Machjo

If you're referring to the Taliban, the solution to that would not be to expand the Canadian military, but start hiring more troops who know Persian, Pashto, etc. That would likely mean either forming an international force or getting Iran and other neighbouring countries on board as temporary allies, if we could dump our prejudices to the side of course.

We could easily defend Canada with what we have now. Think about it. We have oceans on three sides, an allie in the south. Then we're members of a larger North Atlantic alliance, are members of the Commonwealth, the UN, etc. So what is this imaginary enemy you think we need to defend against that warrants an expansion of our military?

What? The Pentagon is US? Canada's equivalent is called NDHQ (National Defence Headquarters). So it was coming from the US, not Canada. So of course if US troops are fumbling their way through the Afghan linguistic mine field, I can't imagine Canadian troops are faring any better. In this respect, I applaud the US military for being ahead of ours in at least having identified the problem and acknowledged it as a major obstacle currently, something the Canadian military has not yet done to the best of my knowledge.

Defend against what? Groundhogs?

You may have forgotten that this is the internet, so not all of us live in BC. I wasn't aware that there was a dividend. Fine, that doesn't make me disingenuous. Let's not be so presumptuous.

And how are Canadian troops supposed to do it through fumbling interpretors?

So if we don't ahve enemies, then why have such a big military. Time to make some enemies for ourselves? Is that what you're suggesting?

About half of Afghans speak Persion. Few if any speak Russian. Big difference. Plus, in a democracy, should I not have a say in where my money goes? Do you really want your money going to a military repeating the fiasco you saw in the video above, on a daily basis? If not an Iranian military, then I'd rather give my money to a private Persian-speaking militia. Or, if I absolutely must pay my money to the Canadian military, and you absolutely insist that it somehow 'benefits' me, then you make damn sure that the soldiers the Canadian military hires are qualified to do their job. If that video is typical (and from various articles I've read on the internet, even the Pentagon has acknowledged that language is among the most decicive factors in the war right now, and that the US military is desperately short of qualified interpretors, something they should have thought about before draggingus into it), then I want nothing to do with it.

I just want to add to this. If I had a say in how my taxes were going, I would not be wasting my money on the military as it is now. I'd rather give it to some kind of international military force (maybe a UN force let's say) that could hire from anywhere, thus ensuring that the military is competent enough to fight wars abroad efficiently, with bilingual soldiers from various countries, ensuring that at least some of them would know the local language and culture. In the video above, those are Americans. But I can't imagine the situation being any different for Canadians. Look up the topic on Google, and you'll see that the language barrier is one of the main issues in Afghanistan right now! That video is not uncommon. That's how you want to force me to spend my money? That's why I'm sick of the socialism in the military. Let me give my money to the charity of my choice. That way I could give it to a worthy charity that can earn my money. Let's get some competition going in the charity industry. If you take my taxes and give it to the military and I have no say in it (so much for democracy), then it's natural that we end up with a fumbling joke of a military like that above. For crying out loud, we could put that video on Saturday Night Live, but it really isn't that funny. It's serious and lives are at stake. But because of the whole socialist system our military functions under, there's no incentive for it to actually produce results.

So tell me, how do I benefit from the military? I'm not in the military industry. We are bordered by three coasts and an allie. As for Afghanistan, I would have preferred my taxes sending Iranian troops there at much lower cost (their language and culture is similar, making it easier to engage in hearts and minds campaigns, which would have made the war far more efficient) Now here's what I'm getting at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cilW8ZSoQc

Very relevant in fact. It's a fundamental ethical question of who should fund the military, and that naturally touches upon ideological, phylosophical, and religious notions of ethics. So, should everyone be funding the military, or only those who benefit from it? Personally, I'd go for the latter. Companies benefit from it most, so let them pay for it.

Just to clarify, if I had a choice between a libertarian government and a socialist one, I'd likely go for the libertarian one. And no, I don't believe the poor would suffer much. I believe human nature to be good overall, and that push come to shove, the rich would willingly help the poor. However, if it's a choice between being taxed and getting education and a government safety net on the one hand, and being taxed and having all my money flushed down corporate welfare on the other, I'd choose the former. At least I'm getting something in return for my taxes then.

Don't confuse me with facts; my mind is already made up. And just to answer the post above yours, no socialism and communism are not the same thing.

