Harper Sinks Navy

[YEGmann]

The need has been there for over a decade. Why didn't the Liberals take care of it?

Actually, they did. It was Paul Martin who allocated money for the ships (about $3 bln, if I am not mistaken).

Now after bidders submitted their estimates, this budget is not enough. Harper physically cannot proceed with the deal unless a bidder lowers the numbers or a new budget is approved. It takes time. But pro-liberal mass-media and people are hurrying to score political points while they can.

[eyeball]

...we are not sitting at alert on the runways waiting for the commies to attack from over the horizon like in the old days.

No but just like in the old we are still being frightened into believing the commies, Islamofacists or some new type of Hitler will attack us at any moment.

Its just plain wrong.

[Wild Bill]

No but just like in the old we are still being frightened into believing the commies, Islamofacists or some new type of Hitler will attack us at any moment.

Its just plain wrong.

You know, this sounds like the same argument with global warming. If one side is right, we've spent a lot of money for no good result.

If the other side is right, we die!

The parallels are interesting...

[madmax]

You know, this sounds like the same argument with global warming. If one side is right, we've spent a lot of money for no good result.

If the other side is right, we die!

The parallels are interesting...

What good are the ships without fuel? CPC can't pay for the fuel.

[eyeball]

You know, this sounds like the same argument with global warming. If one side is right, we've spent a lot of money for no good result.

If the other side is right, we die!

The parallels are interesting...

I only wish they were parallel. Look at how little doubt its taken to dramatically slow down spending to combat GW. The Church of We're All Gonna Die will still arm us to the teeth no matter how much doubt there is.

[eyeball]

Attacked by terrorists, not other nations.

How on Earth will a new division of tanks a sqaudron of fighters or a fleet of ships ever protect us from terrorists?

Do you really think that would be a deterrent to anyone who wants to attack us because that's what nukes are, deterrents. They'll be shaking in their boots.

The nukes are to deter super-powers from invading us, not terrorists. We should use goodwill to prevent terrorists from becoming terrorists and police to stop those people who do.

As for the other, sure let them occupy us then we will bog them down in a guerrilla war in our own neigbourhoods. Just think of the billions we will save. I doubt you could get the 20 million dead Russians from WW2 to agree with you.

Who do you realistically think is threatening to occupy us? Only a super-power would or could ever attempt it and there is not a damn thing we could do about it with a conventional military if they did. We should have a few nukes to deter them from attacking us in the first place and a strong homeland defense that focuses on bogging them down if they do.

WW2 is neither here nor there today.

[eyeball]

So are you advocating Canada's complete disarmament? If you view any reduction in military spending as "good", I assume you'd want to reduce it to zero.

No and no.

[AngusThermopyle]

We should use goodwill to prevent terrorists from becoming terrorists

Yes, sunshine and lollipops always work so well with the fanatical and psychopathic.

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes, sunshine and lollipops always work so well with the fanatical and psychopathic.

Harper cancelled this for one reason and one reason only. This turns a billion dollar deficit into a billion dollar surplus. He knows that going into an election with the books in the red is going to look really bad for the cons and they will get punished at the ballot box. Harper only cares about holding onto power.

[eyeball]

Yes, sunshine and lollipops always work so well with the fanatical and psychopathic.

No they don't actually. In retrospect what I should have said is, we should use goodwill to prevent people from becoming terrorists.

[AngusThermopyle]

Harper cancelled this for one reason and one reason only. This turns a billion dollar deficit into a billion dollar surplus. He knows that going into an election with the books in the red is going to look really bad for the cons and they will get punished at the ballot box. Harper only cares about holding onto power.

That may be true but is it really all that germain to the central problem. That problem being that our AOR's are now about fifty years old and in dire need of replacement.

I spent seven years aboard the Preserver. I can tell you that we spent as much time repairing her and fabricating unobtainable parts as we did sailing her, and that was about 15 years ago. These ships are not in the "nice to have" category. They are in the we "have to have" category. Without them all our capabilities are severely handicapped, from deployment, to sovereignty patrols to humanitarian work.

They may be gone temporarily but they aren't gone for good. As I said, these aren't optional, they're a necessity.

[Argus]

No they don't actually. In retrospect what I should have said is, we should use goodwill to prevent people from becoming terrorists.

Oh yeah right, that'll work.

Just smile a lot and they'll love us.

[Argus]

Harper cancelled this for one reason and one reason only. This turns a billion dollar deficit into a billion dollar surplus. He knows that going into an election with the books in the red is going to look really bad for the cons and they will get punished at the ballot box. Harper only cares about holding onto power.

Ludiicrouse. Money is accounted for in the year it is spent. As nothing was to be spent i the current fiscal year nothing will be freed up on the books.

The billion was to be spent over the coming years, after a contract was signed and the ships delivered.

