Queenmandy85

Except that not enough Canadians are willing to serve and even fewer are willing to pay for it. We have immediate problems with under funded education system, healthcare and housing. It is hard enough to get people to pay taxes to fix those immediate problems without also having to get them to pay for defence, which most people have no interest in. We need to train and hire math, chemistry, physics and geography teachers, family doctors and trades people more than infantry soldiers. People need to get a decent education in the sciences now, access to a family physician now, and a roof over their heads now. They don't see war as imminent and even if it were, the Canadian Armed Forces are not percieved by most taxpayers as sufficient to make the investment of another $20 billion over what we spend now as worth it. I have argued for an effective military for over a half a century and never changed anyone's mind except for my own. I look at what is happening in Gaza. I understand the reaction of Israel, but all they have accomplished is to strengthen their enemies and kill tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with Hamas. The Israeli response has achieved nothing. They have taught their enemies how to stick it to Israel.

As you say, it all depends on who is POTUS. If Russia believes the west's nuclear deterrent is a paper tiger, then a third world war becomes more likely. If Canada had its own independent nuclear deterrence, we would be in a position to prevent Russia from such folly. But, that is not going to happen. So, it all comes down to the question, Would I rather live as a slave, or die a free man. That was an easy question when I was young and stupid. Now I am old and I have a tremendous desire to live longer than my great uncle Jack who lived to be 104 and was fit both mentally and physically when he died. When we talk about war, we forget about the majority of people (millions) who will suffer or die in a conflict they have nothing to do with.

That capability depends on the Americans. It is a valid system for the next nine months and six days. Beyond that, our alliance with our neighbour depends on who is taking the oath at the inauguration. The likely result is that it will be President Trump. At that point, the US will no longer be a reliable ally and the potential for an American invasion, while still remote, becomes much higher on the scale of probability. I recall the reaction of the Trump Administration after a meeting when a remark made by the Canadian Government was taken out of context and caused a response that was way out of proportion. I am sure President Trump still has that video of a half dozen leaders discussing the President's behaviour and laughing. We can be certain each of them has their photo red circled. On Jan. 21, 2025, all bets are off...except my bet that Donald J. Trump will be elected President.

A year ago, I would have agreed with you. Deep down, I am still inclined that way, but reality paints a different picture. The only nations that are equipped to face Russia are France, Britain and the United States. Tanks and infantry were critical in previous wars. What deters Russia is the absolute certainty that any conflict against a NATO member will result in a nuclear holocaust. By the same token, if Russia were to invade Europe, they would open their offensive with a tactical nuclear barrage. That has been Russian military doctrine since the days of Khrushchev. Ukraine avoided that scenario because Russia and the United States both guaranteed Ukrainian independence and security in exchange for them to give up their nuclear weapons. We see now, that was a mistake for the Ukraine. When considering how to spend Canadian money on defence, the reality is, the most cost effective weapon systems are tipped with nuclear weapons. They are cheaper than tanks and high performance combat aircraft and done require the level of personnel to operate.

We don't know her name, but a significant part of Genesis is believed to have been written by a woman. On the topic of the military, we are advised by one of our friends on this forum that if the 24 million people who regularly listen to the CBC, they should be the ones who pay for it. Perhaps, following the same logic, that should be applied to defence. If we increase defence spending to 2% of GDP, we will have a defence budget of $40 billion. Support for military spending is much lower than support for the CBC. The defence budget is largely a waste of money because it is directed at conflicts which are unlikely to occur and which are unachieveable with the resourses at Canada's disposal. As I was recently told on this forum, if the US were to invade Canada, the Canadian Forces cannot stop them. If there is a war with Russia or China, the conflict will be nuclear and we will not survive in any case. If people want to spend money on defence, using CdnFox' reasoning, let them pay for it out of their own pockets. I spent decades trying to convince people we need a viable military that can defend Canada, independent of foreign support. In the last year, I have been struggling with the personal revelation that war causes more problems than it solves and the cost is way off the scale. I am reminded of Gwynne Dyer's comment on his series on war, presented on CBC's Ideas in (about) 1979. IIRC, his opening statement was, "If you can't take a joke, you should not have a defence budget."

