Esq

again.? You mean with non stealthed bears and their new fighter bombers they made with the indians? why not just build a bunch of these for all the major canadian cities with the money instead. and mount some AA SAM stuff on it. http://www.zimbio.com/Discovery+Channel+Team/articles/24/Houston+Dome+houston+geodesic+dome+houston and no need to shovel in the winter. I think canadians would be more receptive at 16 billion for that. http://www.huliq.com/1/81975/experts-say-houston-dome-may-help-environment

A major development goal is to build microrefinery capacity across Canada. It needs to, even US capacity is diminished, and refineries are where the money is at. Canada really is loosing a lot of money in not finishing their own product. It is actually a national security requirement for Canada to have its own refinery capacity at a larger level than is currently provided for. Don't the Newfies already have pipes? About 5 billion should be put into developing microrefineries. (it would actually make the government money) And keep more petrol profits in Canada. - and position Canada to lower gasoline prices over the mid term - much like Mexico's PEMEX. In my place of residence - gasoline is currently 130.05 a litre. (the average in ontario is about 110 a litre That is outrageous. By locating a microrefinery within 100km of lesser populated areas of canada remote gas prices could be drastically reduced. Regardless of how ANTI-US this all sounds, the net effect would be positive for both Canada and the US. Even though it would cause the US to internalize its energy needs more and implement more alternative energy usages to free up their own petrol supply to fixed needs. It would also force Canada to become secure and create a national security mechanism for self sufficiency without US support. The End result win win. Fact is Canada has excess electric and oil supply it could turn into finished products, but its not, and it's loosing money to US business as a result. How about a pipeline to Europe instead of the Gulf? That pipeline from the north why not move it up through greenland to ice land to the UK? It may seem like a lot but the differnce between 1220 km and 3000km for access to Europes markets ain't extreme. if canada got it to the UK it could go anywhere in europe asia or africa with connecting pipelines already in place. Canada to Greenland to iceland faroeh/shetland to uk and scandinavia.. it is dooable. It would also bridge arctic oil development that greenland Canada, Iceland and scandinavia all have instore. If each put in a little for it Uk, the nordic countries, iceland?, greenland.. it would be feasable.. and much beter than arguing with the US for an old market. For oil they don't need. check this out http://wilco278.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/icelandic-oil/ http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/greenland_drillers_strike_oil.html And as Bush Cheney says - Canada needs an East West line... why not via the arctic then bring down spurs where the gas pipeline is. You could either go off baffin, or labrador.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/10/us-markets-oil-idUSTRE6810XU20100910 This is from the closure of just one pipeline.. a price spike of 3% how many lines does Canada have going to the US? Even american's support this http://www.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2010/10/canada-us_pipeline_on_hold_ami.html It seems there are about 8 pipelines.. would that equate a 24% rise in crude oil prices in the US without Canadian supply? So is that from $85 to about $110 dollars a barrel. Sure this isn't the end of the world for the US, but I'm geussing Canada could find other buyers. Sure the UAE might give the US a discount but this probably would still raise the price of US oil by about 15$/barrel. How would sanctions against the US by Russia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and other major nations stopping oil export to the US and watch them squirm. Maybe that is the stop gap needed to pacify the war criminal USA. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-peak-oil-catastrophe-in-Waiting1/ I can only suggest you get off your highhorse and realize the US is dependent on Canada and mexico - not the other way around. The US is the one with the gun to its head. Canada can sell elsewhere. It doesn't need the US. Meanwhile fractured US industry is dependent, the multi trillion dollar US economy would be shattered by oil sanctions. Prices would sky rocket, and the easy life americans have enjoyed at the cost of the freedoms and profits of other states being dimisinished would be at an end. Get a clue, we give you a good life, and then you spit on us. If you are representative of America hopefully that day is coming.

