Sabre Rider

Having done a UN Peace Keeping tour, I can honestly say you know not of which you speak. However, I have yet to make up my mind as to whether you are just a reactionary or a reactionary fool. Time will tell I guess.

No, but perhaps we could concentrate our time and resources on the very real problems both our respective nations have at home instead of worrying about "what ifs".

Whether or not they are or have the potential to become a serious threat is rather moot, as long as they dally about with nukes and missiles, then they will remain a favorite whipping boy for the hawks of the western world. Actually I figure the one thing the hawks really do not want is for either North Korea or Iran to stop playing with fire, cause if they do, then the whole cause celeb of the hawks would be rendered dead in the water.

Nope, but he was sanctioned and forced to step down, which is as good as being impeached. Then shall we get back on topic?

True, but then Newt never was the POTUS was he? And he did face 84 ethics charges, which included claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes, for which the House Ethics Committee leveled a USD300,000 sanction against him after he finally pleaded guilty. Also going after Clinton turned into a pyretic victory for both Newt and the House Republicans who paid a heavy price, losing five seats in the House for trying to remove Clinton from office, a move which was highly unpopular with the American voters. He also faced two revolts from his own caucus who blamed him for the loses and in the end was forced to step down as speaker or be ousted by his own people. Anyways, as much fun as it is dragging you over the coals about Newt, its not really on topic is it?

As I recall, during the eight years of the Clinton Administration, many of Newt's supporters held it against Clinton for "dodging" Vietnam and pursuing an education instead. But then again, while Newt was chasing after Clinton for getting a BJ in the Oval Office, Newt himself was getting them in the Senate under ground parking lot. Seems the Newts of this world believe in do as I say, not as I do. Or to put it another way, those who live in glass houses........

Newt was born on June 17, 1943, which made him prime draft material for the Vietnam War, funny how he missed out on that little shindig, especially considering he came from a military family. I guess writing his dissertation paper "Belgian Education policy in Africa" for his 1971 Phd. in Modern European History was more important than defending the free world from creeping Communism.

....and hopefully Hell will acquire air conditioning and will have an ice rink.

What odds are you giving on either option winning out?

My people were set free when ole Henry told the Pope of the day to go piss up a rope. And having seen first hand the misery and degradation suffered by the majority of people in the RC dominated nations of Central and South America along with the Philippine, I think the rest of the world should tell the current batch of Papal Princes to go off and roger themselves.

I find the STV a rather convoluted system, and given BC politics you can bet which ever party invokes it will set it up in favour of their party. FPTP may have its draw back, however it does keep with the KISS principle, which in politics is generally a good thing.

The on-going BC Rail scandal and trial could do to the BC Liberals what the Sponsorship Scandal did to the Federal Liberals, blow them out of the water. Everyday we hear more and more revelations about Liberal backed interference and bribes to BC Rail Execs, and everyday this are getting linked closer and closer to Gordo's office. Plus people outside of the GVRD and Equimalt/Victoria areas are just a wee bit pissed at the BC LINO's, errr I mean Liberals for a number of reasons, paying for the 2010 Games, school closures, cuts in local health care are just a few of them. The only thing the BC Liberals have going for them is Carol James, leader of the BCNDP. Under her tenure, she has moved the centalist NDP of Mike Harcourt to well left of centre, perhaps too far left for most BC'ers. I expect the Liberals will be returned to power, but with a much reduced majority and would not be all that surprised to see either a Liberal or NDP minority Government. Of course, if the lid of the BC Rail scandal blows off, then all bets are off.

Whether you agree with abortions or not, they will happen whether they are legal or not. Make them illegal or restrict them in some manner and you will just end up with the old coat hanger back room operations of the past. At least they are a hell of a lot safer when done legally and in proper settings.

Perhaps Mulroney will do to Harper what he did to Kim Campbell, send his political career swirling down the toilet.......couldn't happen to a nicer arsehole.

This is from the original article and should of raised every red flag going and rang every alarm bell......but Republican supporters seem to love a smear job, whether or not it is based on fact, sort of explains why Faux News is still on the air.

So basically what you are saying is you are willing to give up our sovereignty and responsibility to defend our territory just to save yourself a few pennies in additional taxes. Rather patriotic of you.

Bugger population, and bugger land mass, think airspace.......you think 80 operational CF-18 hanger queens or their 65 unknown replacements ten years from now are enough? In 1944 Canada's population was just over 11 Million, about 1/3 our current population and yet at the same time, the RCAF had a peak strength of over 215,000 personnel and 70 operational squadrons and this was at a time when women and visible minorities, apart from the rare Fist Nation/Inuit male air gunner, were not allowed an air combat role. Today we have a combined regular and reserve force of approximately 90,000 all ranks and in all commands. Pathetic if you ask me. If Canada's claim to sovereignty is to be respected by friends and foes alike, then we need to bolster our defence spending, especially within the Reserve elements. I see no reason why every major Canadian city does not host a Air Reserve Squadron or Wing. I doubt that recruitment would be much of an issue, the Air Forces has always been the more sexy of the services and rarely lacks for volunteers. Whereas both the Navy and Army are looked upon as being more plebeian in comparison. Really all it would take is for the Government to find the political will and guts to support the efforts and fund it. We could easily have a first rate air defence system in place that could protect and cover all our airspace and sovereignty, if we just had the nads to do so.

