If you were PM, what would you do?

[Guest Derek L]

I have no political desires and you are mincing words so your statement is unfair. If that viewpoint is that its ok to kill, enslave and starve your own countrymen for political or monetary gains then my answer would be yes I have no problem with killing them...They are cold blooded killers.

I’m not putting a label on the morality of such action, you are! Killing for “peacekeeping” or for “oil” is the same difference, you, not I are trying to put a morale spin on it………….

Like you said, you would train our military for “peacekeeping” (Whatever that is) and be willing to “kill the bad guys”, but you are opposed to the existing structure of our military, since as you’ve said, “Our military is fast becoming the little sister to the U.S. Military Machine".......I think you need to further refine your message.

[bush_cheney2004]

.......I think you need to further refine your message.

Indeed....maybe the term "peacekilling" fills the gap.

[Guest Derek L]

Indeed....maybe the term "peacekilling" fills the gap.

Indeed, having a potential weapon at hand and the use of said potential weapon are entirely different topics……….If anything, if someone wants an expeditionary force capable of “killing bad guys”, delivering food and medicine and generally carrying out ones foreign policy, what better model to mimic than that of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children.

[ron Young]

I’m not putting a label on the morality of such action, you are! Killing for “peacekeeping” or for “oil” is the same difference, you, not I are trying to put a morale spin on it………….

Like you said, you would train our military for “peacekeeping” (Whatever that is) and be willing to “kill the bad guys”, but you are opposed to the existing structure of our military, since as you’ve said, “Our military is fast becoming the little sister to the U.S. Military Machine".......I think you need to further refine your message.

I see a very clear diferance between killing bad guys for the morality of it and killing for oil. Peacekeeping is peacekeeping it can't be anything other than peacekeeping to me. What part of my message needs refining?

[Guest Derek L]

I see a very clear diferance between killing bad guys for the morality of it and killing for oil. Peacekeeping is peacekeeping it can't be anything other than peacekeeping to me. What part of my message needs refining?

Your entire message…….As I said, what do you do when a portion of the population in the country you’re in opposes your presence? An IED or RPG wielded by a “bad guy” doesn’t care if you’re in country to protect people or oil……

So, since innocent people are being killed in Syria, you’d send Canadian troops right?

What about if you could protect innocent people and oil?

[Sandy MacNab]

1. 
   • Close healthcare to two-tier medical services.
   • Sew the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms back together again.
   • Begin discussions with Canada's bio-regions regarding the dissolution of the provinces and how to rationalize and share responsibilities for governance between federal and bio-regional jurisdictions.
   • A lot of First Nations traditional territories are usually defined along bio-regional lines so I'd expect Canadians within these would have the choice to be governed according to whoever's territory they were in or move.
   • Legalize all drugs and turn all responsibility for public education, regulating it's use, treatment for abuse etc over to the health department. The locations for production, distribution, retailing, hours of operation etc would be determined by local authorities.
   • Raise taxes on the wealthy and reduce their access to power - either or, the result should be the same. Place the income gap near the top of the list of things used to determine our fiscal policy.
   • Require any and all lobbying of politicians and or senior government servants to be conducted in public.
   • Link all trade to our own human, labour and environmental standards.
   • Require national referendum with a super-majority of 75% before sending any troops into any foreign conflict.
   • Did I say tax the rich?
   

I can see the destruction of Canada would be first and foremost in your regime. Maybe Cuba can help support us.

[Sandy MacNab]

No, it's built upon inclusinveness, a diverse population, and the idea that Canada's people build this nation through their contributions, cultural or economic.

We need those who will contribute labour and other skills; we don't need somebody else's effen culture. Until Trudeau we were making great progress on our own culture.

[Smallc]

We need those who will contribute labour and other skills; we don't need somebody else's effen culture. Until Trudeau we were making great progress on our own culture.

Another one who thinness multiculturalism and bilingualism started with Trudeau.