Is that F- 35 Ur givin him an f-35

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/28/canadas-afghan-training-mission-to-be-%E2%80%9Ckabul-centric%E2%80%9D/ Yeah. North of Kabul... ?Mazar-e Sharif? That doesn't sound like Kabul to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazar-i-Sharif what a legacy to be surrounded by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Massacre_-_the_Convoy_of_Death that and These are the people Canadians are suppose to train how to fight? Hmmmm reality check anyone? Could Canada be training war criminals? Also anyone catch the typo Heart / Herat in Macleans, it is actually suprising the escalating hacking of news sites, and not just my own posts? Is it the NSA, Israel - who is behind all the hacking... another subject perhaps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herat

800? Oh so you are saying it would be safer to train in Taliban held territory where attacks don't happen. Actually it may make a little sense come to think of it. Heck they may even want to take part if you ask them nice enough. Instead of calling them training operations you could call them Joint Training Operations. The only flaw in this is that I don't see any attacks in Kabul Province where the training operations were said to take place behind the wire. By behhind the wire I thought this implied within the city, not behind the city wire on the outside of the city hundreds of KM away.

If Canada blocked oil export to the US you'd see them buckle. Canada is not disempowered to destroy the US if it chooses. US power grids would shutter, potentially even causing mass rioting and industrial collapse leading to economic decline as exports dwindled. If Canada so choosed the US would be doomed without firing a single bullet. You'd be eating up your stragetic reserves. Oh but would the US attack little old Canada just because of economic policies and national security. True colours show. Be thankful how gracious canada has been all these years. The US has around 30 days of oil in strategic reserve It gets about 1/3rd of its oil from Canada. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html Of course the SPR can only draw a fraction of the oil it gets from Canada so it would be lamed just by the taps being shut.

Before remote drones can be employed safely with weapon systems you have to insure quantum communications are secure. Until then the drones are suceptable to hijacking. You need quantum computing technologies for safety, solid state computers and older computer technologies are succeptable to override hijacking through EW attacks. The ideal really is though a pilot control system leading a bunch of drones,, not just drones. The bottom line is, if you can have a 100kg payload armarment or human sometimes the payload will be more useful. Also drones will be better in combat than humans. Humans may be needed for awareness and authorization or "aborts" In actual war communications channels are not gaurenteed. You can engage an operation but disengaging needs to be preset if you want it to go ahead with communications loss or to abort with communications loss. You can program this stuff but don't expect to remotely pilot, it will be AI.

Camp? That doesn't sound like school it me. It also doesn't sound like you would pitch tent in the middle of a major Urban centre. Yeah aparently the unit 3rd light out of edmonton (trained for light assault in multienvironmental roles and scenarios) those who were suppose to be the vangaurd of the withdrawl will now be the first instructors.. doesn't sound very specialized or organized to me. It sounds like an operation that was just switched up putting the units that were suppose to be the combat units during the withdrawal into instructors. It to me doesn't make much sense to have 1000 soilders yet only maybe 50 to 100 offier trainers in that amount. It sounds like a waste of personnel to me. Sounds more like they are keeping their combat unit there, not putting trainers in place. So why don't they have basic training officers deployed there rather than a combat battalion? Has the 3rd ever done basic training operations before.. how many of those 1000 are trained to train? I have this image of somolian theives perimiters in my mind - one of the only good use of the grunts in this. Why do you need 800 combat troops to gaurd a school house? So I guess the Germans must be doing the advanced training huh, cause the PM said that it would be behind the wire if I recall.

Or maybe the US can leave NATO and watch the peace ensue. It might actually revert to a defensive organization without US wars to drag it on. Its not like they like the French anyway. Back to a grass routes group of Canada the EU and Turkey. Maybe Israel and the US could form a secondary alliance to keep their objectives aligned.

