jbg Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 For Trudeau Sr, the economy was something that completely baffled him for his entire career. That was ironic for a man who never saw a social program he didn't like, and that the country could not afford. Wage and price controls, anybody?Actually he was right about wage-price controls in the "zap-freeze" remarks. He eventually caved in to political pressure and imposed controls. Of course, they didn't work as well as Nixon's controls had, which is to say not very well. Nixon's at least gave the appearance of success around the time of the 1972 elections. I don't think Trudeau's controls had even that long a run of success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Exactly. Afghanistan - the 3000 year-old armpit of Asia, always among the most violent, backwards and isolated places on Earth.And its violence militates against any improvement. Seriously who is going to invest or travel there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeNumber Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 And its violence militates against any improvement. Seriously who is going to invest or travel there? What is even worth investing in over there? The opium trade? Rugs? We should have never gone in there. Not worth it. Waste of our countries military, time, money and resources. I don't even know why people would want to live there. Aside from some picturesque landscapes and manpower it has nothing to offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Remember trudeau has been told he is awesome everyday of his life and he believes it. I think he actually thinks once he become PM ,he is going to have everyone sit around the camp fire and and walk away with peace. I believe he actually thinks that. This kid is dangerous to our way of life. And the military ,that the liberals have been trying to get rid of will be cut to the bone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Actually he was right about wage-price controls in the "zap-freeze" remarks. He eventually caved in to political pressure and imposed controls. Of course, they didn't work as well as Nixon's controls had, which is to say not very well. Nixon's at least gave the appearance of success around the time of the 1972 elections. I don't think Trudeau's controls had even that long a run of success. The 'political pressure ' was his own. Trudeaus ideas of the economics of a just society were much more closely aligned with countries he admired like Cuba and China. He abhorred anything that would link him with American ideology. There was no 'run of success' because it was and is a stupid idea for anybody with any grasp of economics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 The 'political pressure ' was his own. Trudeaus ideas of the economics of a just society were much more closely aligned with countries he admired like Cuba and China. He abhorred anything that would link him with American ideology. There was no 'run of success' because it was and is a stupid idea for anybody with any grasp of economics Besides which he had just won an election campaigning against wage and price controls "Zap, you're frozen" was the central theme of the Liberal election campaign as they fought against the very idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 And its violence militates against any improvement. Seriously who is going to invest or travel there? The point is that the US was silly to try and put a democratic government in place there. It was tremendously wasteful of resources, and set us all up for failure, since anything less than a functioning democratic state would be so described. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Remember trudeau has been told he is awesome everyday of his life and he believes it. I think he actually thinks once he become PM ,he is going to have everyone sit around the camp fire and and walk away with peace. I believe he actually thinks that. This kid is dangerous to our way of life. And the military ,that the liberals have been trying to get rid of will be cut to the bone. Heaven forbid we try to persue the idea of peace. The military industrial complex will never stand for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Heaven forbid we try to persue the idea of peace. The military industrial complex will never stand for that. I prefer to pursue peace in the way that neutral nonaligned countries like Sweden and Switzerland. Friendly, cheerful and armed to the teeth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Get us to that same neutral position and I'll be all for arming ourselves to the teeth. Otherwise, I'm perfectly content to slash and burn military spending to the ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Get us to that same neutral position and I'll be all for arming ourselves to the teeth. Otherwise, I'm perfectly content to slash and burn military spending to the ground. Before you can get to that exalted state, you need the guns. This is not some puzzling chicken vs egg situation. Oh, and both countries are major arms exporters. You're OK with that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm not okay with that, we should strive to leave these two in the dust. And we don't need guns. We have uranium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm not okay with that, we should strive to leave these two in the dust. And we don't need guns. We have uranium. So we have uranium. And? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 We can arm ourselves to the teeth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 There was no 'run of success' because it was and is a stupid idea for anybody with any grasp of economicsI don't disagree. In the U.S. Phases 1 and 2 of controls, roughly corresponding to 1971, 1972 and the first 11 days of 1973 were somewhat successful. They were scrapped just before the shortages they were about to spawn hit the news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 We can arm ourselves to the teeth. Going nuclear is only good as a bluff. It's not like you can actually use it except as a last resort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 Going nuclear is only good as a bluff. It's not like you can actually use it except as a last resort. We could just be like North Korea and threaten people with them. Of course we would be screwed if anyone called our bluff, particularly if they happened to have more of them than us. In addition to building the weapons, we would still have to build systems to deliver them. Unless of course we just plan on using them to blow ourselves up. Trident subs anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) We could just be like North Korea and threaten people with them. North Korea's real threat is its immense army, and the fact it's practically within artillery range of Seoul. Edited January 27, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 We could just be like North Korea and threaten people with them. Of course we would be screwed if anyone called our bluff, particularly if they happened to have more of them than us. In addition to building the weapons, we would still have to build systems to deliver them. Unless of course we just plan on using them to blow ourselves up. Trident subs anyone? Of course, morality and international/domestic political outrage aside, to purchase and operate a Trident sub fleet like the Royal Navy, we’d be looking at a financial outlay greater than both the F-35 and National Shipbuilding programs…..of course that doesn’t include the actual SLBMs (which the British still receive service and support of by the Americans) or the warheads (our various other forces to protect them)……..and of course, the Royal Navy has/had corporate knowledge in operating both maritime nuclear propulsion and strategic nuclear weapons…….we do not. In essence, we’d require the support of one of the current nuclear powers, or better put, the folks eyeball wishes to fend off…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 We build a doomsday bomb. The way I see it is that if an evil invader has somehow made it past all the other nuclear powers then it's probably not a world anyone would want to live in so...hasta la vista. The point is guy's we could very easily build ourselves a nuclear bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 North Korea's real threat is its immense army, and the fact it's practically within artillery range of Seoul.Last I read is yes, theres a metric shite-load of them, but they are starving for food, work at odd jobs to get rations of food and wouldnt last a week in combat. Not to mention the ability to mobilize them doesnt appear anywhere. But you more knowledgeable war guys might differ in opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 The point is guy's we could very easily build ourselves a nuclear bomb. Quote MultiQuote Great idea. Then we could sell them for big money to small countries who cannot afford to defend themselves otherwise. We'll be like global suicide bombers: get away or we'll kill ourselves!!!! The bomb industry could bring all those juicy jobs back to Ontario!!!. UNtil China undercut us in the business, again. Darn. Do you have another plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 North Korea's real threat is its immense army, and the fact it's practically within artillery range of Seoul. It's army is only a threat to South Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Great idea. Then we could sell them for big money to small countries who cannot afford to defend themselves otherwise. We'll be like global suicide bombers: get away or we'll kill ourselves!!!! The bomb industry could bring all those juicy jobs back to Ontario!!!. UNtil China undercut us in the business, again. Darn. Do you have another plan? We'd only have to threaten to build them. To really make ourselves invincible all we'd have to do is stash away a bunch of AK-47's and C4, threaten to become insurgents and Bob's your Uncle. Even the most powerful nation on Earth (and the most likely to ever invade us) wouldn't stand a chance. We'd could probably do all this for the cost of a couple of F-35's. Edited January 27, 2015 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 27, 2015 Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 We'd only have to threaten to build them. To really make ourselves invincible all we'd have to do is stash away a bunch of AK-47's and C4, threaten to become insurgents and Bob's your Uncle. Even the most powerful nation on Earth (and the most likely to ever invade us) wouldn't stand a chance. We'd could probably do all this for the cost of a couple of F-35's. And you will be the first volunteer to blow yourself up, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.