Stoker

Thats a very good idea August, perhaps Mexico could be included in this "North American ID card"......Perhaps this, added to different labour and immigration laws could allow illegal alien workers in the South Western states, to become legal migrant workers.

By burning down villages? I wonder why Moore doesn't make a movie about that....... I agree with you 100% here........on the other hand, they (are) would be screaming that nothing is being done about the genocide....... I don't think I advocated a military the size of the United States....... Even though the United States is ~10~ times the size of us, I don't even advocate an armed forces a tenth the size of theirs (to keep in proportion with them). Merely 80-100k persons or cold war levels. But I don't see why our armed forces can't be as "high tech" as the United States military in most areas, in proportion to our size. Ahh, but don't the advantages of those high tech weapons out-way some of their reliablity issues? Like they say, you can't stop progress....... But isn't a British Challanger II, French Leclerc, german Leopard II and a Russian T-80 just as susceptible? Isn't that exercise held against National Guard units? Also if Canadian tankers were asked, what would they prefer more........an Abrams or the current Leo? In reality it's a moot point, since the Leo's will be retired in a few years....... So you are saying that the regular American military is poorly trained? As for quantity, could the Canadian forces sustain the same type of loss ratio as the United States in a conflict? Then could the Canadian forces replenish those losses with our reserves without a loss quality in the said training standards? I don't know about the American approach, but I disagree with you on ours.......my younger brother is back from basic for the holidays and is amazed at the number of overweight and utterly stupid people in his group....... Mind you, I'll refrain from judging the character of these people since I respect what they are doing......but don't try and paint the picture that all the people we take in could be in a recruiting video for the JTF-2....... For christ sakes, they are offering a signing bonus for skilled trades people....... You talk about promotions.........is it not true that we have more higher ranking officers today, then we had in WW II? Throw in Boot licking and patronage somewhere between training and leadership......... IMHO, what is needed first is a forgein policy review to decide what we as Canadians want to do on the world stage. Only once thats decided, should serious disscusion take place on the compostion of the forces........only difference between a future review and past ones, is that the recommendations should be followed to a "T"...

Fair enough Black Dog (on the foregin intrests), but wouldn't one hope that Canada was different? Couldn't these same aspects also be applied domestically towards the first nations people and the poor within our own country? A "tough love" approach if you will.

On looking up information on Sudan, I found this: Sudan, Economy - overview GDP - real growth rate: 5.9% (2004 est.) Industries: oil, cotton ginning, textiles, cement, edible oils, sugar, soap distilling, shoes, petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, armaments, automobile/light truck assembly Oil - production: 209,100 bbl/day (2004 est.) Oil - consumption: 50,000 bbl/day (2001 est.) Oil - proved reserves: 631.5 million bbl (2004) Exports - partners: China 40.9%, Saudi Arabia 17.2%, UAE 5.4% (2003) I doubt that Saudi Arabia and UAE purchase that much oil........... Could the Chinese be profiting off the Sudanese genocide?

What political and economic interests are those? Would there be any real outside intereference if we decided to act alone on rebuilding a third world nation? If we went into the Sudan, who would care other then Canadians and the Sudenese? Would a China/Russia/UK/France/USA really give two shits on a Canadian initiative such as this? Whats unrealistic about it? Thats true, but what could be wrong with stopping genocide and helping to create a democratic state? As for the motives why, aside from the "moral political capital" that could be gained on the world stage, I would suppose that economic benifits could be explored and shared by both Canada and a "Sudan" like nation.

I know, and I don't expect the CPC to be more clear until after it's policy convention. With that said, judging by the comments made during the election on defence and foregin policy and the majority make-up of the party, I'd bet that the policy paper will look alot like the Canadian Alliance's "True North Strong and Free" paper. But would we need to be a military "powerhouse" like the United States to stop bands of thugs armed with machetes and rudimentary small arms? I don't think so. Would be need a dramitic, but realistic increase in our armed forces? You bet. I'm not a military expert (nor am I ignornat), but I'd assume that if we had of had our own true expeditionary capablitiy during the Rwandan diaster we could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children from a death I wouldn't even wish on a Osama Bin Laden or a Scott Petersen. What is our national psyche then? (we)Live and let (you) die ? Which was not enough.........thats why I'm suggesting that if need be, we (as in Canada) should be prepaired to stop any future genocide alone if need be. If we had the ablitiy, who would oppse us to acting in the Sudan......alone if need be? Or what if we had of taken on the sole responsablity in rebuilding and ensuring a truely democratic and stable Haiti?