Well I find it strange that companies like Dalsa are "bought out" and destined to be integrated into the US military war machine - yet did Canada block it? Could Canada turn around and buy Teledyne? I think canada really needs to wise up on the two faced dealings of the US and their businesses buying up Canadian patents then blocking equal action by Canadian interests. it is backward. I'm quite convinced the deal isn't in Canadian interests for various reasons. Canada would be better off finding another system because the US is not trust worthy enough to be sole sourced for Canada's sole future fighter capacity. It isn't a trusted partner in defence, in large part because Canada isn't treated as an open and equal partner in defence, and the US just wants to take away more fredoms and violate more domestic Canadian laws. Simply put the f35 is a US aircraft, it will never be a Canadian aircraft, the US is too selfish a country to be partners with on defence aquisitions matters. It is like giving money away at high mark ups and getting nothing in return but more costs. The US should go to hell with their f35. And Mr McKay should get a ticket to the US if he thinks this is Canada's best option becuase frankly it is appearing to be Canada's worse option more by the day. ‎Stephen Harper needs to wake up and realize this. Frankly I think that a total change of dealings with the US needs to take place yesterday, and the traitors in Canada who want to sell out Canada to US military control ought to also accompany Mr McKay to the US where their interests may be better served. We need people for Canada not sellouts and traitors. An agreement where the wealth only goes one direction is servitude, canada need none of that and I'm willing to die for that I'm willing to kill for that. Witht eh mentality of suposed americans like Bush Cheney I'd say burn every American Flag in Canada and send the Americans packing right behind them. They arn't allies they are scum with that type of selfish backstabing mindset. Just look to how many once Canadian defence manufacturors are now US subsideraries, then Bush Cheney comes along and spits in Canadians faces.

Its not like we don't know all of US's classified projects anyway.. you think your secrets are actually secret? Wasn't there something about intelligence sharing. Or is someone maybe not being as honest as they say they are? Echelon et al. Is the US hiding something in lockheed that we don't know about. Doubtful. It should be noted under more recent security programs that the US is directing toward Canada - the US security establishment would be able to exercise far more security over Canada than the US. What harm could possibly come with Canadian Control of a US defence industry in that environment? It seems that it would be even safer in Canadian Control. The risk of domestic unrest, rioting, and terrorist attack on facilities in Canada would also seem to be much lower. No need to import raw materials if you can just use them right in the North. it is mutually benificial, and actually improves the US national security position.

Oh, I'm sure that Obama wouldn't be upset if Canada bought lockheed - how would US national security be compramized by little old Canada buying lockheed? Both Canada and the US are partners in Norad and both flying the planes arn't they? It is still a US company even if Canada buys it. It is still a global company. Why is a public company suddently private when the Queen of Canada tries to buy it? She is a person too just like any other corporation or person. Why is a Canadian Entity not allowed controling stake in a mutual defence industry? Or are Canada and the US really not allies, really not partners in Defence, both air, and in groups like NATO.. Canada has been fighting US wars for decades... yet it can't be trusted with ownership in a US arms company? But you expect Canada to put all its eggs into that company.. maybe it is Canadian national security at risk with having their entire air force dependent on a foreign government controlled company rather than a public and free company. Who knows letting the Queen in right of Canada own it might elicit the United Kingdom and Austrailia to be warmer to the whole idea of buying lockheeds planes.

Everyone seemed to avoid why buying a majority control Lockheed instead of the f35's would be a bad deal for Canada? You know then use the profit from lockheed to give free jets to Canada! As well as Canada having all lockheeds patents and assets - that canada could port to Canada to make a domestic next gen fighter of their own or future ones. Lockheeds market capitalization is less than $30 billion. 51% share would be less than the jet fighter deal. If you think how much is R&D overhead etc.. Canada would probably get a much much better deal on their own f35's if they owned a majority of lockheed. also having lockheeds 100000 specialist engineers under the DND's r&d arm would likely provide oodles in terms of new techs at much lower costs. A 16 billion investment in buying out lockheed is the rational thing to do for the DND. AND with the US's 1000+ orders of f35 the company would be a relatively secure asset.. afterall as McKay says it is the only plane out there. Stepehen Harper and Peter McKay should do the right thing and buy Lockheed NOT their planes. Net earnings for the first quarter of 2010 were $547 million, fourth-quarter net earnings grew to $983 million or $2.73 per share from $827 million http://rttnews.com/CONTENT/QuickFacts.aspx?Id=1537213 Dude.. buy the kit... get the caboodle for free. Geuss what other aircraft they make... Surely US national security isn't threatened by their friendly nieghbour almost slave child buying one of their aircraft manufacturors. (Heck they want to include us in a North American Security Perimiter.. surely their assets must be safe in that. We gave them the arrow. Maybe its time for a return of the favour.