I'm not arguing against conscription. I just don't believe Canadian voters would support it. I see three alternatives. The first is a conventional force large enough to defeat any enemy. That is my trillion dollar solution. It requires conscription and we remember Conscripption Crisis of 1944. The second is enough nuclear weapons to turn any enemy into ashes and a glass plate, thus being an effective deterrent. The problem with that is convincing the world that we would use it without hesitation. The third solution is based on a proposal by a Swedish political party to disarm and have a telephone answering machine that can give the message in 102 languages that "We surrender." The third option may actually have merit. No major war has ever accomplished anything that could not be achieved at the conference table. The 100 years War, the 7 Years War, the American Revolution, and the Great War achieved nothing. The Second World War was a result of the Great War and it was necessary. It was an exception, but it only occurred because of the Great War. Had the Great Powers met at the conference table in 1914, Hitler may have become a set designer at the Vienna Opera House. A number of friends of mine served in Viet Nam. Now, Viet Nam is a vacation destination resort for American tourists. War is folly. That being said, I cannot completely let go of options 1 & 2. It would be very expensive, but it dramatically increases the probability we will not be involved in war for a long time. Too bad many Canadians disagree with me.

In order to defend this country, we need a viable military. That requires conscription and an annual trillion dollar budget. Try selling that to Canadian voters / taxpayers.

A Guaranteed Annual Income was a central plank in the Conservative platform under Bob Stanfield and Jim Gillies.

We have less than 2 centuries of accessable oil and less than five hundred years of accessible coal at the current rate of consumption. Without petroleum and coal, we have nothing to lubricate machinery such as wheeled transport or electrical generators. We will return to a pre-industrial world. If we switch to nuclear power, we can extend the life of our petroleum and coal reserves.

People took the train. Rebuild and electrify the rail system with nuclear power generated electricity and you can go anywhere on the train. On a dedicated high speed line, you could probably travel from Montreal to Calgary in less than 10 hours.

What do you suggest we do to ensure future generations have sufficient petroleum and coal reserves for the thousands of products, especially lubrication, to survive? We don't need coal and oil to generate energy. We have uranium and thorium (and God willing, fusion some day) to provide the heat, but it is useless if you can't lubricate the turbines. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium.

You are misinformed. The greenhouse effect is accepted by every credible scientist in the world. Unless we made substantial changes now, within three centuries, your decendents will be feeling the impact of a climate catastrophe. We know what is coming. It only demands a minor sacrifice on our part to change that prognosis.

Good points. When you put yourself in the shoes of our future generations, it is a tiny sacrifice.

I gased up my car yesterday. The carbon tax raised the price from $1.549 to $1.589 per litre. To think, a few months ago, it was only $1.769. Oh, the humanity. How will we ever survive?

There it is. Abraham Lincoln, an enemy of Canada's ally and a republican. We do have some republicans in Canada. John Manly, a Liberal, and Lorne Nystrom of the NDP come to mind. But republicanism is the antithesis of Conservatism. Fortunately,as I said previously, Pierre shows signs of actual conservatism and loyalty. He is no Preston Manning and that is a credit to him. Manning was a loser and Poilievre is a winner. I am not sure why you feel so threatened that you have to resort to lies and slander. Mr. Poilievre is going to be appointed Prime Minister very soon, so don't get your knickers in a knot.

This should jog your memory. When asked by Simpson who his hero was, Preston Manning said President Lincoln. Faultlines: Struggling for a Canadian Vision Hardcover – Jan. 1 1993 by Jeffrey Simpson (Author), Harpercollins.

I have heard a number of different versions but I can't refute what you say. I do believe the establishment of Israel in the middle of Palestine was a mistake. But would you agree with the idea that Israel should be moved? I suggested Oregon because the climate is vaguely similar. I wonder if moving Palestine to Oregon might be better because the climate in the eastern Mediterranean is deteriorating. Which ever country were to move, they would thrive. The Americans might be ticked off, but it could be viewed as Karma. They never seemed to have a problem with doing it to the Palestinians. We have to let this one go to a different thread, though. It is off the thread topic. Cheers.

You lied are incorrect. I did not say Manning did not like MacDonald. I said his political idol is Abraham Lincoln. (Faultlines: Struggling for a Canadian Vision Hardcover – Jan. 1 1993 by Jeffrey Simpson (Author), Harpercollins.) Okay. There you are lying in your teeth. 😁

The United Nations gave that land to the Israelis. Blame the UN. They should have placed Israel in Oregon, not Palestine. The alternative could be for the UN to move Palistine to Oregon.