The answer is obvious, the permanent members of the Security Council.......France, the United Kingdom, China, Russia and the United States. As for the reason why, I'd say for their own personal reasons/intrests. With no appearent end in sight of the squabbling between Security Council members and the apparent corruption within the UN body itself, why not divorce ourselves from it and act in our own best intrests to promote our Canadian values across the developing world through Peacemaking, Peacekeeping and humanitarian and economic aid. Wouldn't strong and healthy (and Democratic) African, Asian and South American continents be in Canada's best intrest? Though I admit it's a lofty goal, why not build on what Lester B Pearson started (and all subsequent governments let languish) and expand ten fold? Kinda like putting our money where our mouths are.......

Ahh, the same foresight that lead to the death of over 5 million Jews...... Using your logic, why should high and middle income Canadians give to the poor via taxes, that go into welfare? I'm sure these Canadians (high and middle income) could use these resources to address more pressing issues at home........

Hotel Rwanda A fresh reminder of the one million plus deaths that could have been prevented by the United Nations. So this begs the question, have tragedies like Rwanda (or currently the Sudan) made the United Nations more irrelevant? Also, what should Canada's role be in preventing tragedies like this from happening? The Left talks a good game: Jack Layton on defence Jack wants to "help", but in the same hand says he will do away with all those nasty "offensive weapons" and will only act if it's with the best wishes of the UN {see Rwanda} Green Party The Green's don't mater...... And the Grits....... I find it telling that I scrolled down to "issues" and defence isn't listed.........no suprise. So what should Canada do?

No it wouldn't take 11 years for one aircraft, perhaps for a large order though There are other varibles also, such the size of the production facility(and it's output), the number of orders etc. For example, say we ordered 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters today. The first USAF JSF won't be coming into service untill 2009(IIRC). Now i forget the number ordered by the United States Airforce, but it is a large number, and since it's an American aircraft, the American needs will be addressed first. Then there will be a version STOVL version for the USMC/RN/RAF, those orders will have to be filled. Then a version for the USN etc. Thats to say nothing about any other countries that have perhaps already orderd the aircraft or are in better standing with the United States than us (like Israel, Japan and Australia). 2020 is a realistic timeframe, thats the reason we need an interm fighter instead of "upgrading" {see auditor generals report} our current twenty year old Hornets. What they should be doing is to order the Super Hornet, to replace our current fleet and to fill the gap untill the next generation of fighters. Now I read somewhere that Boeing (current builder of Super Hornet) could increase it manufaturing capacity by twelve+ aircraft a year (they are currently building a large USN order). Now we are currently uprgrading 80 of our Hornets, so using my fingers and toes: 12 Super Hornets could be built a year by Boeing without too much headaches. We need 80 aircraft (I'm sure we probably need more, but thats a different debate). 80/12= 6.7 6.7 years to aquire 80 modern aircraft (at current production levels), at about 50-60 million dollars a pop..........or about 4.5 billion CDN Thats to say nothing about a possable increase in production on Boeing's part and a reduced pricetag by buying in volume. Perhaps we could tag our order onto the USN's order, thus reducing the pricetag for both of our aircrafts. Now fast forward to the 2020 timeframe: We decide we want the JSF, but we since we have the Super Hornet (instead of our almost forty year relics) we have the luxury of not being rushed by any potentail delays or bugs with the program, or increased orders (which put us down the list) by the principle partners. IOW, it gives us time, to sayt nothing about safety for our pilots and a increased capabiltiy for the armed forces in the meantime. It's also worth noting that I've read the current Hornet upgrade we are doing is going to cost well over 2 billion dollars.......... Here's some intresting links concerning this issue Auditing the Upgrades to the CF-18 Fighter Aircraft Super Hornet Joint Strike Fighter

Nope, it's universal. As I'm sure you know, once a contract is signed, the aircraft don't just appear Also, the Americans and any senior partners will get the first crack at the deliveries of the new aircraft. The length of time required to obtain them would still be long, perhaps not as long as an American aircraft due to the fact that Saab doesn't have the same amount of deliveries and a American maker.......but that begs the question, why don't they have the same amount of orders? I'm sure it will, sadly it will probably be a decade late (2020 timeframe) and this does nothing for our current needs to replace our current Hornets.

The reasons go hand and hand........Sputnik was the "way of the future" with ICBMS, but BOMARC was there to defend against current Soviet threats that were still present (Bombers). See the trends......it was thought that unmanned misslies were the way of the future......... Sure it was, the need for a high priced interceptor with diminishing threats to intercept, was not polticail feasable..... Now would you care to explain how we "got sucked in"? Where was this mistake that we made? The Arrow wasn't needed and wasn't affordable. Who says we would have been the leader in any of those fields? The CBC movie? Just because a few Canadian aeropsace designers and workers went to the States doesn't mean we would have been the leaders in aeropace technolgoy............the Americans already had Wernher Von Braun and Kelly Johnston, as the Russians had their German rocket scientists. The role of the Arrow was obsolete.......it would have been like developing (at a great cost) new horse mounted cavalry tactics during world war one........... The move was poltical, but the choice was wisly made to not waste Canadian taxpayer money on a obsolete weapon. And was pointed out by Kimmy and myself, the Americans(and Brits) cancelled their programs.

