Harper is taking a page out of the US propoganda book

[Charles Anthony]

{I think we might be a target already...}

Read the original post. The position is clear.

"I guarantee these people are inspired by the war and death being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan and not some 'they hate our freedom' bullshit that the brainwashed like to spew."

The inference is that:

First, we fought in the Middle East.

Second, we made ourselves a target.

So, no, we were NOT "a target already" BY HIS OPINION. However, we are in it deep and quitting will not likely eliminate us a potential target IF YOU AGREE WITH HIS POSITION.

[AndrewL]

Please resist the temptation to give your opinion on issues unless you first research and understand them.

FTA

Why would i resist the temptation.

Because it makes you look dumb.

You were speculating about the evil mounties entraping poor young Muslim boys, and using legal terms like habeus corpus when you apparently didn't know what they meant.

Thanks for the repeat, maybe next time you can post something original you twit...

[killjoy]

He is already looking to spend millions on the military. If he can spin this whole event the right way it might give him carte blanche to increase the size and reach of our miliatry. Next thing you know we will be holding hands with the US in their next fabricated war, and becoming a target in return.

Martin gave a boost to the military budget by 10 Billion. It was a campaign promise that apparently Liberals liked. About half went to long overdue repairs (so it was mandatory, not a boost), about 1/4 went entirely to JFT2 (now increased 5x to about 500 personnel) and a puny 1/4 was left for the entire rest of the forces. Martin also promised to continue with budget boosts and permanent increases.

People have been harping about the ailing military for years. As someone who feels no solidarity with any particular party I can't help but see how a military budget increase is fine if the Liberals are doing it, even if their spending structure is screwed (1/4 of it just for the JTF2?), but as soon as a Conservative party does it -- oh well all of a sudden it's time for the Bush analogies.

Or is it just that liberal supporters only read the news when it suits them?

.

[AndrewL]

He is already looking to spend millions on the military. If he can spin this whole event the right way it might give him carte blanche to increase the size and reach of our miliatry. Next thing you know we will be holding hands with the US in their next fabricated war, and becoming a target in return.

Martin gave a boost to the military budget by 10 Billion. It was a campaign promise that apparently Liberals liked. About half went to long overdue repairs (so it was mandatory, not a boost), about 1/4 went entirely to JFT2 (now increased 5x to about 500 personnel) and a puny 1/4 was left for the entire rest of the forces. Martin also promised to continue with budget boosts and permanent increases.

People have been harping about the ailing military for years. As someone who feels no solidarity with any particular party I can't help but see how a military budget increase is fine if the Liberals are doing it, even if their spending structure is screwed (1/4 of it just for the JTF2?), but as soon as a Conservative party does it -- oh well all of a sudden it's time for the Bush analogies.

Or is it just that liberal supporters only read the news when it suits them?

.

I would not support any party increasig the size and reach of our military. Nothing good can come of that. If they need to maintain the current military and supply the troops with good dependable equipment then so be it. I would rather they pulled the troops out and coverted our military into a disaster releif force. BTW, I have never voted liberal or conservative.

Andrew

[Charles Anthony]

I can't help but see how a military budget increase is fine if the Liberals are doing it,

The discrepancy may have to do with HOW the money is spent.

If the Liberal way of funding the military involves siphoning-advertizing-middle-men-supporters-finder's-fees-contracts-skimming-off-the-top-non-functional-second-hand-submarines-with-commissions-going-to-a-friend-of-the-governments-company budgets, it is perfectly acceptable to Liberals.

However, if the Conservative way of funding the military involves funding-the-military, it is bad to Liberals.

[Argus]

I would not support any party increasig the size and reach of our military.

The great majority of Canadians appear to disagree with you.

Nothing good can come of that.

Yes, your counterpart in Poland no-doubt said the same thing in 1938. "Why increase funding for the military? Horses were fine in my day! No need for those fancy new tanks and airplanes! No good can come from having a strong military!"

If they need to maintain the current military and supply the troops with good dependable equipment then so be it. I would rather they pulled the troops out and coverted our military into a disaster releif force. BTW, I have never voted liberal or conservative.

Andrew

Communist? Marxist-Leninist? Anarchist?

[Argus]

Please resist the temptation to give your opinion on issues unless you first research and understand them.

Why would i resist the temptation.

Because it makes you look dumb.

Thanks for the repeat, maybe next time you can post something original you twit...

I apologise if pointing out how dumb your response was made you feel even dumber than you did before. But your response to FTA made it appear as though you might be too dumb to understand how dumb your opinon made you look. So really, I was just trying to help.

[AndrewL]

I would not support any party increasig the size and reach of our military.

The great majority of Canadians appear to disagree with you.

And you are basing that on what? Harper is representative of 20-30% of the nation at best.

Nothing good can come of that.

Yes, your counterpart in Poland no-doubt said the same thing in 1938. "Why increase funding for the military? Horses were fine in my day! No need for those fancy new tanks and airplanes! No good can come from having a strong military!"

Do you see a threat anywhere on the world even remotely similar to Nazi germany? I sure as hell don't. You shoud come up with ananlogies that actually fit the times.