[Wilber]

How on Earth will a new division of tanks a sqaudron of fighters or a fleet of ships ever protect us from terrorists?

The idea is that you fight them in their neighbourhood, not yours.

The nukes are to deter super-powers from invading us, not terrorists. We should use goodwill to prevent terrorists from becoming terrorists and police to stop those people who do.

If you don't have a way do deliver it, all you can do with a nuke is blow yourself up.

Who do you realistically think is threatening to occupy us? Only a super-power would or could ever attempt it and there is not a damn thing we could do about it with a conventional military if they did. We should have a few nukes to deter them from attacking us in the first place and a strong homeland defense that focuses on bogging them down if they do.

A couple of nukes will not deter a super power when they can make you disappear with hundreds of them.

A strong homeland defense would mean tanks, fighters and all that other stuff you don't like. Of course we can continue what we love to do, depend on the Americans then smugly sit back and bad mouth them about not having universal medicare because they spend too much on their military.

[Moonbox]

Harper cancelled this for one reason and one reason only. This turns a billion dollar deficit into a billion dollar surplus. He knows that going into an election with the books in the red is going to look really bad for the cons and they will get punished at the ballot box. Harper only cares about holding onto power.

I think it's hilarious that you would fault Harper for not approving over-budget military contracts when the opposition wouldn't have spent the money in the first place. You support the party (liberal I'm assuming) that happily allowed the Canadian military to deteriorate for 13 years and then find fault in the CPC when they won't go over-budget on their plans to at least try and patch together what's left.

I'm literally amazed at how blind and hypocritical some of you are.

[jdobbin]

I think it's hilarious that you would fault Harper for not approving over-budget military contracts when the opposition wouldn't have spent the money in the first place. You support the party (liberal I'm assuming) that happily allowed the Canadian military to deteriorate for 13 years and then find fault in the CPC when they won't go over-budget on their plans to at least try and patch together what's left.

It was the Liberals who began the ship acquisition process. It is the Tories who cancelled it.

[Fortunata]

... party (liberal I'm assuming) that happily allowed the Canadian military to deteriorate for 13 years and then find fault in the CPC when they won't go over-budget on their plans to at least try and patch together what's left.

I'm literally amazed at how blind and hypocritical some of you are.

Because of Mulroney's spending habits ALL departments within the Federal government were cut. You guys so should remember that and put it into perspective.

As far as the Harpers going overbudget? Why not? They seem to have plenty of my money to burn on everything else. If they are spending like drunken sailors maybe they should give the sailors something out of it.

I'm literally amazed at how the herd will justify anything this hypocritical government does.

[eyeball]

Oh yeah right, that'll work.

Just smile a lot and they'll love us.

Why do you object to Canada trying to make friends instead of enemies?

[Argus]

Why do you object to Canada trying to make friends instead of enemies?

You might want to be friends with violent, hateful religious fanatics. I do not.

[eyeball]

The idea is that you fight them in their neighbourhood, not yours.

Who's neighbourhood? Our involvement in Afghanistan is due to 9/11. Not a single Afghan was involved that day.

If you don't have a way do deliver it, all you can do with a nuke is blow yourself up.

There should be as many ways for us to smuggle a nuke into another country as there are for terrorists. I suppose that's what we would be considered by invaders, they'd call us terrorists and insurgents and so on. You seem to have a great fear of terrorists so it shouldn't be a stretch to imagine why threatening to defend ourselves with similar sorts of tactics could be an effective deterant.

A couple of nukes will not deter a super power when they can make you disappear with hundreds of them.

This is just underscores how ridiculous this constant fearmongering gets. Why on Earth would anyone want to do that? What would be the point, for all our irradiated natural resources? Who would do such a thing? There are only three super-powers who could and the minute one tried they would be annihilated by the other two. Although I do have to wonder what Russia and China would do if the US invaded us conventionally.

A strong homeland defense would mean tanks, fighters and all that other stuff you don't like.

What if these three super-powers form a co-dominium agreement that divides the planet into three parts? Again, no amount of conventional military spending on our part could deter such an eventuality. That being the case I think a far better military defense would be to cache the types of weapons terrorists and insurgents use to bog down super-powers and hope they have the good sense not to do so. Given the US record that may be a false hope which is why I think we should have a few nukes cached on the side. To enhance the deterent effect.

Of course we can continue what we love to do, depend on the Americans then smugly sit back and bad mouth them about not having universal medicare because they spend too much on their military.

Having our cake and eating it too sounds better all the time doesn't it? We can also depend on the Russians and Chinese to keep the Americans from gettiing any silly ideas and feel even more smug about bad-mouthing all three.

Super-powers and the games they play really are the problem because they are the cause of virtually all the terrorism and fear in the world.