There are many good books on the BOMARC programs...........google it. BOMARC divided the ruling Conservative party caucus on the issue of the purchase/use of nuclear weapons and was one of the factors that led Lester B Pearson to win in the next election. When he won, he allowed the use of American nukes on Canadian weapons, such as the Honest John tactical nuke, Genie unguided rockets, the BOMARC and IIRC artillary shells. Trudeau of course took this apart when he came to power......... The rest of the world (sans the UK) was (like today) a generation or so behind the United States..........the United Kingdom scraped a rather large fighter program at time....TSR something. Probably the same reasons the United States doesn't sell the technolgoy that it develops and later doesn't produce, from area 51 National serurity. Or, one could note, both of these countries pose a threat to the United States and her some of her close allies, namely Israel, Japan and South Korea. I guess those "crazy" yanks have got tired of spoting the first punch........ Not really, they are a Superpower, and as such they have made alot of enemies along the way........ Show me a country that the Untied States "created". The nations that the United States has gone to war with have all threatend (to an extent) the United States proper or US intrests........thats a blanket statement, covers all their wars. I'm not sure, either go through the Boeing site or email them....... 2004 Team News Releases I'm not sure, check the site. Sure it would, tis just one part of BMD: the layerd BMD system...........not the lack of Deathstars Yup.......it's funny, it was on last night, so I did decide to start watching it.....lasted about the first twenty minutes.......all I can say is that I like Alan Alda and John Candy, but they both must have been rather hard-up to make this waste of time. You are joking right? Do you understand basic geography and econmics?

Sure, the new versions (E/F) are very much good aircraft, the problem though, we still operate the A/B versions, which are from the early 80s. And the majority of the Hornet missions in the first gulf war were carried out by American "C" versions. Also, the first gulf war was in 1991, the Hornets were not even ten years old yet. This is 2004, the planes are twenty years old, and won't be replaced for atleast until late next decade. It would be like if the Americans had of used the P-51 Mustang of world war two vintage during the Vietnam war as a fighter......... You bet there are thousands of Hornets around the world.....the problem though, a modern Super Hornet (E/F version) shares very little in common with a twenty year old A/B version that we still use, and the Austrailans are replacing. Even if we commited to replacing the our Hornets today, it would still takes a decade to replace the entire fleet...look at the Sea King replacement for example, we will still be flying Sea Kings near the end of the decade, in which time they will be close to 50 years old.

To add to Kimmy's post, even though the jet fighter was not replaced with the missile, as Kimmy pointed out, the role in which the Arrow was intended for (Interceptor) was severly diminished with the advent of the ICBM. Whatever capacity was need for the defence of North America could be met with a much cheaper aircraft than the Arrow, such as the Delta Dart and the Voodoo (which we purchased).

I beleive in calling a spade a spade caesar....... One glaring fault in western culture these days (IMHO) is the lack of personnal accountablity........why should an ation be any different? Well Newf, i guess we will have to agree to disagree on some points, but I suggest you read this: Politics stalled sub deal, Collenette says It all comes back to the Liberals.........would these problems have occured had the sub not been mothballed, but simply transferred from the Royal Navy to ours? Though it not sub related, here's the next potentail disaster: Used Australian Hornets for Canada....... The other sad thing to note, is that the Australian Hornets are about the same age as ours......... Why are we not leasing a interm aircraft?

First off, You are refering to the BOMARC. Second, it wasn't designed to shoot down missiles, but bomber formations. Third, it did work, but it's warhead required a small nuclear device (to be triggered amongest a flight of bombers), and since we didn't acquire nukes for it, it became next to useless. Our fault, not the Americans or the missiles. Also, the President was Ike and he was not using any "Jedi mind tricks" on Diefenbaker, since the Americans also beleived missiles were the way of the future.......with the proof being, their lack of development in jet aircraft in the mid-late fiffties. So you are saying that the United States created the North Korean and Iraninan missile and nuclear weapons programs? Boeing Airborne Laser When you start saying a Micheal Moore movie is quite accurate in a debate, you tend to lose creditablity....... Ok, how about the Space program........... No it hasn't.......late sixites, same time as the Russians. Only difference, the Russians seployed a working system. I understand that the Russians are not trying to "make us" go along, but those who say American deployment of BMD will cause a new arms race are hypocritical becasue one could argue that they are only deploying a system that will put them on par with the Russians........ A Defencsive system ffs

Not being biligerent, but I have never heard that, do you have a source? I do know (I think it was your link early in this thread) that they notified the Canadian government about possable sub-standard wiring, thus putting the us on the hook..........now if we sent a sub (no pun)-standard submarine out to sea, then heads should role form DND, both civilan and military. IMHO, it's our fault. We took over the sub, and certified it "fit for service", long before the "Canadianization" took place in Halifax.