[dre]

As I said, what do you do when a portion of the population in the country you’re in opposes your presence?

Thats the problem with all this foreign intervention, and why most times it costs a lot of money and does nothing usefull. We pick a side in some country we know nothing about and the other side becomes our enemy.

Next thing you know you spent billions of dollars to the put the Muslim Brotherhood or some theocracy in charge.

[Guest Derek L]

Thats the problem with all this foreign intervention, and why most times it costs a lot of money and does nothing usefull. We pick a side in some country we know nothing about and the other side becomes our enemy.

Next thing you know you spent billions of dollars to the put the Muslim Brotherhood or some theocracy in charge.

I agree, unless lack of action will effect us, directly or indirectly, foreign intervention, including aide, should be kept to a minimum (Or none at all)………Why should we spend our money on someone else if we have nothing to gain (or lose)?

[dre]

I agree, unless lack of action will effect us, directly or indirectly, foreign intervention, including aide, should be kept to a minimum (Or none at all)………Why should we spend our money on someone else if we have nothing to gain (or lose)?

Yup. For me though its not just the money. If these adventures had a history of producing decent results, then I might have an open mind. But they dont. Not only do we lose blood and treasure, it usually makes things worse for the people we think we are trying to help.

The problem is various entangling alliances as well. In principle I can see a case to be made for Canada helping to defend an ally from an invasion even if theres no clear ROI.

Then you have cases like Gulf War 1... Where we defend one autocratic regime from another. Tough to figure out what to do there as well.

[TheNewTeddy]

If I was PM I'd fund a national transit plan, but to be honest, I'd rather be Premier, many more things are broken at the provincial level.

[Guest Derek L]

Yup. For me though its not just the money. If these adventures had a history of producing decent results, then I might have an open mind. But they dont. Not only do we lose blood and treasure, it usually makes things worse for the people we think we are trying to help.

The problem is various entangling alliances as well. In principle I can see a case to be made for Canada helping to defend an ally from an invasion even if theres no clear ROI.

As I’ve said earlier, I’d leave NATO for the simple reason that after the “performance” of many of the other members in Afghanistan, I don’t think them worthy of us being potentially obligated to………..NORAD and military cooperation with the United States is only sensible, as is maintaining ties with our traditional allies (Australia, UK, the Dutch, Israel etc). A case could also be made for having working alliances with other similar or like minded nations along the Pacific Rim/Asia ( India, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Chile).

Other than that……….

Then you have cases like Gulf War 1... Where we defend one autocratic regime from another. Tough to figure out what to do there as well.

Take morality out of the equation……It’s not in our interests to have a Persian Gulf state potentially interrupting the flow of oil, nor having hegemony over the entire region (via Nuclear weapons). That being said, it’s also not in our interests to partake in an occupation for numerous years rebuilding one of the shitholes, when any dispute can be settled in a relatively short time via “gun boat diplomacy”

[dre]

Other than that……….

Take morality out of the equation……It’s not in our interests to have a Persian Gulf state potentially interrupting the flow of oil, nor having hegemony over the entire region (via Nuclear weapons). That being said, it’s also not in our interests to partake in an occupation for numerous years rebuilding one of the shitholes, when any dispute can be settled in a relatively short time via “gun boat diplomacy”

I dunno! We are an oil exporter, and would probably be an economic super power before long if oil from the middle east was cut off.

Seems sorta like the folks at Shell donating money to keep the Esso station down the street open

In fact... without instability in the middle east, oil might not even cost enough to warrant processing tar sands. We needed to get it to about 80-100 dollars a barrel for us to even HAVE an oil industry.

[Guest Derek L]

I dunno! We are an oil exporter, and would probably be an economic super power before long if oil from the middle east was cut off.

Seems sorta like the folks at Shell donating money to keep the Esso station down the street open

In fact... without instability in the middle east, oil might not even cost enough to warrant processing tar sands. We needed to get it to about 80-100 dollars a barrel for us to even HAVE an oil industry.

