Trudeau's First Moves

[Derek 2.0]

The problem is that it doesn't follow - we can't protect people in the Philippines by dropping bombs in Iraq. The problem may be global. The reach of our munitions is not.

Huh? The Americans have had special forces in the Philippines, at the request of the elected Government, aiding in the fight against radical Islam for decades. Clearly we're not the Americans, hence we wouldn't have a fraction of the global reach, but that doesn't explain why the Trudeau Government will cease combat operations aiding the democratic government of Iraq, at their request.

[Derek 2.0]

And so you think we can end radical Islam by dropping bombs. How's that working for us?

In Iraq and Syria, its working great, and has crippled ISIS from operating in a near conventional sense, with heavy (captured) weapons and large formations of personal, of which, allowed them to capture large swaths of land in both Iraq and Syria.....forcing them to return back to a largely static 4G force.

[Derek 2.0]

Uhh, neither did the Quebec government. Circumstances change. Trudeau will probably bail them out. Whatever he does, Harper would have done the same, as Liberals and Conservatives have very little daylight between them fiscally.

You have zero evidence to support that claim........

[ReeferMadness]

In Iraq and Syria, its working great, and has crippled ISIS from operating in a near conventional sense, with heavy (captured) weapons and large formations of personal, of which, allowed them to capture large swaths of land in both Iraq and Syria.....forcing them to return back to a largely static 4G force.

That's very impressive. The combined might of some of the biggest military forces in the can fight a ragtag group of fanatics, who rely on stealing weapons from forces the west supplied, to a draw. At least temporarily. Just have to keep it up for a few decades. Only ISIS keeps on popping up in more countries. So I guess we need to occupy all of them.

[Derek 2.0]

That's very impressive. The combined might of some of the biggest military forces in the can fight a ragtag group of fanatics, who rely on stealing weapons from forces the west supplied, to a draw. At least temporarily. Just have to keep it up for a few decades. Only ISIS keeps on popping up in more countries. So I guess we need to occupy all of them.

No, as said "biggest military forces" have refused to commit conventional ground troops to the conflict which would have ended it sooner.......simply put, if the Americans hadn't of left Iraq and continued training the new Iraqi military, ISIS would never have made the gains that it has to date.

With that said, providing air strikes, special forces etc in support of the Iraqi Government and Kurds, both areas in which they have little to no ability, has first halted the spread of ISIS and is now starting to retake what was loss.......just the other day, the Iraqi army was able to encircle Ramadi, cutting off most of the major routes into the city, due in part to coalition air strikes, that destroyed the heavy weapons defending the city.....There is no doubt though, that the process will take years, if not decades.

There isn't a need to occupy countries, but to ensure we support the Governments of said countries that are fighting ISIS and request help from the international community.

[Smallc]

Huh? The Americans have had special forces in the Philippines

And that's why we need to keep dropping bombs in Iraq....

[Smallc]

You have zero evidence to support that claim........

And you have zero evidence to refute it. Given the Harper auto bailout, it's easy to infer what he'd have done here.

[ReeferMadness]

No, as said "biggest military forces" have refused to commit conventional ground troops to the conflict which would have ended it sooner.......simply put, if the Americans hadn't of left Iraq and continued training the new Iraqi military, ISIS would never have made the gains that it has to date.

You mean like staying in Afghanistan ended the Taliban and Al Qaeda? How many decades does it take?

What shameless revisionism. The problem wasn't the Americans left Iraq - the problem was that they invaded in the first place. And then made an unholy mess of the place by handing all of the power to one of the factions. Neither ISIS nor Al Qaeda were there before they invaded.

[Derek 2.0]

And that's why we need to keep dropping bombs in Iraq....

Yes, as its a demonstration that this is a global conflict.........the Allies didn't pick and choose where they would confront the Axis forces on a strategic scale........Trudeau's proposed policy now is akin to King withdrawing combat forces prior to the invasion of Italy.

[Derek 2.0]

And you have zero evidence to refute it. Given the Harper auto bailout, it's easy to infer what he'd have done here.

Other than the fact that he didn't, no, I don't.

[Smallc]

Other than the fact that he didn't, no, I don't.

Well at this point, no one has. I'm talking about the likely outcome no matter the party in power.

[Derek 2.0]

You mean like staying in Afghanistan ended the Taliban and Al Qaeda? How many decades does it take?

Well no, we didn't stay in Afghanistan, and Obama has now extended the mission past the end of his presidency, due in large to the realization that his policy of pulling troops out of Iraq was a failure........How many decades? Who knows, for example United Nations Command (the UN command structure for forces in South Korea) was disbanded in the later 70s, over 20 years after signing on the armistice, and even then, the Americans still maintain a large military force in South Korea.

What shameless revisionism. The problem wasn't the Americans left Iraq - the problem was that they invaded in the first place. And then made an unholy mess of the place by handing all of the power to one of the factions. Neither ISIS nor Al Qaeda were there before they invaded.

No revisionism at all.......Assad's Syria has had an army much the same size and scope of Saddam's force pre the 1991 Gulf War, and we didn't invade Syria.......yet the place became an unholy mess, sans Western intervention, so to suggest ISIS wouldn't have came about if Saddam was still in power is pure speculation.

None the less, its a mess now, and leaving it won't make it better, hence Trudeau's policy is wrongheaded.

[Smallc]

Well at this point, no one has. I'm talking about the likely outcome no matter the party in power.

Oh looky, I'm wrong:

Bombardier's corporate welfare began, at least federally, in 1966 when it received its first disbursement of $35 million from the federal department, Industry Canada. In the decades since, various Bombardier iterations received over $1.1 billion (all figures adjusted for inflation) in 48 separate disbursements from just Industry Canada. That includes two 2009 cheques worth $233 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-milke/bombardier-corporate-welfare-trap_b_4705751.html

[Derek 2.0]

Well at this point, no one has. I'm talking about the likely outcome no matter the party in power.

