Stoker

Takeanumber did pull the numbers out of the air and/or is out of his depth. But I agree, I'll lay off the "attacks", even though it's hard when the other person debating refrains from using fact based info.

Eurocopter is no longer in the running........ The past government already bought replacements for the Labs..... The only place that I could think were you got a number like 5 Billion was the orgianal order placed under the Tories in the 80s, and that order was for fifty aircraft, to replace both the Labs and the Sea Kings. The Labs have since been replaced, and the Sea King replacement cut down from 35-36 aircraft to 28, hence 2.8-3 billion dollar ballpark price tag for the Sea King replacement. What "modified frigrates"? The LHDs maybe? If the Tories get in and then build the LHDs, do you really think that they would purchase a 100 million helicopter (like the Sea thing replacement) to support the army?

Again you still pull numbers out of your arse Five Billion? So you figure that the Sea King Replacement will cost close to 200 million per copy........gimme a break, at most, the Sea King replacement project will cost just over 3 billion, most likely under that number, which will translate into about 100 million per copy for twenty eight airframes...... So judging by your ignorant facts and your unproven assertions, I really wonder why you contiune to embarrass yourself.... Now if you are privy to some sort of inside info pertaining to a potential Harper government and it's plans for DND, by all means speak up, but be prepaired to provide some sort of proof.........if not, I'd suggest that you look into getting your money back on your education, you may have learned a few names and dates, but by reading your posts, you sure haven't developed maturity. Now there's a big boy......run along

How would he price out the exact cost of each piece of equipment to a "T" when he has yet to take the government Same deal with Healthcare today......how is he going to put an exact number on something until he knows what it will cost? I've never heard Harper claiming to be clairvoyant I'd still like you to explain how you know he has "no intention in buying any of that equipment"?

In their defence proposal, you know where they say they will increase defence spending by 1.2 billion for their first three years, then 1.6 in their fourth year, with plans to have the defence budget increased by ten billion by the end of their second term........ Reguardless, I'd like to hear were takeanumber got his info that Harper won't carry on with his defence plan?

Who said it's not costed?

Says who? You? Says who? You? I thought their entire platform hasn't been released yet Give me a break, the Tories plan to increase defence spending by 100%, but reguardles, we should be able to afford a large precentage of the equipment on the Cons "wishlist" with our current budget.......if the Dutch, Australians and Spanish can with about the same size of budget, there is no way in hell that we can't. Maybe you should go have a read of their defence plan before "spewing" your BS. Tis good for the goose is good for the gander........

I doubt it will be anything like those that are used by the USMC, not at 3-4 Billion per HMS Ocean cost about the same as a RN type 23 frigate, steels cheap and air is free The Freighter is a no go, since I'm sure they want these ships to have a dock.......it's worth spending the extra couple of hundred million dollars. American and British Helicopters operated from LHDs and Carriers in the Indian Ocean during the opening stages of the war in Afghanistan.

To your first question, yes. As for cost, it would be hard to guess-ta-mate, since the full details haven't been released, but from what was said about them, I say they sound quite alot like the new Spanish LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock) : LHD Which if this is the case, IZAR quoted them at about 400 million Euro or about 700 million CDN each. When people say Aircraft Carrier, the automatic reaction is the big multi billion dollar, nuclear powered CVNs, which are not in the Tories plans. As for the need, as was said, it would allow Canadian's to be "self-sufficient" in low threat enviroments (Peacekeeping) and to contribute to a coalition in a high intensity enviroment (all out war). Added to, the norm for these type of ships, is that they have a large hospital onboard, which could be used for (when not repairing baby killers ) helping in a disaster, at home or aboard.