If Iran closed the straits next Monday, unimpeded by the West, what would be the net effect on the world economy?

Edited February 7, 2012 by Derek L

[dre]

If Iran closed the straits next Monday, unimpeded by the West, what would be the net effect on the world economy?

The price of oil would shoot up along with the prices of pretty much everything else and speculators would jump all over futures. Same thing we always see when theres shit going on in the middle east. And gulf exporters would probably invade Iran to re-open their only supply corridor (somebody elses problem).

In any case... Canada would be an unimportant bit player even if we did get involved, and I certainly wouldnt want to borrow money from China to spend on war for the sake of keeping one of our major exports cheap.

Canada should order up some popcorn, get some good seats , and focus on fixing our own problems

Edited February 7, 2012 by dre

[ron Young]

Your entire message…….As I said, what do you do when a portion of the population in the country youre in opposes your presence? An IED or RPG wielded by a bad guy doesnt care if youre in country to protect people or oil……

So, since innocent people are being killed in Syria, youd send Canadian troops right?

What about if you could protect innocent people and oil?

Here is where the problem is.....Of course there are segmetns of any population that doesn't want us in their country under our current system and methods of doings things. As I said we need to do things in a differant way all together. Since I've removed the money from politics with it went the traditional reasons western powers invade sovereign countries. The Bad guys you are referring too don't want us there due to our American Style tactics we have adopted throughout this conflict. Look at any good documentary about the occupation of Afghanastan and its pretty easy to understand why there is a segment that wants us out. CIA/Drug Dealing American Culture Exporting Occupation...Not to mention the Private defense security contractors which in some areas outnumber the actual soldiers. We are doing nothing differant than was done in Iraq. To me its assinine to axpect diffferant results from the same tactics. They do not work.

If we were truly there to help the actual people I have a very difficult time believeing they would be shooting us or hanging us from bridges as one poster suggested......Those fears are striaght outta the bullshit media propaganda machine....We have been indoctrinated and spoonfed bullshit for so long we are now believing it.

Your a human being right....If you were hungry and being oppressed by psychopathic leaders and a foreighn soldier came and fed you and stood between you and the psychopathic dictator that wants to torture and kill you.....Your telling me you would be planting IED's or shooting RPG's at them? That makes no sense at all to me.

Of course we will get more of the same if we give more of the same....My idea is to change tactics alltogether. which by nature will produce differant results. Any clearer?

Edited February 8, 2012 by ron Young

[AusKanada]

If I were a prime minister with a majority government these would be the changes I would want to introduce to make the electoral playing field even:

(1) Enforce the same strict contribution guidelines to party leadership races as well.

(2) Re-instate party subsidies, reduce tax exemptions on political contributions slightly to give a balanced mix of public/private subsidies (again the public contribution is less than 30 million...)

(3) Abolish/reform the Senate, adopt the German Bundesrat style (Provincial government send delegates, larger states get a slight advantage in rep.)

(4) Introduce Mixed Member Proportional Representation (again see Germany)

(5) Promote coalition governments/interparty co-operation

[guyser]

Until Trudeau we were making great progress on our own culture.

Why Yes, we had our own Toque factories back then, now every Toque made in China.

Oh we had Hespeler cranking out hockey sticks 'til those buggers from Jofa showed up.

[CPCFTW]

The price of oil would shoot up along with the prices of pretty much everything else and speculators would jump all over futures. Same thing we always see when theres shit going on in the middle east. And gulf exporters would probably invade Iran to re-open their only supply corridor (somebody elses problem).

In any case... Canada would be an unimportant bit player even if we did get involved, and I certainly wouldnt want to borrow money from China to spend on war for the sake of keeping one of our major exports cheap.

Canada should order up some popcorn, get some good seats , and focus on fixing our own problems

Price of oil skyrockets = CAD skyrockets = more manufacturers priced out of Ontario = Daddy Dalton bankrupts Ontario.