If they need to maintain the current military and supply the troops with good dependable equipment then so be it. I would rather they pulled the troops out and coverted our military into a disaster releif force. BTW, I have never voted liberal or conservative.

Andrew

Communist? Marxist-Leninist? Anarchist?

We have an anarchist party? No, I alternate between Green and NDP. They are actually focused on important issues. Not time wasters like gay marriage or abortion..... The liberals are just useless.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Please resist the temptation to give your opinion on issues unless you first research and understand them.

Why would i resist the temptation.

Because it makes you look dumb.

Thanks for the repeat, maybe next time you can post something original you twit...

I apologise if pointing out how dumb your response was made you feel even dumber than you did before. But your response to FTA made it appear as though you might be too dumb to understand how dumb your opinon made you look. So really, I was just trying to help.

Well post something that actually contributes instead of just filling space with garbage.

Andrew

[Argus]

Thanks for the repeat, maybe next time you can post something original you twit...

I apologise if pointing out how dumb your response was made you feel even dumber than you did before. But your response to FTA made it appear as though you might be too dumb to understand how dumb your opinon made you look. So really, I was just trying to help.

Well post something that actually contributes instead of just filling space with garbage.

Andrew

Well, if your posts were more intelligent and articulate I would have more to work with...

[Greg]

Come on guys, lets cut the off-topic banter about who's dumber.

Use the PM feature if you want to accuse each other of something.

[GostHacked]

Get back to the topic at hand guys and stop filling up the place with garbage. Both of you.

Now I don't mind an increase for the military, just because it has been neglected for so long. We do not need the BEST army in the world, but we need an army and equipment that works. And works together. Budget cuts risk more soldiers lives with shoddy equipment (those jeeps in Afghanistan and the ever so great Sea King)

Fewer soldiers, better equipment.

[Charles Anthony]

I would rather they pulled the troops out and coverted our military into a disaster releif force.

I agree.

I would prefer a strong military that focussed primarily on domestic defence and disaster relief.

International peace-keeping and war-fare are important but when it comes to a federal government's responsibility, they are secondary.

[Argus]

Fewer soldiers, better equipment.

We can't afford fewer soldiers. We have few enough as it is. More soldiers and better equipment would be preferable. Also a re-org which put more men in boots at the batallion level and less in dress shoes at HQ.

But that has nothing to do with Bush. Canadian conservatives have been calling for increased military funding and more soldiers for decades. Just because Bush likes dogs that does not imply anyone who has a fondness for the beasts is a Bush clone.

[Argus]

I would rather they pulled the troops out and coverted our military into a disaster releif force.

I agree.

I would prefer a strong military that focussed primarily on domestic defence and disaster relief.

What is disaster relief? Providing security and helping rebuild, right? So how is that different from what they're doing in Afghanistan?

International peace-keeping and war-fare are important but when it comes to a federal government's responsibility, they are secondary.

And no-doubt if there was a national disaster which required them here they'd be here. But there is also a responsibility as part of the international community to help make the world we live in a little better and a little safer from crazy people.

[Charles Anthony]

I would rather they pulled the troops out and coverted our military into a disaster releif force.

I agree.

I would prefer a strong military that focussed primarily on domestic defence and disaster relief.

What is disaster relief? Providing security and helping rebuild, right? So how is that different from what they're doing in Afghanistan?

Forgive me. I was not clear enough. I should have said:

"focussed primarily on domestic defence and domestic disaster relief."

My point is that the primary responsibility should be for domestic concerns.

But there is also a responsibility as part of the international community to help make the world we live in a little better and a little safer from crazy people.

I put international responsibility secondary to domestic responsibility AND I would bet that most Canadians agree with me on that general point.

[killjoy]

Why? Is Canada disaster prone?

Also, why is it that some people love to deny that a mission in Afghanistan could makes things safer for us but are all too willing to admit that it could make things worse for us? Which is it? Either forces on foreign soil can do either, or neither, but not one without the other.

.

[Argus]

I would rather they pulled the troops out and coverted our military into a disaster releif force.

I agree.

I would prefer a strong military that focussed primarily on domestic defence and disaster relief.

What is disaster relief? Providing security and helping rebuild, right? So how is that different from what they're doing in Afghanistan?

Forgive me. I was not clear enough. I should have said:

"focussed primarily on domestic defence and domestic disaster relief."

My point is that the primary responsibility should be for domestic concerns.

I don't think there's much question that is the case. We just don't happen to have any disasters for them to relieve at the moment, nor are they needed for domestic defence. The caveat being I don't believe there are enough naval resources to secure our coasts and I believe we should ensure that they receive the resources they need. I would put that priority, and the funding for it, above any foreign missions. But I believe the Conservatives are likely to provide both - though the Liberals clearly did not.

[Charles Anthony]

It sounds like we agree more on the principles of priority.

"We just don't happen to have any disasters for them to relieve at the moment,"

You are right. We do not have a natural disaster now.

My position is that I would always have a domestic reserve ready on guard for the potential disaster BEFORE sending a single force off Canadian soil. We may have that right now, I do not know. In principle, that is my priority.

"nor are they needed for domestic defence."