The worlds two largest economies seem to differ with your opinion....... As I said before, what good is trade if you can't protect it? {see Spain vs British Privateers} Now you use Ireland for an example, so I'll counter with the United Kingdom in the past, the United States in the present and the Chinese in the (near) future..... The Cons are also in favor in letting Parliment (not Cabinet) vote on Cdn troops deployments......so perhaps if Parliment votes to deploy Cdn troops, it is you/the NDP that are out of the fold. As for defending our Oceans and borders, if you want Canada to be able to do that on our own, we will have to spend alot more on defence then the Tories plan to..... Remember, being in alliances allows us (and other members) to go "on the cheap" compared to neutral nations when it comes to defence spending. And since we are in a alliance, we have to contribute to it, which we have been skirting our responsibility in. As i said, like it or lump it, a strong Armed Forces allows us a "chip" at the big "game".......... Nope. I agree, it won't stop all the problems, but it will go along to helping. As I said, we don't have an Armed Forces that can do what we ask of it.......Bigger is better in the context of the CF.......as is more modern and more money.

Of course we need a bigger Armed Forces, that is, if we want to still play a part on the world stage......and since the majority of our economy depends on world trade, if we want the current (or better) level of econmy we have, we are going to have to defend it. Even though the majority of our trade is done with the United States, we must also take into account two things: 1. There is no denying that the United States is the worlds only Superpower and we live next door. Also, we are lucky that are largest trading partner is "friendly" with us and they live next to us. So whether you like the Americans or not, they are our largest trading partner and they live next to us. Does it not make sense to "bend" a little to their will on some issues so our "will" will be given notice?(Not to mention the wars that we fought alongside for were for a good cause) I for one wake-up in cold sweats over what are realtions would be like with the United States if Mad Jack and the NDP got into power. 2. Even though most of our exports just go "across the border", that is not always their final destination. So is it not prudent to make sure that we can protect all forms of trade going into and out our country? Exactly, but of course, bringing our nations forces to par with those of the War mongering nation of Australia and the horrable Viking nation of Norway has got to be a bloated armed forces This is also true, and I'm sure would be addressed, but they need some money first to prevent total failure. I agree they do need to go through DND with a fine tooth comb. WRT to the job creation program, I wonder if the Liberals do stay in power, will we see the less qualified Sikorsky helicopter choosen to replace the Sea King, because a major supplier for the Sikorsky bird is in David Pratts riding

SO maplesyrup, under Mad Jack, the entire world will lay down their arms so they can live in a worker's paradise, hence we won't need an Armed Forces? I'll answer a few of the writers points: If you have seen the press conference, you would have noticed that Harper said "neglect" for the last thirty years, which also implies the "neglect" done to the CF under Mulrony and Campbell. Tis the truth, and Louis St. Laruent was a Liberal also..... Like the old saying goes: "Every nation has an Army, their's or somebody elses"....... How would NDP or Liberal voters like it if another terror attack(or two) was launched from Canada onto the United States......do you really think that if the United States contiues to see Canada as a "hot bed for terrorists" and that our government refuses to address the problem, that the United States won't take action? I noticed that the NDP would like us to pull out of NATO and NORAD, but do they understand what neutrality costs? Go ask Sweden....even that is a bad example, since Sweden does not rely on world wide trade as much as Canada....... Thats not a "radically different course".......being able to start to meet the requirments of ones own White Paper? I'm sure that was Harpers real plan Please, somebody, get me my Tin-foil hat With that said, is it a bad thing that close to 30k new full time jobs will be created? Not to mention thousands of new part time jobs in the Reserves..... I don't see any problems here......at least he's being honest....we couldn't have sent a significant force to Iraq if we wanted to {See 30 years of neglect}, at most, the ships in the gulf conducting opp Apollo would now have been in the gulf "fighting Iraq", added to perhaps a few transport and Patrol aircraft, and maybe a handful of JTF-2........at most are support would have translated in more of gestures.....but still.......do you think the Mad Cow scare or SARS would have been as bad last year? As I said before, the UK spends about three times per head more then we do on defence.......and they still have Healthcare..... Yes, Canada knows something that the rest of NATO doesn't I hope that Canada doesn't need a bloody nose before we start pulling our own weight on defence.....