It is refreshing to see such niave innocence. Reform was the creation of Preston Manning, a sacred. Who was his political hero? Was it Sir John A., the father of the Conservative Party? No, his hero was the American President Lincoln, a republican and an enemy of Canada. But that is all history. My hope is that when Mr. Poilievre is appointed, he will curtail immigration and repeal the restriction on the sale and transfer of hand guns. As it stands now, I will likely be voting for my CPC MP. He is an excellent Member. Mr. Poilevre gives out a lot of mixed messages. He has been in cabinet and so must understand the pressures he is going to have to deal with. He is giving the impression that he will reduce the deficit and taxes at the same time. That is a contradiction. Reducing red tape is a great sound bite, but those rules were put in to prevent wasting money. They are talking about reducing red tape to get more housing built. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't buy a new house built in a rush with reduced regulations. I remember the leaky condos in the lower mainland. The war is not going to go away and the aftermath of the pandemic will be with us for a while longer. Healthcare and education are both under funded. I won't even mention the funding of DND. The problem regarding "affordability" is a mystery to me. During the lockdown, a lot of people found their savings growing. They had nothing to spend their surplus money on with everything shut down. A lot of people suffered as well, but what happened to those savings? When the lockdown ended, passport offices and airports were swamped. The airlines couldn't keep up. So rather than buying GIC's to have a cushion against the predictable economic turmoil that comes after every plague event since the Emporer Justinian, and the preparations for war by the Moscow taxi driver, people with savings took all that money and blew it. They just threw it all away to foreigners. That is a recipe for inflation. It was the most irrational thing they could do with their money. For the last ten years, the Bank of Canada and the governments have been warning that interest rates were going to recover to a normal rate and we should prepare. Rather than taking their money to help out poor destitute billionaire Americans and Mexican casino owners, Canadians could be getting 5% interest on that money they should have invested. Pierre is facing quite a dilemma. His error in saying the carbon tax is costly to average Canadians and the incorrect message that it is not effective, means he will have to replace it regardless of the negative impact. As Scott Moe said last week, while he is against the carbon tax, all the alteratives are much more expensive. Either PP will have to raise taxes or cut services. He will likely have to do both if he wants to reduce the deficit. No matter what does, he is going to lose support. The more he does, the faster his support will melt away. My advise to Pierre is, to relish his position as Opposition Leader because it is all down hill the moment he is appointed.

Not always. He outright lied about the promised equalization deal with Saskatchewan. But, as I say, the Prime Minister who tried to keep his promises was betrayed, not by Liberals, but by Social Credit/Reform. You know, the Real Caouette lot. Voters reward liars, not politicians with integrity. Do you think Mr. Poilevre will introduce Major Douglas idea of dividend cheques to address affordability?

You just keep thinking that.

Voters don't base their vote on the honesty of a politician. Mr. Poilievre will win a super majority and will then back track on everything he promised. EDIT: I should not have said that. What I mean to say is Mr. Poilievre will win a super majority and keep all of his promises and be Prime Minister for 30 years.

I am happy for you. I am sure you have a better idea of how solid the CPC vote is than Fred Delorey. However, just as I defer to the expertise of Doug and Army Guy in military matters, I should defer to your political expertise. I wonder if Mr. Poilievre would do even better without your help. But that's just me. I am disappointed you didn't feel confident enough to explain CPC's policies. Pehaps I missed it in all the silly hyperbole. Happy Easter.

When I bring up the question of Mr. Poilievre's honesty, I don't mean to infer making false promises is a detriment to electoral success. In 1980, Pierre Trudeau promised to twin the railroad from sea to sea. Stephen Harper lied about the income trust issue and stood up in Regina and bald-faced lied about equalization agreements with Saskatchewan. Joe Clark went on the campaign trail in 1979 promising to privatize PetroCanada, move the Canadian embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and pay off the deficit left by Trudeau and Turner. As soon as he was appointed to lead a minority government, he set about keeping his promises, so the electorate defeated him. Joe Clark is the only guy who ever defeated a Trudeau, and he was brought down by Social Credit. He was defeated because he was an honest politician. So, Pierre Polilevre doesn't need to concern himself with the accuracy of his debunked claims about the carbon tax. He will win his super majority in just a few short months and nobody will care if he lied or not.