Queenmandy85

The Arrow was cancelled because it was going to cost $15 million CDN per unit.in 1958 dollars. That's 16.5 million US in 1958.( Source: Colonel Allen MacKinnon, Canadian Forces Air Element.) Even if the USAF could afford to buy it, they had a policy of buying American exclusively. I may be wrong, but to my knowledge, the only foreign build aircraft deployed by the US is the Harrier. The short answer is the RCAF could not afford to buy the Avro Arrow nor could anyone else. It was a tragic ending, but it was too expensive in a time when the manned bomber was seen to be obsolete. On the bright side,the people who built it went on to put Neil Armstrong on the moon.

The arguments against the WTC coming down as a result of internal demolition are: -Aircraft were witnessed by millions, crashing into the tower. -Of the tens of thousands of people working in the towers in the preceding days and weeks, none bothered to report a crew laying det cord and high explosives throughout the buildings -After toppling the two towers, what would have been gained by dropping the W7? -People engaged in crimes have to talk about it. Even G. Gordon Liddy ended up spilling his guts. Occasionally, you find someone who can keep their mouth shut, but in a conspiracy involving a crew of hundreds, most of them would be bragging to their girlfriends within hours. Crimminals have a need to confess. That's what makes police work easier.

I'm sorry, I still don't know what decisions you are referring to that Diefenbaker made. Help me out with that, if you get the chance. The Chief almost went out of his way to stay independent from the US.

No argument about JT but I'm not clear about what you mean by "Pearson's decision to proceed with a decision Diefenbaker made. " Diefenbaker refused to arm the Canadian Forces with nuclear weapons. Pearson's first act as PM was to load nukes into the Bomarc missiles in North Bay Ontario. Kennedy aided the grits in the 1963 election. It was the very thing the Democrats accuse Putin of doing in the 2016 US election.

You underestimate the benefits of having nuclear weapons. If we had ERD tipped SAM's, your Russian airborne invasion would come down some where in Santa's south pasture. Nuclear weapons give a lot more bang for your buck, but, more importantly, they are the ultimate deterrent. We have the advantage of having once possessed them and having been part of the initial development.

I think you are in error with regard to Diefenbaker's relationship with the US. He refused to arm the Canadian Forces with nuclear weapons and for that, JFK engineered his ouster. Pearson was the toady.

The event that really killed the Canadian Forces was Viet Nam. The impact of the anti-war movement led to a lack of support for an effective military in Canada and the abandoning of our nuclear capability. Add to that the campaign of Preston Manning against taxes and you have a perfect storm. Canadian voters neither want to join the military or pay the taxes necessary to equip the Forces.

It was Mike Pearson's Minister of Defence, Paul Hellyer, who started the dismantling of the Canadian Forces. It goes back to the Pharaohs. Military expenditure has been a source of graft in Roman times, or in the Royal Navy since God knows when. When ever you have a lot of cash at hand, it attracts pirates. Remember the Bonaventure refit? The military has a lot of money to hand out. Are you going to spend it in a place you don't need votes? Politicians are a reflection of ourselves. Everyone of us would behave in the same way as our MP's.

I have always said, Canada should adopt the Swiss model of Defence, or an updated version of Defence Scheme No. 1. On the other hand, from a strictly logistical standpoint, the only nation able to invade Canada is the United States. Clearly, there is no rational, viable defence against them. Also, I highly doubt such a possibility is likely in the near future. Russia is theoretically in reach but they would have to come through Alaska and then our dependence on the US for protection is academic. No other country is in a position to invade Canada other than the US. We have three massive oceans on our perimetre. You might be able to cross a narrow English Channel, but the Atlantic and Pacific are a different kettle of fish. I still, believe a few hundred nuclear weapons would be a prudent investment, but the fact is, Canadians do not want to pay for an actual effective military and are currently anti nuke. It is their money and their choice. If President Trump wants to cut us loose, that is his right and I doubt we would notice much difference.

