Does Canada need a defence procurement agency?

[Oleg Bach]

You're the only one of us two who is using profanity specifically directed at another poster.

If I were to get banned, not much I can do. As for going to another site: perhaps you might be more comfortable at Stormfront, where Jew-hating and homophobia are welcome.

You can bring that sleazy little coward Rue with you, if you like. He doesn't like Jews or gays much, either.

You are a set up artist. Someone who gets his jollies electronically... attempting to harm those you can not see. I don't believe I like you - firstly you are slandering me...I do not hate anyone...not Jew - not gay not even you - But as I said I don't like you much from what I see so far.

All I was doing is being kind and giving you a heads up - in return you continue with your self destructive actions and now want to take me down with you - you appear to be a bit of a maniac. It's always slightly interesting to see your type on the net - a person who would never dare in the real world to be so bold and ruthless...there is a name for folks like you and I belive you know what it is.

As for our conversation - I don't need it - you were funny for a while but now I do sense a vile persona...sorry - believe it or not - I am a civlized person...just artistic and colourful - and I do not take myself as seriously as you seem to imagine.

[Wild Bill]

You're the only one of us two who is using profanity specifically directed at another poster.

If I were to get banned, not much I can do. As for going to another site: perhaps you might be more comfortable at Stormfront, where Jew-hating and homophobia are welcome.

You can bring that sleazy little coward Rue with you, if you like. He doesn't like Jews or gays much, either.

I dunno if I'd fit in. First off, they'd probably lynch me when they discovered I'm NOT a conservative! That would truly be ironic, considering how many on this board seem to think I am, just because I haven't swallowed the leftwing KoolAid.

And I've never had a problem with Jews. After all, it's just religion and I've always thought people have the right to believe any cockamamie thing they want.

Besides, Gene Simmonds is a Jew and he gave us a much needed dollop of great rock and roll!

As for gays, most times I can't tell and don't give much of a damn. After all, it's not likely a gay would want MY old and wrinkled ass so what should I worry about? Again, one of my friends is gay but more importantly, he's a great drummer!

I do have a prejudice against the music of some gays. Show tunes, ABBA and Lady GAGA make me cringe when I hear them played! If they want music played by gays why not choose Slayer?

[bloodyminded]

I dunno if I'd fit in. First off, they'd probably lynch me when they discovered I'm NOT a conservative! That would truly be ironic, considering how many on this board seem to think I am, just because I haven't swallowed the leftwing KoolAid.

And I've never had a problem with Jews. After all, it's just religion and I've always thought people have the right to believe any cockamamie thing they want.

Besides, Gene Simmonds is a Jew and he gave us a much needed dollop of great rock and roll!

As for gays, most times I can't tell and don't give much of a damn. After all, it's not likely a gay would want MY old and wrinkled ass so what should I worry about? Again, one of my friends is gay but more importantly, he's a great drummer!

I do have a prejudice against the music of some gays. Show tunes, ABBA and Lady GAGA make me cringe when I hear them played! If they want music played by gays why not choose Slayer?

Slayer are gay? I didn't know that. I knew the lead singer of Judas Priest is.

No, WB, I don't imagine you'd be too welcome at Stormfront. You're not their type.

[bloodyminded]

You are a set up artist. Someone who gets his jollies electronically... attempting to harm those you can not see. I don't believe I like you - firstly you are slandering me...I do not hate anyone...not Jew - not gay not even you - But as I said I don't like you much from what I see so far.

Well, that doesn't please me, but ok. That's your business.

All I was doing is being kind and giving you a heads up - in return you continue with your self destructive actions and now want to take me down with you

You seem to have forgotten the conversation, or at least the timeline. I used the word "fuck" (quoting someone, actually); you told me I shouldn't use that word...and then wrote "F**K You."

Well, I didn't care, Oleg, though I was surprised you were unaware of the contradiction.

So, don't worry your head about me. If I go so far as to get banned, it appears you wouldn't mind watching the electronic door hitting my behind on the way out, anyway.

- you appear to be a bit of a maniac. It's always slightly interesting to see your type on the net - a person who would never dare in the real world to be so bold and ruthless...there is a name for folks like you and I belive you know what it is.

You don't know anything about me "in the real world." I can tell you with near-certainty that's it's nothing like what you imagine.

