Jump to content

Cdn Military Will Disappear


Recommended Posts

I am a new member and i have one comment about this

THE CANADIAN MILITARY NEEDS BETTER FUNDING!, without a military we are facing loads or s.... that we really don't want to happen. my thoughts on this is why doesn't think government take like a 2% of their earnings and put it towards our military, personally everyone i talk to about this little idea has come to think it would really work. :blink::o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Screw the military. We don't need it. Our biggest military threat lies to the south and let's face it: we could never compete with the bloated u.s. military industrial complex.

Peacekeeping is little more than a way for Canadians at home to pat themselves on the back and say what a great job we're doing, without questioning the motives of our involvement nor the circumstances that necessitate dit in the first place. Look at Afghanistan, where Canadian troops are acting as a proxy force for the U.S., keeping the lid on things there while the boss runs some errands in Iraq.

Overall, most of the arguments as to why Canada needs a "strong" military seem to stem from some sort of insecurity over the size of our collective national dick. (Witness earlier comments about needing to play with the "big boys". :blink: ) Rather than washing billions of dollars down the drain for a bloated, directionless military, let's ditch the Freudian motivations and look at what we really need.

1) A small, core force that could react quickly to matters of national defense (borders, etc.) and, in the event of a large scale conflict, train and support a volunteer reserve force.

2) S&R and Maritime enforcement to be made the domain of agencies such as the R.C.M.P.

3) an foreign policy independant of the U.S. and the outdated NATO alliance. Pull us out of NATO na dbegin a full-scale review of military and foreign policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw the military. We don't need it. Our biggest military threat lies to the south and let's face it: we could never compete with the bloated u.s. military industrial complex.

Maybe we can't compete with the US, but let's not just hand them our sovereignty on a silver platter. That's just asking for trouble.

Peacekeeping is little more than a way for Canadians at home to pat themselves on the back and say what a great job we're doing, without questioning the motives of our involvement nor the circumstances that necessitate dit in the first place. Look at Afghanistan, where Canadian troops are acting as a proxy force for the U.S., keeping the lid on things there while the boss runs some errands in Iraq.
3) an foreign policy independant of the U.S.

This about the only thing I agree with. We have become too closely tied to the US in terms of defence. If we ever needed to defend ourselves, we really would need American help.

But, heres the rub. That is why we need a relatively strong military, because if we pull out of NATO, as you suggest, and stop being the US's military gopher, there will be some rather displeased people in Washington. We need a force at least capable of deterring somebody.

1) A small, core force that could react quickly to matters of national defense (borders, etc.) and, in the event of a large scale conflict, train and support a volunteer reserve force.

In the event of a large scale conflict, our military will not have time to train and support a volunteer force. There is nothing wrong with having mostly reservists, with only a small standing force, but they need to be pre-trained, and would need to continue training regularly.

Switzerland has only been able to remain neutral through hundreds of years of war, including both world wars, becuase every capable man of age is a reservist in their military. (That, and they're in a real defensible position, high in the mountains).

Overall, most of the arguments as to why Canada needs a "strong" military seem to stem from some sort of insecurity over the size of our collective national dick.

Maybe, but we can only try to be high on standards that other people accept. If the world in general looks at dick size, then damned if we don't need a big dick to illustrate our sovereignty and importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we can't compete with the US, but let's not just hand them our sovereignty on a silver platter. That's just asking for trouble

That ship, I fear, has sailed. The Canadian military is already integrated up the wazoo with teh U.S. (NORAD, which Canada is part of, is under U.S. command). Meanwhile, Paul Martin and Steven Harper continue to push to adopt U.S. policies such as collaborating on the controversial missile defence system, handing over more intelligence on Canadian citizens to U.S. authorities, and dropping our higher standards and regulatory protection to U.S. levels.

But, heres the rub. That is why we need a relatively strong military, because if we pull out of NATO, as you suggest, and stop being the US's military gopher, there will be some rather displeased people in Washington. We need a force at least capable of deterring somebody.

I think we can both agree that there's no way in amillion years we could deter the U.S.A. If they did try a military occupation of Canada (which is, incidentally, still on the books), the best we could manage is a guerrilla resistance. A sit is, though, they won't need to as canadian politicians and business interests are all to eager to bend over to the behemoth to the south.

In the event of a large scale conflict, our military will not have time to train and support a volunteer force. There is nothing wrong with having mostly reservists, with only a small standing force, but they need to be pre-trained, and would need to continue training regularly.

The system I proposed worked quite well for this country during both world wars.

Switzerland has only been able to remain neutral through hundreds of years of war, including both world wars, becuase every capable man of age is a reservist in their military. (That, and they're in a real defensible position, high in the mountains).

Cnada wouldn't even need required military service, as its not justified eitehr by the threats against us or by the simple reality that the country is too damn big and too damn inaccessable to invade.

Maybe, but we can only try to be high on standards that other people accept. If the world in general looks at dick size, then damned if we don't need a big dick to illustrate our sovereignty and importance.

I have no desire to see my tax dollars go to support a geopolitical circle jerk. Now that I've pushed that metaphor to the brink, let me say that we need to stop giving a damn about how we are viewed by other nations and focus on providing for our own citizens needs. That's shoukld always be the numbe rone priority of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was Craig Read and why did he (she?) start this thread?

