more. (With your logic BD, we'd still be living in caves looking for fire because if we ever found a way to make fire, the firekeeper would be forced out of business, lose his job and be driven into poverty.) I don't mean to be harsh BD, but I'm beginning to believe that too many people who think like you have advised, influenced or formed the Haitian government. As a result, Haiti is filled with wheelwrights. Well, that's harsh. Anyone who knows anything about Haiti will tell you that Haiti is a strange case indeed. Graham Greene depicted it best in my view.

Stoker, why? If all that bureaucratic waste was somehow, well, eliminated, why not cut taxes instead? That's the point.

Ain't gonna happen. Don't believe me? Take the Ontario electoral map and look at the ridings. 30 NDP possibles are not there.

There used to be but it hardly affected us in the East. We'd turn on the TV to see the 32 seats of the Maritimes. (OK, and Nfld...) It was the Westerners that were outraged to turn on their TV and discover that the outcome was already decided. With the Internet, all thought of a blackout is impossible. Why don't they simply have one time-frame nationwide? In Nfld, the polls could close very late and in BC relatively early. Then there would be no question of Westerners being dissuaded from voting because of foregone conclusions. True, but all the evidence is that it will be close.

I think the Conservative idea is that by cutting all the welfare, flag, do-gooding, subsidy boondoggles, there would be enough money to increase military purchases and also to cut taxes. But that response avoids your question. Taxes could be cut even more if military purchases were not increased. The Right typically likes to protect property rights and a strong military/police does that. I'm certain that that ultimately is the US reasoning. (It goes under the name 'national security'.) In Canada, we can free ride on the US military. IMV, our own military has primarily two raisons d'être: 1) to suppress any violent dissent (FLQ, native Indians) and 2) to make English Canadians feel good by sending peacekeepers to weird places. Maybe a third: Flying helicopters to sinking ships. What's DND's budget? 13 billion or so? That's about $400 per Canadian, or a daily pack of gum.

Gotta admit, you made me laugh. (Just for the helluvit, I think it was the halibut.) I was thinking appeasement, if you catch my drift.

Cars, corn. What's the diff? Let's go further BD. Let's say Toyota comes in and GIVES THE CARS AWAY FOR FREE. Now, are you saying that I should be forced to buy your $15,000 car and refuse the free Toyota? Do you really believe economies get rich by forcing people to do such things? As to the US, you believe US taxpayers fork over money to subsidize production so that US corn can be "dumped" into Haiti. Then, when that doesn't work. The US taxpayers spend more money invading the place to force Haitians to buy the corn. It seems the US government is really determined to get those Haitians to buy those American agricultural products and they're going to spend whatever money is necessary to make it happen. I wish the Japanese would do the same for us. I wouldn't mind a cheap Lexus.

On the contrary, Ontario is impossible to call. There are about 10 or so safe NDP seats and about 10 or so safe Liberal seats. After that, it's anyone's call - split between the Liberals and the Tories. (I can't see the NDP going above 15.) The deciding factor in my view is how Ontario voters eventually decide to perceive Harper. They are looking for a safe "so-called national", alternative to the Liberals. And they haven't decided yet. BC? Well, I suspect that on election night, we in the East will know early on what the Liberal total is. But we'll go to bed very late watching how voters on the other side of the Rockies decide which party gets the most seats.

Change the word "terrorism" to "dictatorship" or to "wars" and imagine it is 1936. Now then, what would Black Dog be advocating? And what would be the consequence?

Are you saying to me that if Toyota offers to sell to you for $10,000 a new Lexus that costs 40,000$ to produce (because the Japanese government subsidizes car production), that's a bad deal for you - and of course, you would refuse? Then, if I understand your logic, the Japanese government will want to spend more money invading Canada to force you to accept this deal? You're right. The Japanese are too smart to do something as stupid as that. But the Americans, well, you know, they're awful dumb sometimes...

Fatuous? I am honestly following your logic. Can you please answer my question?

Why didn't the Americans just dump the exports in the Atlantic Ocean instead? Why the need to dump them in Haiti?

I go with the bash USA kick. After all, everyone knew that Bush's actions were just going to provoke more terrorist acts. We should all be relieved that the Canadian government didn't do as the Spanish government and go along with Bush.