I disagree.

I would rather bring back every single member of the armed forces and keep them at home to aid in law and order.

I would like to elaborate on the role that I believe the military should play domestically to aid in law and order but to be fair, it should be in a different thread. Maybe I will start one.

"The caveat being I don't believe there are enough naval resources to secure our coasts"

I am not knowledgeable enough to agree or disagree with you (mind you, that never stopped me from voicing an ignoriant opinion before!) so I will take your word for it.

"and I believe we should ensure that they receive the resources they need. I would put that priority, and the funding for it, above any foreign missions. But I believe the Conservatives are likely to provide both - though the Liberals clearly did not."

We agree.

[killjoy]

My position is that I would always have a domestic reserve ready on guard for the potential disaster BEFORE sending a single force off Canadian soil.

We have enough reservists and free forces right now to handle another Manitoba flood or Easter Ice storm.

"nor are they needed for domestic defence."

I disagree.

I would rather bring back every single member of the armed forces and keep them at home to aid in law and order.

I would like to elaborate on the role that I believe the military should play domestically to aid in law and order but to be fair, it should be in a different thread. Maybe I will start one.

local police.

provincial police.

rcmp.

csis.

You really think more police are going to, what? Fix our 'massive' crime problem? C'mon man.

.

[Argus]

"nor are they needed for domestic defence."

I disagree.

I would rather bring back every single member of the armed forces and keep them at home to aid in law and order.

I would like to elaborate on the role that I believe the military should play domestically to aid in law and order but to be fair, it should be in a different thread. Maybe I will start one.

local police.

provincial police.

rcmp.

csis.

You really think more police are going to, what? Fix our 'massive' crime problem? C'mon man.

.

They'd certainly help. Canada is one of the most underpoliced of western nations. The US, UK and Australia have considerably higher police per citizen, while European nations like Germany and France have far, far higher numbers. France, as an example, has something over 3 times more police per citizen than Canada does. Imagine if you tripled the number of cops in Toronto. Do you think anyone would get away with shooting it out on the main street outside the Eaton's Centre? Do you think maybe we'd have better luck securing our borders against smuggling of weapons? Do you think maybe we'd have a better handle on the gang problem? Paul Martin disbanded the federal Ports Police to save money. The result is that our ports are largely in the control of organized crime (senate report). In many parts of rural and semi rural Canada it can take an hour to get a cop to your door after an emergency call. I'm not talking about the boonies here, but the outlying areas around major cities. So yes, more police would certainly help. We might not have a "massive" crime problem, but we certainly do have enough crime to be wary.

[BubberMiley]

Imagine if you tripled the number of cops in Toronto. Do you think anyone would get away with shooting it out on the main street outside the Eaton's Centre?

I thought they caught that guy.

[killjoy]

Imagine if you tripled the number of cops in Toronto. Do you think anyone would get away with shooting it out on the main street outside the Eaton's Centre?

Of course they would/could. Just like they can in the US where you say they have considerably more. The real question is how many in the US are doing that and how many are doing it here. You can wave a wand right now and make ever CF member a cop and you still wont have one on every corner.

Do you think maybe we'd have better luck securing our borders against smuggling of weapons?

Maybe. If we got an inch of help with this from the US we could for sure, but they are too busy countering concerns of their own with pot and 'terrorist coming from here'.

Do you think maybe we'd have a better handle on the gang problem?

Really I don't. Gang violence is a ubiquitous problem anywhere there is concentrated poverty. Brazil has never fought gangs with anything other than violence, soldiers even. Where are they now? Still poor. Still gang ridden.

Paul Martin disbanded the federal Ports Police to save money. The result is that our ports are largely in the control of organized crime (senate report).

All that says to me is that we need to reinstate them.

In many parts of rural and semi rural Canada it can take an hour to get a cop to your door after an emergency call.

Fortunately that is statistically where they are least needed. It's one thing to think you can cover the city with a cop on every corner. What on earth makes you think we can cover the rural areas?

So yes, more police would certainly help. We might not have a "massive" crime problem, but we certainly do have enough crime to be wary.

I can get behind this, sure. What I'm trying to point out is that when you simply increase the size of force vs force without implementing some better out-of-the-box thinking you get less force not more. There is diminishing return to increasing man power. They all need to be trained, recruited and recruited again, equipped and inevitably the larger the force the lower the level of skill becomes.

One thing we could do, from out-of-the-box so to speak is implement more aerial units both manned and unmanned. They've done wonders for us in Afghanistan.

There is another consideration to having a large capable armed force. If we are to participate in any way with the rest of the world, be it through the UN, NATO or some other organization, if we wish to have any say at all in whether or not force is used we need to have a force worth considering if we decide to with hold it as part of negotiation.

.

[BubberMiley]

It would be much cheaper to appoint a privacy commissioner who'll go along with video cameras on every street corner, like in London. They would never have known who the subway bombers were without them.

[killjoy]

Not to go on and on, but without looking I wonder if it could even be mostly a regional thing. It might well be that there are certain areas of Canada that are much more under-policed than others. IOW, the problem might not just 'seem' worse to some Canadians, it might actually be worse where they are.

.