Well Harper didn't shower Bombardier with taxpayer's money.........so you're wrong to suggest that he would have. If Trudeau doesn't, I'd support his choice.

[Smallc]

Well Harper didn't shower Bombardier with taxpayer's money...

But he did. Just look above your post. Harper - the constant pragmatist.

[Derek 2.0]

But he did. Just look above your post. Harper - the constant pragmatist.

Big difference between loan guarantees measured in the hundreds of millions during the economic crisis, well in a minority Government, and bailing out a corporation to the tune of several billion dollars, so they can continue their adventurism into a market owned by Boeing and Airbus. Nice try though...

[Smallc]

I'll let that speak for itself.

[marcus]

1. A massive taxpayer funded renovation of the house he will be moving into, that will cost more than it would to knock it down and build a new one from scratch.

Already touched on. It had to be done.

2. Taking away the freedom of people to keep the government out of their daily lives to gather information on trivial things like "What kind of toilet do you have in your household?" by reinstating the mandatory long-form census,

The long-form census was and remains critical for evidence-based, people-centred policy-making. Reliable data is necessary for communities, cities, provinces and the federal government to plan ahead. This includes things like transit planning, housing strategies, healthcare, EI, target investments, etc.

3. And now we are already talking about a bailout for Bombardier, since it can't make money off things like leer jets in an era where CEOs of companies are actually willing to tighten their belts by downgrading to 1st class.

I agree with this. Corporate welfare is not a good idea. I hope there is a plan for Bombardier to pay this back.

At the same time, I wonder how you, who have repeatedly supported Harper's actions, feel about Harper's bailouts to the auto industry, the massive incentives to the energy sector and several other corporate gifts.

Is this another case of double standards?

Edited November 5, 2015 by marcus

[The_Squid]

Other than the fact that he didn't, no, I don't.

Big difference between loan guarantees measured in the hundreds of millions during the economic crisis, well in a minority Government, and bailing out a corporation to the tune of several billion dollars, so they can continue their adventurism into a market owned by Boeing and Airbus. Nice try though...

lol

You definitely moved the goal posts between those 2 posts....

[Derek 2.0]

lol

You definitely moved the goal posts between those 2 posts....

Not at all, Industry Canada provides loan guarantees to all manner of business across Canada, big and small.......big difference between that and giving Bombardier billions (when they can't find anymore private lenders or raise money by issuing shares) so they can continue into a market that they have no real chance of competing in.

[On Guard for Thee]

Did that program come under the "Economic Action Plan" I wonder? How many millions did that piece of useless shit cost us?

[Smallc]

Not at all, Industry Canada provides loan guarantees

And how do you know that's not what the government will do, if they do anything?

[Derek 2.0]

And how do you know that's not what the government will do, if they do anything?

Simple, because that is not whats being asked of the Government of Quebec and Canada. Both the previous Conservative and Liberal Governments have backed loans and even provided third party financing for Bombardier's customers and suppliers, through both Industry Canada and Export Development Canada, which they do for countless businesses across Canada.

The difference here is that Bombardier is asking for straight-up cash to fund its launch into an already saturated market.........they are so desperate, in the months previous, they offered Airbus the controlling stake in the C-Series in exchange for cash and Airbus told them to pound sand. Anyone with a half a brain would question why Airbus, a company that produces the direct competitors to the proposed C-Series, would walk away from controlling the program.....if, as Bombardier suggests, the C-Series is to be lightning in a bottle........

Fore if that were the case, Airbus could insure the C-Series doesn't directly compete with their products, and where the C-Series did win contracts, Airbus would get a piece of the action.....on paper, a win-win for Airbus.......if the C-Series lived up to expectations that is. As it stands, one of the giants in the industry, offered the program on a silver platter, walked away..........that is why no other private investors with go anywhere near Bombardier, and is why the Government of Canada should run away in the opposite direction.

[Smallc]

Simple, because that is not whats being asked of the Government of Quebec and Canada.

You mean something like this:

OTTAWA—Canada contributed 350 million Canadian dollars (US$296 million) to the development of Bombardier Inc.’s CSeries because it concluded the project would be at risk without government backing, according to a 2013 government evaluation.

That evaluation found that without that C$350 million pledge by Ottawa for the CSeries plan unveiled by Bombardier in 2008, there was a risk the project “would not have proceeded.” Ottawa’s financing, the government analysis added, helped contribute toward technology gains that would lead to lower fuel consumption.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-loan-crucial-to-bombardier-cseries-project-1420763738

As far as I can tell, they're asking for more of the same thing.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

You mean something like this:

OTTAWA—Canada contributed 350 million Canadian dollars (US$296 million) to the development of Bombardier Inc.’s CSeries because it concluded the project would be at risk without government backing, according to a 2013 government evaluation.

That evaluation found that without that C$350 million pledge by Ottawa for the CSeries plan unveiled by Bombardier in 2008, there was a risk the project “would not have proceeded.” Ottawa’s financing, the government analysis added, helped contribute toward technology gains that would lead to lower fuel consumption.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-loan-crucial-to-bombardier-cseries-project-1420763738

As far as I can tell, they're asking for more of the same thing.

As I said above.........EDC (through Industry Canada) has had a fund approaching 2 billion for backing Bombardier sales/suppliers for over a decade (since 2003-2004) now and is no different then any other Canadian company that exports their products with GoC backing ..........but thanks for trying to teach me what I already know.

And no, now they are asking for cash to keep the company afloat........they didn't offer Airbus a controlling stake in the C-Series because they wanted Airbus to back their loans or provide a level of insurance for export deals, financed by EDC.