As for our conversation - I don't need it - you were funny for a while but now I do sense a vile persona...sorry - believe it or not - I am a civlized person...just artistic and colourful - and I do not take myself as seriously as you seem to imagine.

"Vile" is it? Alrighty then.

Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

Definition of a jerk - is a person that jerks good people off their path - who are on there way to accomplishing something good and positive.....JERKS have no real purpose other than being blockers. Have fun jerking - cos' this man is turning off the machine...You stunk up the place.

[bloodyminded]

Definition of a jerk - is a person that jerks good people off their path - who are on there way to accomplishing something good and positive.....JERKS have no real purpose other than being blockers. Have fun jerking - cos' this man is turning off the machine...You stunk up the place.

Okay. Keep well, and enjoy your day.

[Oleg Bach]

Okay. Keep well, and enjoy your day.

WOW you are capable of being good...I am impressed.

[Guest Derek L]

Really? So the mines and submarines in the harbours would stop all that air cargo and all those produce trucks from the US from coming up here? Or would they threaten the cod fishing industry?

Just trying to sort out what you are getting at.

No, but it would stop the Oil tankers, ore, pulp & lumber carriers….isolating 10-15% of our exports overseas would have a devastating effect on our economy.

[Oleg Bach]

No, but it would stop the Oil tankers, ore, pulp & lumber carriers….isolating 10-15% of our exports overseas would have a devastating effect on our economy.

Here comes the protectionist Oleg Bach ---_ If we got totally orgainized and utilized all of our natural and human resourses..we could get by with out export and import - and get a great big army to surround us so no one could rob us. China managed to rob America...who really beieved that trade and the import of garbage from China would benefit them. Now with all those trillions of dollars of debt and trillions in profits in China - they are building a huge fleet of air craft carriers - to make sure that America does not attempt to steal back what they stole form them.

We need a strong defense in order to sustain our natural materials - our water - our oil - our people...but we do not need more weapons so "a little girl can go to school" _ a girl if we did not tell her did not know that such a thing as school existed.

[Guest Derek L]

Here comes the protectionist Oleg Bach ---_ If we got totally orgainized and utilized all of our natural and human resourses..we could get by with out export and import - and get a great big army to surround us so no one could rob us. China managed to rob America...who really beieved that trade and the import of garbage from China would benefit them. Now with all those trillions of dollars of debt and trillions in profits in China - they are building a huge fleet of air craft carriers - to make sure that America does not attempt to steal back what they stole form them.

We need a strong defense in order to sustain our natural materials - our water - our oil - our people...but we do not need more weapons so "a little girl can go to school" _ a girl if we did not tell her did not know that such a thing as school existed.

Though I tend not to agree with your protectionist viewpoint, for the most part, I agree with the rest of your post……I’m what some would label a “neo-con hawk”, and like Bush prior to 9/11, I think nation building is a failed, expensive strategy, that for the most part, is near impossible to achieve within an election cycle……..Like peacekeeping, the ends don’t just justify the means for a democratic country to be involved in a foreign quagmire…….Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc have proven that wars waged without clear victory strategies are not represntive of the majority of voters, nor is the continued cost in both terms of money and lives lost…….

I personally feel if we’re destined to return to past strategies dealing with conflicts overseas, that we should revert back to one that was proven successful for centuries by the United Kingdom: Gun Boat diplomacy

An example of such could be our current role in Libya. In terms of cost in both money & lives, it’s peanuts compared to the dirt box……It’s a form a power projection that relies namely on a strong navy, of which, a ship is a lot easier to deploy and withdrawal then a land force overseas. As long as Canadian service men & women are not returning to Trenton in coffins, for the most part, the public is indifferent. And in many examples of the past few hundreds years, it has been proven to work.

It might not be “politically correct”, but aside from defending Canada proper, our military should be used to defend Canadian interests overseas, not to ensure the rights of those in another country…..

[bloodyminded]

I believe the neo-con hawks have a pretty different viewpoint from the one you espouse.

