More Fiscal Incompetence from the Conservatives

[Jack Weber]

thieir services are subsidized by alberta. Quebec and much of Canada would be banana republics if it was not able to steal Alberta's prosperity

Aww...

Poor baby...

Funny...I don't remember the howls of derision from Ontario when we subsidized your dust bowl province...

It was a have not dust bowl province for most of it's existence,y'know?

And now,when you have to chip in a little,you crybabies have the nerve to call it "theft"...

Are you still pissy about the NEP/Pierre Trudeau?

Get over it!!!

It was almost 30 years ago...

Now run along,pump us some oil,and,make us some money...

Edited June 10, 2012 by Jack Weber

[Smallc]

of course it applies - that's the essence of international law (of the seas, per this discussion). That doesn't preclude a country, any country, from not respecting a particular international law

So it doesn't really apply then.

[Argus]

Aww...

Poor baby...

Funny...I don't remember the howls of derision from Ontario when we subsidized your dust bowl province...

Do you have a cite which says exactly how much and when the central government 'subsidized' Alberta?

[Signals.Cpl]

don't know, don't care what you're talking about... I already emphasized I have no intention of discussing your infatuation with an unrelated World Court dispute.

Awww who is a good boy.... I was expecting an admission but turns out when you are wrong you deny deny deny... You pick a topic you know nothing about, you ignore all facts, when someone proves you wrong you introduce more arguments in order to draw away from the main argument you lost, ignore some more facts...whine whine and whine some more about someone else fabricating things when the organizations themselves are the sources backing up my argument... congratulate yourself, you cannot win an argument but you sure could annoy people at a world class level.

[waldo]

Awww who is a good boy.

you're deluded. You simply can't discuss anything directly... you can't stay within a discussions subject/flow. You're perpetually evading direct questions, direct challenge; you continually derail threads with unrelated fabrications that have no relation/bearing to the subject at hand. You actually believe your distractions/fabrications are relevant; clearly, they're not... no matter how intellectually dishonest and disingenuous you are. One of the most telling aspects of your immaturity is to see you lash out and personalize when your charades are exposed for exactly what they are - nonsense.

[Signals.Cpl]

you're deluded. You simply can't discuss anything directly... you can't stay within a discussions subject/flow. You're perpetually evading direct questions, direct challenge; you continually derail threads with unrelated fabrications that have no relation/bearing to the subject at hand. You actually believe your distractions/fabrications are relevant; clearly, they're not... no matter how intellectually dishonest and disingenuous you are. One of the most telling aspects of your immaturity is to see you lash out and personalize when your charades are exposed for exactly what they are - nonsense.

You use vague terms and you keep switching arguments, ignoring evidence and using false assumptions as facts. Honestly I am wondering why I even bothered to argue with you... But I see something good coming out of this, at least you got some self-esteem boost right? I mean after weaving so many idiotic tales that were outright wrong and trying to confuse the issue you finally win, by default because I don't want to spend another minute explaining anything to you.

[dre]

First of all, that's why we belong to military alliances. Each of us alone might not have a large military, but together we have considerable power. And you can't belong if you don't bring something to the table. Second, that option you speak of is no option at all. It's totally unrealistic as it would take us several years at a bare minimum to produce any kind of halfway capable military from a standing start. Third, the countries that have the largest miilitaries are actually not doing all that badly. The ones doing worse are places like Italy and Greece, and Ireland, none of which is considered particularly militaristic.

Canada's military in the 1960s were twice their present strength and we didn't seem to have much difficulty funding them.

Canada already brings more than our share to the table with the military we have. Deadbeat alliances like Nato are afraid to put bodies in harms way, so Canadian troops end up fighting in shitholes and taking on the most intense roles.

Troop contributors include the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Georgia, Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden, Bulgaria, South Korea, Slovakia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Slovenia, Singapore,[6][7] and El Salvador.[8][9] The intensity of the combat faced by contributing nations varies greatly, with the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada sustaining the majority of casualties in intensive combat operations, with other contributors sustaining significantly less.