[Guest Derek L]

Here is where the problem is.....Of course there are segemtns of any population that doesn't want us in their country under our current system and methods of doings things. As I said we need to do things in a differant way all together. Since I've removed the money from politics with it went the traditional reasons western powers invade sovereign countries. The Bad guys you are referring too don't want us there due to our American Style tactics we have adopted throughout this conflict. Look at any good documentary about the occupation of Afghanastan and its pretty easy to understand why there is a segment that wants us out. CIA/Drug Dealing American Culture Exporting Occupation...Not to mention the Private defense security contractors which in some areas outnumber the actual soldiers. We are doing nothing differant than was done in Iraq. To me its assinine to axpect diffferant results from the same tactics. They do not work.

If we were truly there to help the actual people I have a very difficult time believeing they would be shooting us or hanging us from bridges as one poster suggested......Those fears are striaght outta the bullshit media propaganda machine....We have been indoctrinated and spoonfed bullshit for so long we are now believing it.

Your a human being right....If you were hungry and being oppressed by psychopathic leaders and a foreighn soldier came and fed you and stood between you and the psychopathic dictator that wants to torture and kill you.....Your telling me you would be planting IED's or shooting RPG's at them? That makes no sense at all to me.

Of course we will get more of the same if we give more of the same....My idea is to change tactics alltogether. which by nature will produce differant results. Any clearer?

So you think a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan would be fine then right? Or Iraq? The majority of the population there is fine with us building roads, schools, hospitals and water treatment plants…Perhaps if we tell the Taliban that we’re truly there to help, they won’t oppose our presence right?

[ron Young]

So you think a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan would be fine then right? Or Iraq? The majority of the population there is fine with us building roads, schools, hospitals and water treatment plants…Perhaps if we tell the Taliban that we’re truly there to help, they won’t oppose our presence right?

To be completley honest I don't know....Would need to see first hand what the heck is really going on. Main Stream media is not to be trusted in its current state. We certainly can't trust those people and organizations with vested intereste in the status quo. So what is really going on over there? What I do know is that we are only being shown and told what the military machine wants us to see and know and that we have been lied too. So how do you base an opinion on lies?

[eyeball]

So how do you base an opinion on lies?

By the willful suspension of one's disbelief and deliberately putting your faith in ideology.

You just shrug them off in other words.

[Scotty]

As a matter of fact yes. Your statement is precisely why we need to change. Its hard to help people when you are blowing up their shit and killing their families. If someone dropped bombs on my home I wouldn't care what color the helmet was I'd be learning how to make IAD's

For every action there is an equal reaction..

Canadian troops in Bosnia had not been bombing anyone, nor had other UN troops, when they were taken hostage and chained to bridges. Dutch troops in Rwanda had not attacked anyone when they were slaughtered. UN troops in the middle east in several locations had not attacked anyone when they were themselves attacked. I think you have your cause confused with your reaction.

Today's conflicts involve too many non-national players now, people who can't guarantee the behavior of their own combatants, even assuming you can trust what the leaders say. It's not like the old days when conflicts involved nation-states who could pretty much be held to their word when they accepted UN intervention.

[Guest Derek L]

Canadian troops in Bosnia had not been bombing anyone, nor had other UN troops, when they were taken hostage and chained to bridges. Dutch troops in Rwanda had not attacked anyone when they were slaughtered. UN troops in the middle east in several locations had not attacked anyone when they were themselves attacked. I think you have your cause confused with your reaction.

Today's conflicts involve too many non-national players now, people who can't guarantee the behavior of their own combatants, even assuming you can trust what the leaders say. It's not like the old days when conflicts involved nation-states who could pretty much be held to their word when they accepted UN intervention.

Exactly, it’s not like it was 50 years ago when the world was divided amongst three orbits, the West, the East and who cares……..Today, in many of the world’s shitholes, there’s no foreign power holding the leash of the combatants………Is the East & West ultimately responsible for many of the dire conditions in much of the third world? You bet. Do those in power want our help? I doubt it.