Market cap is 28.49Billion looks around what the deal for the planes may run. GO GO GO. . come to think of it a majority stake runs less than the deal.

It sounds sort of desperate now, like Mckay thinks maybe popular support will stop him when he says "We have to now, if we don't we won't have any planes in 2020." I think that must seal it right there. Now Canadians defence aquisitions are being made on a basis of the aquisitions being the only choice. Who cares about cost overruns when 'we won't have any planes in 2020' is what canadians are dealing with. Stock in f35 manufacturor anyone? Maybe Canada can save money buy buying them out and building them.

Harper is an economist, not a lawyer, maybe there are more reasons for his seasonal trips to Geneva. He is afterall behind the biggest deficits in Canadian History. Surely there must be some loose change in there somewhere. Its like he has set out to save Brian Mulrooney's image by outdoing him in every way that pissed off Canadians 20 years ago. More spending, more debt, more privatization, more americanization. The guy is doing it all and bigger than the man himself. Is Harper simply a Mulrooney buffer? It leaves one to wonder. Oliphant. It puts more meaning to Brian's smile when he defends Harpers recent support of the North American Perimiter Security Pact. Of course Harper isn't Irish? Is he, maybe he is somehow Obama's other half. I havn't found the link yet but there has got to be something there.

Oh and the page was switched at CTV... to the f35 story not the Kabul story. In an odd twist. It is still visible in google but it links to the f35 story now. Here is a replacement version on the same topic http://ipolitics.ca/2011/01/27/canadas-afghan-trainers-will-work-around-kabul-away-from-violent-south/

I was really suprised to read this line today. Half a year before the mission is set to "go into gear", and after I've heard countless times how this mission is going to happen. So am I to beleive that they have been saying that this mission is going to occur as a training mission and it will be in school buildings etc... yet.. they havn't even secured the locations yet? Does this seem like maybe they have made all this mission stuff up, and have been lying to Canadians about this - mission they'd like to do but havn't actually yet secured permission for from the Afghan government? http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110127/mackay-gates-meeting-ottawa-110127/ Or am I misreading this? It makes me feel wrong inside.

It is a cost savings to get rid of the ones who want to go. The courts are so slow it would take years to impose a death penalty on an unwilling person. It is funny that it is always the "media" sensationalized cases that illicit the desire for the death penalty. It is not as if there arn't heinous crimes that don't get media attention that are the equal of those that do.

and one ring to rule them all.

For someone who owns and trades their guns every year apparently (and no I don't think it is hardship, nor stupid, to tell police you have given your gun to someone else, you don't seem to be keen on the firearms test definitions. How did you get your PAL without knowning the difference between a firearm and a gun? Why? Sounds like a gun second hand shop to me. These things cost between $200-$1000 regularly. I would want that insured thus registered. Heck just think what could be done if those guns were stolden during a break in. Or one was snuck out used in a crime then snuck back in. Ok so what is the hardship in notifying police that you have sold or given away your gun? Did you do a background check, what if they are a rapist or murderor? What if they are a forger? What if they are a spy or foreign agent? You could be giving your gun to Lee Harvey Oswald II or Al Qaeda - forged documents arn't hard. Who is checking in on that? A good old gun is still good, gun tech and design hasn't altered that much in rifles since WWII. Touting yourself as an expert then failing gun 101 ain't exactly glamourous. --------------------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun see the difference Generally "gun" in Canada refers to longgun or handgun. There are other types of firearms. What happens when the police can't check this? http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/columnists/andrew_hanon/2010/06/23/14492806.html

Canadians are very interested in torturing people socially a lot more than correcting them. They want people to submit to authority - that is the correction -and they have to engineer harm in order to create subservance. I think that is rather unfortunate that society can't be self managing on grounds of equality rather than subservience. I think people who have long sentences will just be a resource burden. Either they should earn their keep, or they should be offed - where possible. This is "efficiency" Far too much money goes into torture. I strongly support the system of voluntary work camp programs for prisoners, especially long term offenders. Of course chances are many would still rather sit on the dole, and that is potentially what they will do when they are out. But prisoners should be lined up with federal jobs (to pay for room and board in prison), otherwise it should be charged to them, and them not get any tax returns or otherwise until their tab is paid off, but they should be given the chance to earn behind bars. Wasted human resource is just stupid managment. And social punishment isn't really that nice, so I don't know what type of social moral it is attempting to establish. The system is horrible as far as I'm concerned though, but that is the twisted mindset of Canadians. Not nice people, ignorant, unethical and willing to ruin people for revenge. It is just the facts. It isn't about making things better, it is about venting on people. They cost a lot of money. Its not worth it. We need solutions not resource drains and tortured souls. God is free and I would hope a better judge. It is a highly inefficient system that I see only generating social damage rather than fixing it.

