Queenmandy85

Steering this back to the topic, these are countries led by weak governments, governments elected by proportional representation. On the other hand, I can't explain Germany. Go figure...

I know four people who have undergone sexual re-assignment surgery and all four appear happier. That is not necessarily the outcome for all post-op patients, but, for these people, it was profoundly beneficial. It is easy to present all kinds of hypothetical points if you are not transgender We all have issues in our lives, but don't judge a person until you have walked 1.6 Km. in their shoes.

It was caused by governments unable to increase revenues to meet expenses and unable to reduce expenses to meet revenues due to the pressure from coalition partners. Governments cannot function effectively if they are constantly on the brink of falling. I'm not sure what you mean by banksterism. How would a modern economy function without a healthy banking system. Canada has among the best banking houses in the world...but that is off the topic of this thread.

Eyeball, we already have a citizen's assembly. It's called the House of Commons. What happens with all of these institutions is the members become politicians. There is a very good reason for that. Our politicians are a pretty good reflection of the voters. A major problem is Canadians are no longer willing to participate in the election process. Voting is not enough. People have to get out and work for their candidate in the nomination process and the election campaign and then stay active between elections.

Much of the financial turmoil in countries like Greece, Spain Portugal etc. can be blamed on governments elected by proportional representation.

I am also concerned about the impact the over consumption of oil will have on future generations. Our technological civilization depends upon oil, coal and iron ore. We are using them up at an alarming rate.

A century is nothing. We have to look at the long term. Once we hit the tipping point, the system becomes a self-generating engine in acceleration mode. In the short term, we are going to lose the snow packs in Kimberley and Rossland. That will be in my lifetime.

Eyeball wrote, "Virtually every nuclear plant accident or disaster can be traced back to or involved lousy oversight." I'm betting more people have died in car accidents in Saskatchewan than have died world wide in nuclear accidents. If we had better education, we would have better oversight of governments.

When people understand the full ramifacations of what is going to happen if we don't stop burning fossil fuels, they will embrace nuclear power with open arms. Our folly has been to allow people to leave school without a proper grounding in mathmatics, chemistry, physics and biology. Sociology, psychology, and political "science" are nice entertainmets, but are not the foundations of an educated citizen. I agree that overcoming, what can only be described as superstition (ie. the irrational fear of nuclear energy), is the greatest hurdle. Sea level rise is only the beginning. If you think the temperature rise is going to level out after a dozen degrees, you are misinformed. Sea levels will begin to drop and liquid water will cease to exist when the mean temperature approaches 100 degrees C. It makes a nuclear melt down seem pretty minor. What problem with cars. With nuclear reactors producing enough power, we can electrify the rail and transit systems and cars will go the way of the buggy whip.

Nuclear energy is quite viable and western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of nuclear fuel.

Tim, just to be clear; you do understand that carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases inhibit re-radiation of energy. You can test this in any undergraduate physics lab. The results are predictable and measurable. Therefore, the only question still up for debate is how the impact will manifest its self in a highly complex system. You don't have to wait for the sea level to rise in Vancouver. We need to be worried about the snow pack in Whistler, Red Mountain and Kimberley.

Ahh, yes, the King James version of the Bible. This would be the same King James who was an expert witch hunter.

Harper is a better singer than I am, but I would be a better Prime Minister.

Just out of curiosity, what would your estimate of the costs to deliver approximately 10 nuclear warheads to the largest cities in the United States compared to the cost of building and maintaining a standing army to repel an invader conventionally, hypothetically speaking . I use the U.S. as an example because geography dictates they are the only nation able to mount an invasion. Russia could be a second threat but coming over the pole would be a daunting prospect.

I was merely using the cruise missile as an example of cost comparison. A fleet of 100 IRBM's with all the support units would be less than $4 billion. Since we already have the expertise and infrastructure, start up costs would be less than for a country like Iran. Isreal managed it for just over a billion. Or we could give the defence budget to support education and convert our primary source of energy from fossil fuels to nuclear power.

Colonel Brown, as the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence, authored Defence Scheme Number One (See James Eayres In Defence of Canada for an abriged copy) . His determination of the potential threat of invasion by the United States Army was confirmed in 1972 with the revelation of the U.S. Army's Plan 1919. In the mid 1960's, McGeorge Bundy reportedly considered intervention in Quebec in response to the FLQ bombing campaign. It would be niave to believe the United States does not continue to have contingency plans for the invasion of Canada. So, the short answer is the threat, no matter how remote, is the United States. Defence policy must be based on what is possible, not what is probable. A nuclear missile force is the only practical means of deterring invasion. A cruise missile with a 200kt warhead costs half as much as a main battle tank. On the other hand, there are far more serious issues the demand our resourses.

The purpose of a military is two fold. The primary purpose is to defence the country against any enemy. The second purpose is to project the will of the country beyond our borders. The second function does not require as large a commitment. Defending a nation the size of Canada is a formidable challenge.The cheapest way is to create a nuclear defence force. I can't see voters going for that, either. A Swedish politician came up with the novel proposal to replace the armed forces with a telephone recording saying "We Surrender" in 90 languages.

It is all academic until Canadians are willing to serve their country. It is ironic that in 1945 we had over 750,000 men in the Canadian Armed Forces, the fifth largest military in the world, with the third largest navy. The token force we have now is incapable of defending our borders. Therefore, the $20 billion spent each year is wasted. I have always been an admirer of Colonel J. Sutherland Brown, (thanks to Tim Schentag), but alas, he was faced with a Canadian population that had no interest in defending Canada either.

Switzerland has conscription. Every able-bodied male from 19 years of age to 49 is in the armed forces. There are over 1.5 million men available for military service with an almost equal number of women. As I recall, according to The Military Balance some years ago, Switzerland could field a force of 1.2 million on 72 hours notice. They have recently cut back on their regular forces but they provide an example of what we could be doing. As for Derek 2.0's question "Does the National Post and/or the Economist suggest where the Government of Canada is to find the additional 40 billion dollars in funding to achieve 2% defense(sic) spending per our GDP?", the simple answer is raise taxes. That being said, Canadians don't want a military. They won't join it and they won't pay for it. After the way the Government treats those few who have served, who can blame people for not joining up.

The party in power is irrelevant. Until the people of Canada decide they want a military force, there is nothing the government can or should do, and token efforts are a waste of twenty billion dollars.

The measure of a military can be measured with the question; if Canada told Russia or the U.S. to stop what they were doing, and they did, then you have a sufficiently strong military. If they ignore us, then every penny we are spending is wasted. This is a democracy. If Canadians wanted a DND, they would be willing to pay for it and embrace conscription...like that is going to happen. The most powerful military in western Europe is Switzerland. They have the ability to take on the Russians. If they can do it, so can we. The Canadian people don't want to. All we want is a few reservists to parade in fancy costumes. Lets spend that $20 billion on something we need.

In the interest of education, it should be noted that neanderthals were probably smarter than we are. We simply overwhelmed them through inter-breeding. However, we can thank them for our arthritis.

In over two decades enforcing the Highway Traffic Act, I have yet to meet anyone who is not a better than average or excellent driver.

Hear Hear

If you are unable to control you vehicle and come to a full stop, slow down or take a bus.Just because the speed limit is 90 kmh, it doesn't mean you have to go 90 kmh. Impatience causes more accidents than alcohol.