[Oleg Bach]

If gun boat diplomacy works then why did they not use it fully off the coast of Lybia? The term itself is an oxymoron..There is no diplomacy when you are pointing or gesturing with a gun. It's called a threat. Threats are a western thing..like the guy that never wins a bar fight because he warns his advesary via posturing and theatrical bravado...If you want to have full success in a conflict and over come your opponent - You perhaps give small warning - leave for a while - \return and wack him with a chair from behind. We have mission creep because we do not fight wars anymore - we toy about and posture and talk a blue streak expecting a lunitic like Ghadifi to respond to reason....We know he is not reasonable - so why even attempt to chat - He should have been crushed immediately and the diplomatic arguments could have been wages later with those that disagree in the tactic. If you are going to show and project power - project it - not just its vapor and scent.

[Guest Derek L]

I believe the neo-con hawks have a pretty different viewpoint from the one you espouse.

Bush jr didn't prior to 9/11........ in retrospect, the important objectives of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (end of Saddam, Taliban & Al-Qaeda) could have been achieved with a naval blockade, unrestricted bombing campaign and special forces....hearts & minds not so much.

[Oleg Bach]

Bush jr didn't prior to 9/11........ in retrospect, the important objectives of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (end of Saddam, Taliban & Al-Qaeda) could have been achieved with a naval blockade, unrestricted bombing campaign and special forces....hearts & minds not so much.

No percieved invading force has ever truely won the hearts and minds of those in a and around a battle zone - all players are resented for wrecking the place. Your approach using unresticted bombing and special forces would shorten the duration of any conflict..The video game approach that is shock and awe is childish. Ragan had the right idea...just drop a load on his tent...boom done.

[bloodyminded]

Bush jr didn't prior to 9/11........ in retrospect, the important objectives of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (end of Saddam, Taliban & Al-Qaeda) could have been achieved with a naval blockade, unrestricted bombing campaign and special forces....hearts & minds not so much.

Well...considering exactly what has been achieved (and what was supposed to be, we were told, but hasn't happened too well), you may well have a point.

Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest Derek L]

If gun boat diplomacy works then why did they not use it fully off the coast of Lybia? The term itself is an oxymoron..There is no diplomacy when you are pointing or gesturing with a gun. It's called a threat. Threats are a western thing..like the guy that never wins a bar fight because he warns his advesary via posturing and theatrical bravado...If you want to have full success in a conflict and over come your opponent - You perhaps give small warning - leave for a while - \return and wack him with a chair from behind. We have mission creep because we do not fight wars anymore - we toy about and posture and talk a blue streak expecting a lunitic like Ghadifi to respond to reason....We know he is not reasonable - so why even attempt to chat - He should have been crushed immediately and the diplomatic arguments could have been wages later with those that disagree in the tactic. If you are going to show and project power - project it - not just its vapor and scent.

It worked pretty well for JFK during the Cuban missile crisis………As I’ve said above, it worked for centuries for the United Kingdom policing their empire…..With Libya, we’re simply into the big stick portion that follows the soft walking.

[Guest Derek L]

No percieved invading force has ever truely won the hearts and minds of those in a and around a battle zone - all players are resented for wrecking the place. Your approach using unresticted bombing and special forces would shorten the duration of any conflict..The video game approach that is shock and awe is childish. Ragan had the right idea...just drop a load on his tent...boom done.

Well that’s kinda the point…….our public (the West in general) doesn’t agree with doing the “hard work” of wining “hearts & minds”, nor should they in my belief…….. That’s not to say we can’t defend our interests in a different way…..

[Oleg Bach]

Well...considering exactly what has been achieved (and what was supposed to be, we were told, but hasn't happened too well), you may well have a point.

They do have a good point. The real point might be that people like Bush and Cheney were ameteurs and corporates who attempted to wage war from the comfort of the boardroom. Corporates who dominate political office are elites and do not respect the military - who are mostly blue collar spawns. Instead of listening to those that are experts and experienced in war...The corporates actually thought that they were smarter than the low class general that usually worked his way up the ranks from a meger social standing...It is a mistake for a clerk to lay bricks and not allow the brick layer skillfully use his level and trowel.

[dre]

Not you, him. I personally think our spending is pretty reasonable now. $20B (with inflation adjustments going forward) is enough to have a force capable of responding to a variety of events while still not breaking the bank.

Oops sorry SC. I misunderstood

[Wild Bill]

Here comes the protectionist Oleg Bach ---_ If we got totally orgainized and utilized all of our natural and human resourses..we could get by with out export and import - and get a great big army to surround us so no one could rob us.

We need a strong defense in order to sustain our natural materials - our water - our oil - our people...but we do not need more weapons so "a little girl can go to school" _ a girl if we did not tell her did not know that such a thing as school existed.