Corporate Tax cuts at this stage playing by the rules they are playing by only make sense if it generates personal income taxes or GST/HST revenues equal or greater than the loss from the reduction. So with the 30 billion in corporate taxes the government can play with 10% is 3 billion 1% is 300 million - in retained corporate revenues. *about 6 [a 1% drop is really a 6% reduction) so 1.8 billion (multiply the 300 million by 6 for everything) 1. Will this money kick back to generate more than 300 million + debt interest on debt paydown on that amount (since a deficit is stilll being run - to the extent of the deficit debt being paid down? Say at 3% debt interest that is 9 million / year for say 10 to 15 years or about 90 to 100 million So we need to generate around 400 million from that 300 million to break even on the tax cut? If say 1/3rd of that goes to personal imcome taxes we may see it go from a 17% bracket to a 22% bracket or something like that. meaning 5% gain on 33% of it or about 5% of 300 million recoverd or 15 million so we are sitting at about making 385 million from $200 million over 15 years? that is a return of almost 50%. I'm all for abolishing corporate and personal income taxes but the debt has to be removed/dealt with first to give the government an equal footing. Also a new structure to pay for corporate use fees for federal services and plans need to be established. I want to know if that 300 million dollar deduction of the 1% drop will pay for itself. Harper could have cut corporate taxes by 3% or reduced the GST an extra. I'm all for corporate tax cuts but it has to be backed up with 1. A balanced or surplus budget. 2. Gaurenteed return on whatever cuts back into government revenue for any unmet costs. 3. A lower personal income tax threshold than corporate taxes - so that people retain more of their income than corporations. (this however based on a more direct tax outline on where different types of taxes go - corporate taxes to corporate needs, personal taxes to personal needs -- and no federal taxes for provincial services - let provinces set up fees or taxes for provincil domain) The money has to come from somewhere, if giving 10$ can make more by letting someone else have it, that makes sense, as long as the earnings come back to you over the period more than it would upfront. That is good business. I want to see the federal government explain how more money is coming back to Canada as a result of this. I want to see how this will create $1.2 billion in new revenue... where is the flow chart on this? Corporate taxes cannot be dropped unilaterallly unless they make up for themselves in new intake. It is possible in other ways but unilaterially the government just adding 2 billion in the debt collumn is bad fiscal management. If there is a grand design here I think subsidies/ or credits would be a better go to targetted tax breaks instead of an overall drop unless the tax/fee structure is changing also. Across the board is just dead weight, targetted subsidies can actually direct managed growth - this cut to me so far only shows itself as buying corporate votes - and nothing else. With more figures and rationality to the cuts it might make more sense. But to date nada, just vote buying.

wow September 2010, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,831,327 valid firearm licences That is 1 in 20 canadians who actually can legally own guns.. yet there are 5 to 10 long guns per legal owner? How many new guns and registrations are left? That is about 2$ per liscended gun owner. Can't you just have the fee respective in the registration fee? with the 190000 that means each gun owner buys a new imported gun every 10 years or 1 in 10 each year. ----- As far as the mafia and street gangs, I think that is what police can do. I'm pretty sure everyone is known to police though - as most of this stuff is public knowledge, isn't it. Its not like "organized" or "local" criminal groups are unknown to police. Most of these figures are well known locally, in court documents, or tracked by intelligence and federal police forces globally. Saipan you seem to be a little out of touch with how the world works. There are many reasons not to move in on something but usually it requires sufficient grounds to intercede. Certain things need to fall into place for there to be movement on some individuals. Its all about what makes what, not what looks like what.