If the sub was not ready to go to sea, is that the Brits fault or the Canadian Navy for letting it possably go too early? Let me stress, when the sub left Scotland it was no longer christned HMS Upholder, but HMCS Chicoutimi........

Capt.'s decision put Chicoutimi at risk: report Not too be a told you so, but.........

Unfortuanly Alberta is not yet part of the United States 24 American teams

We pay big bucks to see the products iced by the owners......not the other way around. WRT ticket prices, that has nothing to do with the CBA or the league, the onus is on the indivdual markets to control their ticket prices........IOW $300 a ticket wouldn't fly in Nashville, but the Leafs have no problem selling out the ACC every game with prices like that....... Yeah, the point has already been made, and it's the same people (the owners) that are going to have to fix the game...........for the poorer owners. IOW, the teams that you say are trying to buy the cup (Rangers, Leafs, Wings, Avs, Stars etc) are exploting the holes left in the 1994 CBA. Now, these very same teams are going to have to sacrfice their finacial advantage to even up the playing field for the Calgarys and the Nashvilles. A ceiling on team salaries They don't need the players to activate a cap, thats the league's job........as for self control, what magical world do you live in.....Teams want to win, if they have an advantage (money) over another team they will use it. Bring in a cap, no more advantage..... Thats to say nothing about revenue sharing.......... Feed a pig, slaughter a hog.......boo-hoo.......I'm really going lose sleep with the knowledge that the Jagrs in the world won't be making 10 million a year anymore, but a measaly 6-7 million What are the big stars doing now? Playing in Europe for peanuts. WRT the arenas, the teams that were losing money last year (most where) are now losing less money without having to pay salaries. Also, most arenas in the league are duel use, in that alot also have basketball teams and other advents. Once the league cancels the season, arenas can book other events that make money, like concerts and car/boat shows. You also have to remeber, that for the majority of the owners, having a hockey team (or any sports team) is just a hobby or a toy if you will........it's not their main source of revenue.......whats the players main source of revenue? Nope, for the reasons stated above. billionaire owners > million players The outcome is certain, it's just a mater of time. Mind you, one option I heard (forget where) is after a certain amount of time, the league can leagally fold. Then start another league with the owners, thus navigating around any debt and labour problems.

To a degree, but nobodies asking the player to police them........ Philly was not the only team, just one of the teams......it doesn't mater who started the dramtic wage increases (Kings? Rangers?), all it took was for one GM to offer a player "X" amount of dollars, and in doing so set a precedent for player's wages........with the result being, the small market teams (Calgary, Edmonton) can't afford to keep their star players, when a big market team (Toronto, New York) can out bid them..........And as such, the league as figured out how to solve that problem, and thats with a hard cap.....it works with the NFL.......it's great, the league is way more competive and the players can still make some real good coin. Who owns the teams?IOW who pays the bills? I'd love to see the players try and start their own league Exuse me Mr Ferguson, can we lease the Air Canada Center to play our hockey games in? Boo-Frigging-hoo..........none of them have to play hockey........they can all go get a real job like normal people if playing pro-hockey is sooooo rough They can't lower the ticket prices......how are they going to pay the players? Is NHL hockey an essential service? Though it might look like a game of chicken, it's not, the players (rightfully so) don't have a warchest anywhere near that of the size of the owners/league. I heard an interview the other day with Eagleson (formor player rep) and his sources are telling him the the majority of the players don't have enough money to last past Jan 2006........and there will be Hummer payments needing to be made.......I can't think of that many jobs the pay a six-seven-eight figure salary that doesn't require some sort of post secondary education......... The players will cave.

I'd also like to ask, why those opposed to BMD have not (to my knowledge) come out and opposed the Russian ballistic missile defence system that they have had deployed for decades in or around Moscow and the new system they are developing? Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Russia tests anti-missile system

I couldn't agree more, by far the most important issue related to BMD is the proper usage of the english language when refering to it................... Why should they be fought on land? When one enters a war, what is ones goal to achieve in the said war? To win. If having space based weapons will help you to ensure victory by giving you an advantage over your foe, why wouldn't you wish to develop them......namely when you are generations ahead of any potentail foe. Chivalry is a long since dead concept of a bygone era.