On 9 February 2004 Lieutenant General Rick Hillier of Canada took command, with Major General Werner Korte of Germany as deputy. During this timeframe, Canada was the largest contributor to the ISAF force, contributing 2,000 troops.

31 July 2006, Stage 3 was completed: The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force also assumed command in six provinces of the south. Regional Command South was established at Kandahar. Led by Canada, 8,000 soldiers are now positioned there.

[Signals.Cpl]

Canada already brings more than our share to the table with the military we have. Deadbeat alliances like Nato are afraid to put bodies in harms way, so Canadian troops end up fighting in shitholes and taking on the most intense roles.

Not necessarily true, the NATO structure might need reorganization but it is not obsolete by any means.

The whole point of NATO is as a deterrent, you fight one nations, you fight all nations in the alliance, the alliance needs to be refocused in order to move away from its cold war job of countering the Warsaw Pact but the reality is that NATO is probably the only major international alliance that can intervene in war zones.

[Guest Derek L]

Not necessarily true, the NATO structure might need reorganization but it is not obsolete by any means.

The whole point of NATO is as a deterrent, you fight one nations, you fight all nations in the alliance, the alliance needs to be refocused in order to move away from its cold war job of countering the Warsaw Pact but the reality is that NATO is probably the only major international alliance that can intervene in war zones.

Sorry, but I tend to agree with dre in regards to NATO. The cracks illustrated during the war in Afghanistan between members have run deep for decades and came to fruition during a time of war, hence bringing into question the alliances utility…….I.E you’re in a conflict, and some of the partners decide they’ll send troops but they’re not allowed to fight, other members sent nothing, well others pulled out based on domestic politics…….I firmly believe the Americans, and to a much lesser extent us, should no longer subsidize the defence of Europe.

As to Canadian bravado, during the 70s and 80s, are commitment to the alliance, to be polite, was weak, and many of our contributions almost a hindrance if there ever had been a third World War. That’s not to take away from the men and women that served during this time (Myself included) sense of sprit but more a reflection of Canadian politics during this time.

[waldo]

you're deluded. You simply can't discuss anything directly... you can't stay within a discussions subject/flow. You're perpetually evading direct questions, direct challenge; you continually derail threads with unrelated fabrications that have no relation/bearing to the subject at hand. You actually believe your distractions/fabrications are relevant; clearly, they're not... no matter how intellectually dishonest and disingenuous you are. One of the most telling aspects of your immaturity is to see you lash out and personalize when your charades are exposed for exactly what they are - nonsense.

You use vague terms and you keep switching arguments, ignoring evidence and using false assumptions as facts.

no - I am most direct and unlike you, stay focused on the discussion at hand. Your so-called "evidence", invariably, reflects upon your disjointed efforts, distractions, fabrications, deflections, etc.. I source any significant and pertinent details and provide full linkage references to same.

Honestly I am wondering why I even bothered to argue with you... But I see something good coming out of this, at least you got some self-esteem boost right? I mean after weaving so many idiotic tales that were outright wrong and trying to confuse the issue you finally win, by default because I don't want to spend another minute explaining anything to you.

truly, it pains me to showcase your reading, comprehension and articulation difficulties... as an indictment on the failure of our educational system, we all share in your struggles.

[PIK]

The DND needs to be cleaned out of all the liberal bearucrats from the chretien years and till they are cleaned out you will continus to see the problems.

[waldo]

The DND needs to be cleaned out of all the liberal bearucrats from the chretien years and till they are cleaned out you will continus to see the problems.

so... it's those 'Liberal bearcats'... a decade later! At what point will you finally begin to realize that Harper Conservative government (and its bearcats) have accountability? Just when will your described "cleaning period" be over?

