Harper Sinks Navy

[eyeball]

As our manufacturers gravitate to China and the rest of Asia to produce goods because of the favourable conditions, organized crime will come here to produce drugs for the same reasons. BC criminologists say that if every man, woman and child in the province smoked their brains out on a daily basis, there is no way they could come close to consuming the amount of pot now being produced here.

Here again is another place where the line between wallets and principles gets blurry. There is no way Canada would not be in a recession right now without the production of drugs to buoy up the economy.

The harder the times get the better they'll get. Irony abounds.

Edited August 30, 2008 by eyeball

[Oleg Bach]

Here again is another place where the line between wallets and principles gets blurry. There is no way Canada would not be in a recession right now without the production of drugs to buoy up the economy.

The harder the times get the better they'll get. Irony abounds.

Booze is a destroyer - so is todays pot...and the cocaine disease is epedemic...nothing to be proud of - Remember how opium destroyed the potential bright young leaders in China - opening the door to slavish communism - or downfall will also come if we normalize dope - booze what bad enough.

[AngusThermopyle]

I've always thought we could do well by just doubling the number of frigates in order to replace the destroyers. They've already been designed, so an updated model would cost less than something completely new. 24 frigates and 3 AORs would make a nice fleet IMO.

As designed the Frigates are meant to work with the Destroyers as a team providing area and air defence with offensive and sub hunting capabilities. Thats why I said a nice wish list would double the amount of Frigates and match it with destroyers. A potent little task force when combined with an AOR.

In the past we had four AOR's but went to three because of cost considerations. Two were based In Halifax and one in Victoria. That worked, Victoria was the training squadron and Halifax was the operational squadron. Therefore Halifax had two AOR's and Victoria one. Times have changed though, Victoria is no longer the training squadron port, they're more operational now than any time since the second world war.

This is why it would be nice to have two AOR's on each coast. You reduce potential support problems by knowing that even if one is in refit the other will be operational.

Just to finish, about four new French Barracuda subs would be nice. They're state of the art Nuclear subs with extended range and multiple role capabilities. Instead of buying the Trafalgers we should have just spent what we had to on something worthwhile.

Barracuda

[Wild Bill]

So let me understand the logic. You agree that Harper is a social conservative with anti-libertarian policies which you oppose but you see no choice but to vote for him because of the sponsorship scandal.

The sponsorship scandal arose out of the 1995 Quebec referendum and resulted in millions of federal funds being wasted and/or stolen in Quebec between 1997 and 2001 to boost support for federalism. Which of Canada's current MPs have been implicated in the sponsorship scandal? My current MP was in the cabinet of the provincial government before she ran successfully for the Liberals in the last federal election. Should I not vote for her because of what happened in the 1990's before she joined the federal party? Do you think that if Stephane Dion or any current Liberal MP was implicated in the sponsorship scandal that the Conservatives would withhold this information from the Canadian public?

I'm not at all surprised that people with Harper-like views support Harper. But I am surprised that anyone who has a problem with Harper's social conservatism and anti-libertarianism and out-of-control spending spree would

feel that they have no choice but to vote for him because of what happened in the 90's. How socially regressive and financially irresponsible would potential leaders of the Conservatives have to be before you felt that they

did not deserve your vote?

Harper has SOME anti-Libertarian policies which I oppose. His party is still head and shoulders more "free" than the Liberals or the NDP. I do NOT agree that he's a social conservative in his actual governing and I do not agree he practices out of control spending. So you've put words in my mouth. Forgive me if I spit them back at you!

As for voting for an individual for MP, I gave that up years ago. Witnessing the absolute party solidarity practiced in Canada's Parliament taught me that for the most part MP's are just trained seals. Study the party line because that's what they'll vote for and ONLY what they'll vote for!

So I base my vote first on my impression of the party's platform, its apparent competence and most of all, it's integrity! That rules the Liberals out!

My impression of AdScam is that there's no possible way it could ever have worked without those at the top being aware of it. It was obviously set up to ensure "plausible deniability". They may have succeeded in keeping specific MP's from facing charges. That in no way allays my suspicions. To believe the official line goes against my own sense of logic and reason.