Sorry Oleg but your protectionist idea is not as easy as it sounds. First off, say goodbye to having a computer! Canada has virtually no semiconductor industry, aside from a very small number of niche market devices. Transistors and computer chips have to be made in great volumes, by the physics involved. The volumes necessary for our own market would just not be nearly enough to make it worth while to run the production machines. We'd either be competing for world market volumes or we just wouldn't be able to play in the game at all.

There are lots of other products we need and use every day that fall into the same category. So unless we're prepared to all become Amish and subsist on farming, fishing and cutting trees then a protectionist approach like yours just isn't feasible. It's not that we absolutely couldn't make those devices, but how would you like to pay $25,000 for a laptop you could buy in Best Buy for $600?

As for the little girl in your example, is "keeping things secret" really feasible? You don't think that in this modern world the knowledge of how much more free and rich we all live won't leak into her country? That not only will she know what she's missing but that she will also know that we don't give a damn about her?

It's altogether too easy to see where that scenario would end up. As Bruce Cockburn once sang "If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make somebody pay!"

Edited July 7, 2011 by Wild Bill

[RNG]

Sorry Oleg but your protectionist idea is not as easy as it sounds. First off, say goodbye to having a computer! Canada has virtually no semiconductor industry, aside from a very small number of niche market devices. Transistors and computer chips have to be made in great volumes, by the physics involved. The volumes necessary for our own market would just not be nearly enough to make it worth while to run the production machines. We'd either be competing for world market volumes or we just wouldn't be able to play in the game at all.

There are lots of other products we need and use every day that fall into the same category. So unless we're prepared to all become Amish and subsist on farming, fishing and cutting trees then a protectionist approach like yours just isn't feasible. It's not that we absolutely couldn't make those devices, but how would you like to pay $25,000 for a laptop you could buy in Best Buy for $600?

As for the little girl in your example, is "keeping things secret" really feasible? You don't think that in this modern world the knowledge of how much more free and rich we all live won't leak into her country? That not only will she know what she's missing but that she will also know that we don't give a damn about her?

It's altogether too easy to see where that scenario would end up. As Bruce Cockburn once sang "If I had a rocket launcher, I'd make somebody pay!"

How are we going to pay the EI to all the lumber workers, the oil workers, the farmers, the on and on and on that depend on exports to pay their salaries? What a joke.

[Wild Bill]

How are we going to pay the EI to all the lumber workers, the oil workers, the farmers, the on and on and on that depend on exports to pay their salaries? What a joke.

Oleg just didn't think it all the way through. Most people who are not involved in direct manufacturing don't. Once you explain some important details it all becomes more clear.

[eyeball]

No, but it would stop the Oil tankers, ore, pulp & lumber carriers….isolating 10-15% of our exports overseas would have a devastating effect on our economy.

We should be withholding natural resources from the war-making nations and in particular, for selling or providing military aid and financial support to dictatorships. That should be a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned. A network of tyranny is a far more evil thing than any network of terror.

I'm not saying it wouldn't hurt but consider the sacrifices our grandparents made to fight tyranny. I bet they gave up considerably more than 10 - 15% of their economy.

Of course before we go shooting our mouths off about other countries sins we'ed need to shut down our own export-oriented military-industrial complex. I guess we'd have to add whatever percentage it is of our's to the economic cost of imposing trade sanctions against others.

Putting virtue ahead of economics is tough and expensive just ask our grandparents. I'm pretty sure they'll say the sacrifice is worth the effort though.

[M.Dancer]

We should be withholding natural resources from the war-making nations and in particular, for selling or providing military aid and financial support to dictatorships. That should be a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned. A network of tyranny is a far more evil thing than any network of terror.

What if it is a netweork of tyranny and a network of terror?

Hey....I'm all for blockading Gaza and iran!

[Oleg Bach]

How are we going to pay the EI to all the lumber workers, the oil workers, the farmers, the on and on and on that depend on exports to pay their salaries? What a joke.

Say for instance that Canada was the only nation on earth. That the rest of the planet had no human habitation - no one trade with - and we were force to trade only with each other. What would it be like - what would the quality of life be like _ would we have what we needed to be comfortable...or would we be in the stone age? Anyone care to give their view on this idea?