Speaking of worse Prime Ministers, why stop at Pierre Trudeau. I am reminded of a Prime Minister who had multiple scandals in the news concurrently. There was an accused Soviet spy working in the Post Office. Three cabinet ministers taking gifts of furniture from the mafia, a mafia hitman who was a major contributor the the Party, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister offering a bribe to a Lawyer representing the U.S. government to not oppose bail for a drug dealer awaiting extradition to Texas. The drug dealer was also a major contributor to the P.M.'s party. When the bribe was declined, the drug dealer asked a prison guard if he could water the outdoor rink, even though it was a hot spring day. He used the hose to go over the wall and disappeared for four months. Odd that wikipedia makes no mention of these scandals in its bio of this PM. I think there were one or two other scandals but I don't remember them. The Prime Minister in question was our very own Nobel Peace Price winner, Lester B. Pearson, the worst Prime Minister in the 20th century. However, I do cash my Canada Pension Cheque and use Medicare. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Mr. Goodale is a man of integrity. Did McMechan violate the law? If not, why were they arrested? As I recall, they were trying to circumvent the CWB. I am not a farmer or a lawyer, but I have a lot of faith in the Courts.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, McMechan did commit a number of crimes. He was convicted of exporting wheat without a permit and then in default for not paying the fine, was tossed in the slammer. It was the court, not Ralph Goodale, that convicted him and he went to jail of his own volition. He could have paid the fine and more importantly, obeyed the law. It was McMechan who had himself jailed, not Goodale. If he didn't like the wheat board, he should have chosen another crop or another occupation.

That's not Brian's style.

Polygraphs are not sufficiently accurate.

?Impact, I am gob-smacked to read something which reflects my own beliefs.

Political Science- So far as I know, the only PM in history with a political science degree is Joe Clark. Just sayin'.

What has Mrs. Thatcher's gender to do with ideology? Free trade was a Liberal platform, to which, the Tories countered wit "No truck nor trade with the yankees." Mulroney was opposed to free trade until the MacDonald Commission reported that it would be in the best interests of the country. That is pragmatism, not ideology.

BC would still object to the pipeline and Alberta won't have the Feds to enforce it. Also, you have only one Conservative Government in the four western provinces. BC and Alberta are NDP and Saskatchewan is Socialist Credit (a cleptocracy based on the old BC model of Socialist Credit).

I doubt a GOP majority in the House and Senate would let her get anything passed. The hatred her opponents had for her was far deeper than the support from her own party. Losing the election may have saved her life.

And would just about anyone have won the same election? And did the people he signed up take any further part in the party afterward? Not a lot. He lost the next election. I agree with you about instant memberships but it isn't going to change as long as it works. The way elections should work is candidates stand up an state their solutions and let the voters decide. Like that is going to happen. The "Conservative" Party is not spineless, it is working in the real world. They could stand up and be all ideological and end up like the Green Party, or they can listen to what voters want, the people who pay the salaries of government, and do what the bosses tell them to.

I am wondering if the American political scene would be that much different if Secretary Clinton had won. The government paralysis would still be there but the tone would be different. I do believe, President Trump has a better chance of surviving his term than Secretary Clinton.

No, you are doing the democratic thing by finding out what the voters want (They are the employer after all), and do what they ask. It works for Brad Trost. His congregation gets him in every time. "This business of signing up scores or even hundreds of people to vote for a new candidate is crap." Yah, I believed that when I ran for a Federal PC nomination and I was steamrolled. The winner of the nomination went on to win the election.

The stages of a campaign are: -attracting the vote -identifying the vote -getting out the vote. If you perform these three tasks better than the opposition, you will probably win. These tasks are true in the nomination campaign as well as the election. If you nominate and elect sheep, that is your doing. You need to select a candidate that is not a lamb and is able to gather support. Politics, at it core, is all about gathering and maintaining support. On another note, have you ever noticed that the people who are most obviously ambitious, never make it? I knew dozens of future Prime Ministers in the Progressive Conservative Student Federation.

I agree. Weaver is the best argument against foreign political contributions and proportional representation.

Backbenchers and Cabinet Ministers do have potential power over the PM. They hold the power of no confidence. The PM's position relies on their support. (Just ask John Diefenbaker) They can force the PM to discard the silly idea that the party leader has to sign their nomination papers if they had a mind to.