For a party to have such a culture where such a thing could happen means they are not the kind of people I can trust. Not every single one, of course. Tony Valeri is a friend of mine and I would have a very hard time believing such a thing of him. Yet enough bad apples had established the culture and most of those involved are still there.

In my mind they have to be punished. If we allow them to get away with it they will not have learned any lesson but that they CAN get away with such things! NEXT election I might forgive them! It took me a LONG time to forgive Mulroney! Over time people leave and the makeup of a party can change. There has not been enough time for the Liberals to do so, IMHO.

Besides, I have little or no agreement with the Liberal party platform. I at least have SOME with the Tories!

Things might change over the next few years but for now, that's the way I see it and so far nothing has been shown to me to affect my reasons for my choice.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...8f-54dcb368793a

Ok, so this may be a possibility, but what about the Coast Guard? Those patrol ships were needed ASAP in order to revitalize the fleet.

[eyeball]

As far as guarding our coast's goes, radar stations, airplanes and vessels like the Cape Ann and Cape Edensaw seem to be doing a fine job as it is.

Ken Bowering, an official with the Navy League of Canada, said it is critical the navy be allowed to replace HMCS Preserver and Protecteur, the two vessels now used to resupply warships at sea. Without such ships, the navy could not operate far from Canadian waters.

As for being players on the global stage, who needs it? This is the best reason I can think of for not spending money on our military.

[Smallc]

As far as guarding our coast's goes, radar stations, airplanes and vessels like the Cape Ann and Cape Edensaw seem to be doing a fine job as it is.

As for being players on the global stage, who needs it? This is the best reason I can think of for not spending money on our military.

So then you dislike the work that the HMCS Ville de Quebec is doing right now in Somalia?

Edited September 1, 2008 by Smallc

[normanchateau]

Besides, I have little or no agreement with the Liberal party platform. I at least have SOME with the Tories!

I suspect that your antipathy to the Liberals has more to do with this than the 1990's sponsorship scandal.

[normanchateau]

and I do not agree he practices out of control spending. So you've put words in my mouth. Forgive me if I spit them back at you!

Is this not evidence of out-of-control spending?

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

Or this?

"In a news release last Friday, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation accused Flaherty of going on "a spending binge." It noted Ottawa's June expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent.

The federation recalled that, in the first three months of the fiscal year, program spending was up by 8.4 per cent. This, when the current budget is calling for annual spending growth of no more than 3.4 per cent.

"Many Canadians were encouraged by the Conservatives' apparent new restraint shown in their third budget that limited spending growth," remarked John Williamson, federation director.

"Well, so much for that. In the first three months, spending is instead up two-and-a-half times what these so-called fiscally responsible Conservatives in Ottawa budgeted it to be."

Williamson says he no longer has confidence in the Harper government's pledge to limit spending growth to 3.4 per cent: "They've proven throughout their term in office that they can't stop themselves from spending."

If history is anything to go by, he has a point. The Conservatives' 2006-07 budget pegged federal spending growth at 5.4 per cent. It came in at 7.5 per cent.

The 2007-08 budget plan announced a 5.6-per-cent hike. It came in at 6.9 per cent."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columni...c0-4fffb4e7e842

[eyeball]

So then you dislike the work that the HMCS Ville de Quebec is doing right now in Somalia?

It makes a good stop gap measure I suppose but I really think we should send the police to protect people from criminals not the military. Why can't freighters arm themselves to protect against pirates?

[bush_cheney2004]

It makes a good stop gap measure I suppose but I really think we should send the police to protect people from criminals not the military. Why can't freighters arm themselves to protect against pirates?

I think they just did:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas...racy/index.html

[eyeball]

They did? Good, we can bring HMCS Ville de Quebec home then and use it to patrol our coasts.

[Smallc]

They did? Good, we can bring HMCS Ville de Quebec home then and use it to patrol our coasts.

The frigates do patrol the coast, but they and the destroyers are really over qualified for that type of duty. They do it, but there is better uses for them.