Exactly.........all that maters is that a person can go get treated if they are sick, and well they are doing that, the taxpayer's dollar is not wasted.

I didn't see that you posted the latest results MS......You see you usally BOLD the NDP's numbers

NDP down two points

Isn't appealing to your electorate part of politics? Funny as to why one would change so has to gain more seats in parliament........why it's like they almost want to form the government

If the Cons win, I guess we can let it go Mind you, I've heard alot lately how BC could/will be quite the battleground..

Harper........and well Clement IMO, Layton wants to throw more money at Healthcare so a candy striper can make 50k a year........And Martin makes a big fuss about replacing money that HE took out of Healthcare in the first place. Who cares if some services could become privatized.....well I guess those that make X amount of dollars an hour to make Hospitail food do.

We have an Armed forces that is falling apart, the cost of our Healthcare system is ballooning and we have been losing our stnading on the world stage.....but hey, are government spending is no longer in the red Me thinks the real question should be, are we doing the best that we can/could? IMHO, the answer is a resonding NO.

I might be wrong, but IIRC correctly, I had the "highest numbers" indicating that I leaned to the right......nothing moderate about myself(same ballpark as Thatcher)......so again, am I a Nazi becasue I vote Conservative?

After doing the political compass test in the other thread, I think it's safe to say that I'm a man of Conservative thinking. So, I'd like to know where I've said a bigotted remark or shown signs of being a "intellectual COR-Nazi-Conservative" (what ever that is)? Bigot So infact takeanumber, you are a bigot, since I'm sure that you are devoted to your opinion that all people that "lean to the right" are Nazis

Political Compass Test: Economic Left/Right: 7.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.79 In the same ballpark as Thatcher.

I don't think it would be that difficult......the only thing would be the will: Senate report I find this part quite sad: Now I don't think that anybody can use the arguement that the UK is in the same league as that of the United States, so my question is why are we not spending at the same ratio on defence as that of the Brits? They have a population of about 60 million (compared to our 32 million) and a GDP of about 2 trillion (compared to ours of about 1.2 trillion). Now they spend 42 billion a year on defence (compared to ours of about 11-12 billion), and keep in mind, they also have a National Healthcare plan. So I ask, why are we not spending upwards of 20 billion dollars a year on defence????

I went to the Conservative party website, and I'll be damned, I can't find any policy that champions french assimilation or that disregards minority rights...... Infact, from reading near the begining of this thread, all I've seen is an idea put forth that we should have a democratic vote to see if we should change our current policy on bilingualism......so are you afraid of democracy? Are there not bigots within all the parties? I'd even bet that there are bigots in the party that you vote for I bet you vote for the political party that is "anti-democracy", for the simple reason that you seem to have a bug up your ass over the idea of having a vote for all Canadians, to see if a current "problem" should be changed......... You buy your close at the Bay Your a Bigot......You are supporting a company that abused and exploted the first nations people.......dirty, anti-first nations person you Was George Brown for or against a vote on bilingualism? Is this a test? tell me who Barney St. James was........but don't use the Klein method But white adult males do......granted by defalut......your age group doesn't vote, and because of that, are not granted as much attention.

So there were not repeated failures with, say the US manned spaceflight program in the early 60s? As for the "greatest threat to the U.S.", right now I tend to agree with you, in that I believe and I assume that you also believe that terroism is the greatess threat to the U.S., but is that mostly by default? Other then China (and Russia if you want to count them), no nations as of yet a ICBMs that can reach the United States, but thats not to say rouge nations are not developing missiles and that they won't have them in the future. Me thinks it's called planning for the future I'd become more concerned if Canada was not looking at potentail future threats to North America...... I don't see how a future Cold War will "check U.S. empire building", if the United States does go forward with ABM defence and any possable "spin-offs" that come from ABM research......