[Signals.Cpl]

Sorry, but I tend to agree with dre in regards to NATO. The cracks illustrated during the war in Afghanistan between members have run deep for decades and came to fruition during a time of war, hence bringing into question the alliances utility…….I.E you’re in a conflict, and some of the partners decide they’ll send troops but they’re not allowed to fight, other members sent nothing, well others pulled out based on domestic politics…….I firmly believe the Americans, and to a much lesser extent us, should no longer subsidize the defence of Europe.

As to Canadian bravado, during the 70s and 80s, are commitment to the alliance, to be polite, was weak, and many of our contributions almost a hindrance if there ever had been a third World War. That’s not to take away from the men and women that served during this time (Myself included) sense of sprit but more a reflection of Canadian politics during this time.

Here's the thing though, NATO was designed for one reason, and now it is being used in a whole other range of conflicts that it was not intended to commit to. I think to revitalize NATO we need to expand membership and restructure as a means of providing the ability to meet a threat anywhere in the world. Include nations that are otherwise excluded exclusively due to geography in to the Alliance and expand on its responsibilities. The UN is incapable of doing the job, and NATO is basically the EU plus us and the states, if we can turn NATO in to an organization with wider membership and use the capabilities of its members to effectively face any threat we can have the chance to prevent war.

PK missions run by an organization that has the ability to deploy first world forces to meet any threat globally is much better then an organization that can deploy third world under-equipped soldiers with questionable ethics and skills and only if the first world funds and equips those soldiers. The need for NATO specifically is gone, but the need for an organization with NATO's capabilities but with a wider range of members(All continents) is ever present.

[Signals.Cpl]

The DND needs to be cleaned out of all the liberal bearucrats from the chretien years and till they are cleaned out you will continus to see the problems.

Not just them, DND needs to be separated from politics completely.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited June 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

you are woefully uninformed. Billions go from Alberta to the "have not" provinces thru the Feds transfer payment program. Your ignorance is appalling. Alberta is keeping this country going. And yet, my children pay 12,000 university tuition so that the Quebec paraites can pay 2600 - where is the fairness in that???

My ignorance is appalling to you, yet you're an opinionated blow-hard that doesn't even realize that Alberta makes no payments to the federal government whatsoever. The federal government generates its own revenues. Federal taxes in Alberta are exactly the same as federal taxes in New Brunswick. You then turn around and whine about provincial spending, which has absolutely nothing to do with transfer payments either. Provincial expenses are not a consideration for transfers. I think it's your own ignorance that appals you.

[cybercoma]

you miss my point. The unfairness is that certain provinces use the transfer payments to give their population benefits ( $7 day care and 2600 tuition) that the rest of the country doesn't have at the cost to the contributing province. I wonder how Quebec would fare if it didn't have access to the generous contributions from Alberta. would you care to speculate?

So you want the people of Alberta to have a voice in the provincial legislature (National Assembly) of Quebec?

Do you think PEI should have a say over how Alberta spends its money too?

[cybercoma]

I'm sorry. Are you suggesting the mandarins at DND are members of the Conservative Party of Canada?

Peter Mackay is their boss. Parliament approves the cheques. Peter Mackay can't tell Parliament where the money has gone. So in that sense, yeah. I do blame the CPC.

[waldo]

The need for NATO specifically is gone, but the need for an organization with NATO's capabilities but with a wider range of members(All continents) is ever present.

such naivety. Just how might such an organization be fostered... just how wide is your "wider range"?

[cybercoma]

That's where you tax the people in Alberta to send it to the spendthrift government of Quebec.

I figure someone that thinks as highly of themselves as you do would know that equalization payments have nothing to do with provincial expenses.

[Signals.Cpl]

I figure someone that thinks as highly of themselves as you do would know that equalization payments have nothing to do with provincial expenses.

But they have something to do with the provincial Revenues right?

[westguy]

Alberta doesn't make transfer payments.