65 eh? May as well not bother spending the money and just surrender our airspace sovereignty and defense to the Yankees. Our current operational fleet of 80 CF-18's can't even cover our airspace, and I would not be all that surprised to learn that some US States ANG's have a greater number of front line fighters than Canada has in total. Sad when you consider that at the end of WWII we had one of the largest and arguably the most professional airforces in the world. As I said earlier in this thread, the Conservatives record for supporting and funding our front line units is on par with that of the Liberals, piss poor. It was that way back in the '70s and the 80's and it remains that way today.

Of the 138 CF-18's acquired between 1981 to 1988 only 103 are left, of which only 80 are operational, that is over a 36% reduction of our fighter strength. The youngest airframe among the fleet is pushing 21 years, which is old by fighter standards. And will be between 28 or 34 years old age by the time they are retired, and that is just for youngest of the fleet. As military aircraft age, their maintenance costs escalates rapidly requiring them to spend more time being serviced then either in the air or on operational stand-by. This also puts their pilots at greater risk due to mechanical, electrical and air-frame failures, such as has been witnessed in the past with our aging Seaking and Labrador Helicopter fleets. Air Command conservatively projects a loss of 1 CF-18 every two years under normal peacetime operational conditions. This means we can expect to lose between 3 to 5 more CF-18's before they are replaced. The upgrades during both phase I and II of the programme brought the existing fleets operational standards up to 1990/2000 standards. Which means they are again becoming out of date and will have to be refitted and upgraded again in the very near future if they going to be able co-operate with more modern NATO fighter-bombers, such as the Eurofighter and the American JSF. The CF-18 was an excellent aircraft in its day, however its day is fast coming to an end and it will be and is being completely out-classed by new generation 3.5 & 4 fighters coming out of the US, Europe, Russia and even China. Now is the time to start replacing them, not 7 to 10 years from now. And Canada should not limit its selection of replacement fighters to US marks, but should also look at what Europe and Russia have to offer.

Yes I have, a rather tasty bone tossed to Boeing. Big deal, so Air Command gets some nice new shiny non-combat toys to play with. Meanwhile our aging fleet of CF-18's keeps getting smaller and more obsolete, the navy had to spend more time tied up at the dock last year because of a lack of fuel. Plus the navy will soon be down to one supply ship, when it had three of the buggers when I was a member back in the '70s. As for the army, it Leopard 1's are long past their best before date, and we had to "borrow" some second hand Leopard 2s from our NATO allies. The Iltis jeeps have been replaced by the G-Wagon thankfully, however they are still in use by the reserves. Speaking of the reserves, they really could use an increase in their training budgets, especially if they going to continue to flesh out the ranks of the regulars in Afghanistan. Come back and talk to me when either the Liberals or the Conservatives actually start funding and supporting the combat arms.

Sorry kimmy, but the tolls I gave are on the low end of the scale...........on the high end with a public-private partnership option and a 20% return to pay for profits, insurance and maintenance, the tolls could be as high as C$800 for a one way crossing......I can fly return to the UK for that, twice sometimes. Here is an interesting Link for you to read.

A floating bridge between Vancouver Island? Not gonna happen for a number of reason, least of which it is a stupid idea. 1) Hazard to Navigation: The Straight of Georgia is a major maritime route, with everything from Post-Panamex Container Vessels to small sailing boats plying its waterways daily. About the only thing you don't see on the Straight are Super Tankers filled with crude oil. Any fixed link, be it a tethered pontoon suspension bridge, a floating bridge, a suspended floating tunnel or any combination of those could potentially be a major hazard to navigation. One can easily what could happen if say one of the small oil tankers that do transverse that route were to loss power or steerage and plow into the bridge structure. The potential loss of life would be enormous and the ecological damage incalculable. The the cost of repairing the damage would tax the Province to the breaking point. 2) Weather: Contrary to many dry landers beliefs, the Straight of Georgia is not a completely safe and calm waterway as I learned while serving on minesweepers back in the '70s. When one of our infrequent gales blows, which the are apt to happen at anytime from mid-autumn to mid-spring, then any floating bridge structure will be tossed about like a cork in a bath tub full of squirming kids. And during the stronger storms, the stresses places on those structures could well tear them apart. Very year, BC Ferries are forced to cancel or postpone sailing of even their biggest ferries due to adverse weather conditions in the Straight, and these are vessel that are quite capable of transversing either the Pacific or Atlantic oceans. Any storm that can force ferries to stop sailing would also force the closure of any fix link for safety sake. Costs: No matter which sort of fixed crossing is used, it will cost the Canadian and BC taxpayers BILLIONS!! At minimum, in the tens of billions but more likely in the hundreds of billions. To help off-set this cost, the crossing would have to be a toll route, and the estimates for that toll on a BC Government web site range from a low of C$120 to a high of C$280 for a one way crossing. Factor in the additional cost in fuel burned while driving across a fixed link, the BC Ferries start to look like a real bargain. Also, any fixed link to the Island will terminate either in Duncan or at Duke Point in Nanaimo, which means you will have to drive the Malahat for a couple of hours if you wish to get to Victoria, incurring additional fuel and environmental costs. These are just a few of the reasons that a fixed link between the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island is a non-runner. Personally, I would rather take a Ferry to the Island and use that one hour forty-five minute trip to relax and rest, or visit the buffet and watch the scenery go by.

Sadly, when it comes to supporting the Canadian Military, the Conservative record is on par with that of the Liberals..........piss poor pathetic, they talk a good game, but are as tight as a Scotsman when it comes time to open the purse strings

Works for me..................................and yeah, I know you are being a tad bit sarcastic here.

It'll never happen in our life time, unless one day we wake up to find US troops in our streets.