Edited August 26, 2008 by eyeball

[eyeball]

You might want to be friends with violent, hateful religious fanatics. I do not.

Neither do I, but neither do I want to be their enemies like you apparently do.

[AngusThermopyle]

Who's neighbourhood? Our involvement in Afghanistan is due to 9/11. Not a single Afghan was involved that day.

Wrong again. The Taliban were sheltering Osama and providing safe haven for Al Quaeda training camps. That appears to be pretty involved by anyones standards. Or do you contend that none of the Taliban are Afghani's?

There should be as many ways for us to smuggle a nuke into another country as there are for terrorists.

So are you proposing that we become terrorists?

There are only three super-powers who could and the minute one tried they would be annihilated by the other two.

So you know this eh? You must have one wicked source of information to make such a claim.

That being the case I think a far better military defense would be to cache the types of weapons terrorists and insurgents use to bog down super-powers and hope they have the good sense not to do so.

That would be no defense at all. What it is actually called is resistance to occupation. In that case you're already defeated and your population is already under the boots of an occupier. I hope you'll forgive me for not heartily endorsing your plan but I just can't bring myself to believe that being occupied and oppressed is better than defending ourselves.

[Wilber]

Who's neighbourhood? Our involvement in Afghanistan is due to 9/11. Not a single Afghan was involved that day.

No but the people who were involved were based there and supported by its government.

There should be as many ways for us to smuggle a nuke into another country as there are for terrorists.

So you are going to try and smuggle a nuke into another country after they have invaded you. Assuming they won't make finding those nukes their #1 priority after they do. Bit late don't you think?

This is just underscores how ridiculous this constant fearmongering gets. Why on Earth would anyone want to do that? What would be the point, for all our irradiated natural resources? Who would do such a thing? There are only three super-powers who could and the minute one tried they would be annihilated by the other two. Although I do have to wonder what Russia and China would do if the US invaded us conventionally.

Then why do you want nukes? Point is, if you decide to irradiate them, they can irradiate you a hundred times over. We went through the Cold War with no offensive nuclear capacity, why do you feel we need it now?

What if these three super-powers form a co-dominium agreement that divides the planet into three parts? Again, no amount of conventional military spending on our part could deter such an eventuality. That being the case I think a far better military defense would be to cache the types of weapons terrorists and insurgents use to bog down super-powers and hope they have the good sense not to do so.

That's why you have alliances but you have to hold up your end. As for the rest. No thanks, I have no fear of being invaded by the US and becoming an American would not be a fate worse than death if it did happen.

Having our cake and eating it too sounds better all the time doesn't it? We can also depend on the Russians and Chinese to keep the Americans from gettiing any silly ideas and feel even more smug about bad-mouthing all three.

So you pine for the Cold War again but have forgotten which side we were on.

[eyeball]

Wrong again. The Taliban were sheltering Osama and providing safe haven for Al Quaeda training camps. That appears to be pretty involved by anyones standards. Or do you contend that none of the Taliban are Afghani's?

No I was contending that none of the terrorists on 9/11 were Afghans. Wilber said we need an army to fight terrorists in their own neighbourhood. Given that not one of the terrorists were Afghans I said who's neighbourhood? A few of these terrorists might have done a few calisthetics and a bit of target shooting in Afghanistan but their real training took place in America.

So are you proposing that we become terrorists?

That is what they'll call us freedom fighters isn't it? Especially the fifth columnists who welcome an American invasion. Actually they'll probably call us something even worse like 'liberals' or 'lefties'...

That would be no defense at all. What it is actually called is resistance to occupation. In that case you're already defeated and your population is already under the boots of an occupier.

Go tell it to the Vietnamese not to mention Afghanistan, who have managed to kick out anyone that's ever tried to occupy them.

I hope you'll forgive me for not heartily endorsing your plan but I just can't bring myself to believe that being occupied and oppressed is better than defending ourselves.

I'm not saying it wouldn't suck I'm just saying that no matter how much we spend on a conventional military it would never amount to more than a fart against a windstorm compared to what any super-power could throw at us. What, I'm supposed to rely on NATO?

No thanks. I'd rather have a local cache of arms and weapons on hand so I could make our occupation so painful that the invaders would feel compelled to leave. Advertize our intent beforehand, blow off a nuke or two to underscore the point and...Bob's your Uncle. You'd have to be so stupid to invade us that your level of stupidity would preclude the possibility of ever being smart enough to occupy us.

[Wilber]

Go tell it to the Vietnamese not to mention Afghanistan, who have managed to kick out anyone that's ever tried to occupy them.

North Vietnam was never occupied and without the support of the North, the NVA and the Communist Block, the Viet Cong would not have won. We are not occupying Afghanistan, we are supporting the Afghan government (imperfect though it may be it was elected unlike the Taliban) and the Afghan army is on our side.