Technically you are correct. The Feds TAKE the money from Alberta

[madmax]

Technically you are correct. The Feds TAKE the money from Alberta

As the feds collect taxation from all Canadians across this country. This should come as no surprise.

You want a military you have to pay for it.

You want waste and incompetence in the military bureacracy, then continue to change the subject.

[Guest Derek L]

Here's the thing though, NATO was designed for one reason, and now it is being used in a whole other range of conflicts that it was not intended to commit to. I think to revitalize NATO we need to expand membership and restructure as a means of providing the ability to meet a threat anywhere in the world. Include nations that are otherwise excluded exclusively due to geography in to the Alliance and expand on its responsibilities. The UN is incapable of doing the job, and NATO is basically the EU plus us and the states, if we can turn NATO in to an organization with wider membership and use the capabilities of its members to effectively face any threat we can have the chance to prevent war.

PK missions run by an organization that has the ability to deploy first world forces to meet any threat globally is much better then an organization that can deploy third world under-equipped soldiers with questionable ethics and skills and only if the first world funds and equips those soldiers. The need for NATO specifically is gone, but the need for an organization with NATO's capabilities but with a wider range of members(All continents) is ever present.

That’s the rub, do we need an alliance, with the majority of members not willing to share the burden? As to expansion (Of Eastern Bloc nations), not to sound bigoted, but the former Warsaw Pact countries have little to offer in terms of an expansion of capabilities and power projection…….In a conflict/Scenario with Russia they may act as a speed bump and allow the Alliance a little more time to formulate a defence via trading ground for time, but the likelihood of such a scenario in the near term is nil.

Which brings us back to the reality of modern conflicts and those nations that are truly willing to intervene, which is namely the Anglosphere nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and a few select others like the Dutch, Norwegians, Danes, Japanese and South Koreans……….What do the Greeks, French, Italians and Estonians really have to offer Canada?

[Signals.Cpl]

That’s the rub, do we need an alliance, with the majority of members not willing to share the burden?

Like everything else in life, if you are not willing to share the burden then you do not get the rewards either.

As to expansion (Of Eastern Bloc nations), not to sound bigoted, but the former Warsaw Pact countries have little to offer in terms of an expansion of capabilities and power projection…….In a conflict/Scenario with Russia they may act as a speed bump and allow the Alliance a little more time to formulate a defence via trading ground for time, but the likelihood of such a scenario in the near term is nil.

Thats the exact reason we need to restructure NATO, its not a means to fight a war with Russia anymore. Warsaw pact is dead, many of its members are now part of NATO, so the main reason NATO existed over the decades of the Cold War has evaporated, the need for the alliance is not gone, its just morphed in to something else completely. What the Warsaw Pact countries offer is willing partners who are working hard to meet the standards put forth by NATO.

Which brings us back to the reality of modern conflicts and those nations that are truly willing to intervene, which is namely the Anglosphere nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and a few select others like the Dutch, Norwegians, Danes, Japanese and South Koreans……….What do the Greeks, French, Italians and Estonians really have to offer Canada?

I don't know about the other,but I know that the Bulgarian Army deployed over 1,000 soldiers to both Afghanistan and Iraq, Estonia deployed around 200 soldiers Latvia and Lithuania deployed similar numbers as Estonia and Poland deployed upwards to 5,000 soldiers to both Iraq and Afghanistan. I would have to say that I prefer having smaller countries willing to help then larger nations with more capabilities unwilling to help. If we look at most East European countries, I woulds say they deployed more soldiers per total population (1.3mil for estonia they deployed 155 soldiers) (Macedonia deployed 177 soldiers with a total population of just over 2mil) Bulgaria(600 soldiers deployed out of 7.5million population) (Poland deployed 2500 out of 38mil)

France and Germany both deployed relatively small number of troops compared to their overall population and strength, I would say the newer members are more willing to play within the framework or NATO then its more established members.