And that I think is why I tend to support either openly socialist parties (such as the NDP) or decidedly free-market ones like the Libertarian Party. Though they may appear at opposite ends of the spectrum (and indeed they are), at least they're honest and consistent. The NDP says it's socialist, and makes no bones bout taxing people and using the money for education, health care, etc. The Libertarian Party makes no bones about cutting spending through and through. The Conservatives and the Liberals? Tax the people and subsidize industry! At least with the NDP we'd get quality government services in education, etc., and with the Libertarians, government stepping out of the way to let us live our lives. Conservatives and Liberals? Take the money, make all kinds of rules, and give nothing in return! And we vote for this riff raff? The Green Party? I don't know, maby they might be reasonable too. But in the end, we vote for the government we deserve.

The military industrial complex is the most socialist bunch there is. Let's face it, their entire revenue comes from taxpayers! No taxes, and they'd all go under. And yet they're the Conservative Party's best friends. Oh the hypocricy, an anti-socialist party smooching with the most socialistic corporate-socialist bunch around. When even the Conservatives have turned to such socialism, who's left to stand up for capitalism?

War bonds? War isn't an investment. Where will the government get the money to pay the bonds back? Forget war bonds. You want to fight in far off lands, the military could register as a charity. Make charitable contributions tax dedudtible, simple as that. You want to feed the military, do it on your own dime. No more socialism and welfare statism period.

What I want is a libertarian government, fiscally conservative and spendthrift. One possibility would be to let businesses pay for naval escorts. I'm sure with ever more pirating off coasts, in Somalia and such, that petroleum companies or Cruise Lines would be willing to either arm themselves or appreciate it if Navy's went into the business of providing protection for a fee. User pay baby. No more socialism and statism. No more welfare subsidies to large corporations. Why should my tax dollars pay to provide naval escort to Esso ships? I don't get police escort if I decide to cross a bad part of town as a short cut to get to a friend's place, so why should they. User pay, baby, user pay.

My dad was in the military, and he was saying they waste alot of money on compulsory French-language courses. Why not cut such wastage first.

This is ridiculous. If you want to criticize his ideas on legitimate grounds, please do so. But to insult him by insinuating that his idas are somehow 'un-Canadian' is pure rubbish. 'un-Canadian' sounds about as contorted as 'un-American', another word highly abused, and loosely defined as anything I don't agree with. And seriously, is Canada really thratened? What is the Taliban going to do, get on rafts and start paddling to Canada?

My pleasure. And like in this forum, we have quite a variety there, left wing, right wing, and a few non-partisan too. A good mix overall.

I should make a point about any kind of tax shift. Even though it may be revenue neutral overall, it still doesn't change the fact that different things are being taxed. So a person with a high income and low carbon consumption would certainly benefit from such a tax (reduced income tax and increased gas tax). On the other hand, a low income earner with a big gas guzzling car would certainly feel the pinch. You can only lower his income tax to zero percent at most, but he'll certainly feel the gas hike. Any kind of revenue-neutral tax shift is doing just that, shifting taxes. So it's natural that some groups will see their taxes increase, and others will see them decrease.

I don't think it's got anything to do with Tories per se, but with Harper specifically (and my MP, also a Conservative, unfortunately). And we can't blame his staff either. Sure they feed him info, but it's up to him to use it appropriately. Personally, if my staff encouraged me to engage in partisan politicks, I'd sack it. In the end it all comes down to the candidate. Some are so non-partisan that they even run as independent candidates and remain independents in Parliament. Arthur comes to mind in that category. These are the ideal candidates, and any riding should be thankful to have one. Next in line are partisan candidates who are capable of self-censoring their partisanship to at least some degree. Scott Reid, a Conservative amazingly enough, comes to mind in that category, and perhaps Ignatieff to some degree too. And finally we have those who are so hopelesly partisan that they just can't help taking a shot at the opposition at every opportunity. Our PM falls in that category, unfortunately.

Actually, we should learn from Germany. Sonce the 80s it's been going greener, and now photovoltaic cell technology industries are booming, private home owners are planting them on their roofs as an investment for their retirement. And apparently, Canada doesn't produce one solar cell nationwide if I understood correctly. This was on the Fifth estate yesterday, criticizing Ontario's electric authority for complete incompetence. Some farmers in Ontario tried to connect ot the grid, but just got tangled in government bureaucracy. One farmer produces enough biofuels for quite a few houses, yet can't connect to the grid! In Germany, the law would do everthing to ensure he connects, and reward him for it too! One criticism is that the Ontario power authority is too concerned that it would not be able to 'control' such a grid. Seriously now, is their job to 'control' or produce?

There ya go. Seems it's not much of a tax grab for some on this forum too.

Canadiancontent.net. I can't remember which said it, but if you start a thread on this there, a few BCers there say will come to its defence and say they actually have benefitted from it, though I'm guessing perhaps they have relatively carbon-free lifestyles? I don't know.