[eyeball]

Yeah, artificial reefs come to mind.

[Smallc]

Yeah, artificial reefs come to mind.

I was thinking more along the lines of protecting ships from pirates and smugglers around the world.

[eyeball]

I was thinking more along the lines of protecting ships from pirates and smugglers around the world.

BC just said freighters are protectecting themselves from pirates now. It really does make more sense that they do doesn't it? As for smuggling shouldn't we be using police to prevent smugglers from using ships in the first place?

90% or more of what people are trying to smuggle is not the least bit threatening in a military sense and if 90% of this was legalized and regulated there'd be more than enough police resources left over to catch a terrorist's suit-case nuke or bio-weapon and such that again, ships like the HMCS Ville de Quebec have little or no chance of ever stopping. Countries around the world have tried to stop smuggling with naval resources for years to little avail.

We have to start thinking along more realistic lines in terms of what's practical and acheivable. One of the ways we could do that is to weigh the relative dangers of the war on terror and the war on drugs especially since both seem to require an inordinate amount of the same scarce resources to prosecute. Do you really think the danger of someone choosing to use smuggled heroin or hashish even comes close to the possibility a tourist might smuggle a nuke into Canada?

Edited September 1, 2008 by eyeball

[Smallc]

BC just said freighters are protectecting themselves from pirates now. It really does make more sense that they do doesn't it? As for smuggling shouldn't we be using police to prevent smugglers from using ships in the first place?

90% or more of what people are trying to smuggle is not the least bit threatening in a military sense and if 90% of this was legalized and regulated there'd be more than enough police resources left over to catch a terrorist's suit-case nuke or bio-weapon and such that again, ships like the HMCS Ville de Quebec have little or no chance of ever stopping. Countries around the world have tried to stop smuggling with naval resources for years to little avail.

We have to start thinking along more realistic lines in terms of what's practical and acheivable. One of the ways we could do that is to weigh the relative dangers of the war on terror and the war on drugs especially since both seem to require an inordinate amount of the same scarce resources to prosecute. Do you really think the danger of someone choosing to use smuggled heroin or hashish even comes close to the possibility a tourist might smuggle a nuke into Canada?

Just because you don't think something is worth while, and just because something is hard, does not mean it shouldn't be done.

[Smallc]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Bid process to be restarted.

[Fortunata]

That's good news, unless of course they have to downgrade what we need to something that we don't need to meet budget. Then it will be a total waste of money. Sometimes less is not more. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Smallc]

That's good news, unless of course they have to downgrade what we need to something that we don't need to meet budget. Then it will be a total waste of money. Sometimes less is not more. We'll just have to wait and see.

What we need is new AORs. Thats what we'll probably get rather than JSS.

[eyeball]

Just because you don't think something is worth while, and just because something is hard, does not mean it shouldn't be done.

What if its impossible and can't be done, just keep throwing money down the rat hole?

[DrGreenthumb]

What if its impossible and can't be done, just keep throwing money down the rat hole?

I refuse to vote for any MP of any political stripe that will not publicly promise to vote to repeal prohibition, at least for cannabis for starters. I will publicly ridicule any politician that supports a war on plants and the people that use them.

Edited September 2, 2008 by DrGreenthumb

[Smallc]

What if its impossible and can't be done, just keep throwing money down the rat hole?

Nothing is impossible.

[AngusThermopyle]

I refuse to vote for any MP of any political stripe that will not publicly promise to vote to repeal prohibition, at least for cannabis for starters. I will publicly ridicule any politician that supports a war on plants and the people that use them.

You must be smoking some really really good shit.

The reason I conclude that is because the above has just about zero relevance to the topic at hand. Sober up bud.

[normanchateau]

I will publicly ridicule any politician that supports a war on plants and the people that use them.

I can think of many other reasons to ridicule Harper publicly but as long as the mainstream media continue to ignore these issues so will the public.

If the media continue to ignore Harper's out-of-control spending and financial mismanagement why would they care that he wants jail time for a teenager caught with one marijuana plant?