In 1970, Trudeau needed the Canadian military for something other than smug, English-Canadian peacekeeping in oogie-boogie foreign countries where people are starving/killing each other.

So, my answer to Craig Read, whoever you are: No, Canada's military will not disappear. There will be enough Canadian military for smugness, and I guess to manage the possibility of the modern equivalent of 1837 insurgency, or 1970 perceived insurgency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

higher standards and regulatory protection to U.S. levels.

Got to get some proof Black Dog, please.

I have no desire to see my tax dollars go to support a geopolitical circle jerk. Now that I've pushed that metaphor to the brink, let me say that we need to stop giving a damn about how we are viewed by other nations and focus on providing for our own citizens needs. That's shoukld always be the numbe rone priority of government.

So we are to become isolationist in the world? Recall all embassies and business contacts? Not a wise move as trade would be taken over by countries able to enforce their theologies. We would suffer as a people in all levels. Protect our ambassadors and civil servants in adverse situations such as Hati and whatever. To simply send a care package and hope it gets there is pretty simplistic and gains no respect from either the adressees or the warlords who comandeer it is fairly useless. To hand over the security or our foreign endeavors to another nation is BS as well. Therefore, we need a real military for this reason alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was Craig Read and why did he (she?) start this thread?

In 1970, Trudeau needed the Canadian military for something other than smug, English-Canadian peacekeeping in oogie-boogie foreign countries where people are starving/killing each other.

There will be enough Canadian military for smugness, and I guess to manage the possibility of the modern equivalent of 1837 insurgency, or 1970 perceived insurgency.

Then he stabbed it in the back.

Craig

Canada's military is an embarassing farce and should either be funded or simply shut down.

Good point. We have foreign policy that can be backed up or we don't.

So, my answer to Craig Read,  whoever you are:  No, Canada's military will not disappear.

Give us some proof, don't use stats as they will hurt you bad. If it's a promise from the Liberals then I have to say that it must be true. Then go and laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some facts:

-55000 strong armed forces but only 17800 are Combat troops. Rest overhead. This means that we have very little effective projectionable force for any amount of time. Witness our sad contribution on the war on terror - a few thousand men for a few months in Kabul. Come on.

Show me a first world Armed Forces that doesn't have a long "tail"?

Wrt our "sad contribution" to A-stan, after the Americans, our "sad" army sent the second largest force.

1.1 % of GDP spent on the military, 17 out of 19 NATO countries

But we are the 6th or 7th largest spender in NATO, well only spending 1.1% of our GDP

-153rd in the world in military spending even though Canada has the 34th highest population

I've never heard that, do you have a source?

I have read about 6 reports from various bodies that state explicitly that if funding is not doubled the Cdn military will simply disappear. The current budget is apparently not even enough to replace old equipment, perform maintenance, pay proper pensions or adquately supply munitions, transport, and hardware for the troops.

I find it odd that Spain is able to spend slighty more on defence then us, well having a extremely more "capable", larger, force. The only reason that I can think of is that the disparity in labour costs and standard of living between our two nations.

With that said, I fail to see why we need to double defence spending "just so our forces can survive". It's reasonable to assume that if spending was increased at such an amount as to take into account the "increased standard of living" of our members of the armed forces, our armed forces could be on par with that of Spain.

Abroad, however, we have to assume a different role. We'll never have the hardware or the budget of our neighbors. We'll never have the strength in numbers. This is fact. We need to, first, find out what we want to do abroad, and secondly, find out what we are prepared to do abroad.

I agree 101%. We need to define what we want of our Armed Forces before we decide if we need to increase, decrease or maintain the level of spending on defence.

Boyd, good post. The Aussies are spending U$40 billion over the coming 5 years on more military spend. They will be a balancing force with projection capability in East Asia and beyond.

What does Canada contribute ? Basically nothing. No heavy aircraft, no airforce or navy [2 or 3 frigates only] to speak off, and an undermanned 18.000 person personnel combat base that is suffering from low morale and low grade equpiment.

Do you think that Canada should attempt to project power into (South)eastern Asia? If so, please explain why?

Or we could build a military capable of doing something useful. Just a thought, but apparently one that hasn't occurred to the empty heads in our cabinet.

So the operations in A-stan are not "useful"? I doubt the United States, or the Afghan people think so.

Before we sink anymore money into DND, we need to first decide what we want our Armed Forces to do. Then (like many other government departments) go through the "leadership" at the crystal place with a scythe. Without doing this first, Canada would be better off not increasing funding to the forces. We need to learn first that by throwing money at something does not always make it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to learn first that by throwing money at something does not always make it better.

Just an aside here, but why is it if one were to suggest increasing government spending on, say, health care or education, the conserva-chorus would be up in arms with the usual denunciations and accusations of governemnt waste and inefficiency. But when the military is concerned, they can't write the cheques fast enough.

Here's a question: would anyone support an increase in the top marginal tax rate in order to pay for a bump in military spending? Or are we to keep chanting the tax cut mantra while calling for yet more spending on the arm,ed forces? If so, how the hell are we suppossed to pay for the increase? That's like taking a pay cut to buy a Cadillac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a question: would anyone support an increase in the top marginal tax rate in order to pay for a bump in military spending? Or are we to keep chanting the tax cut mantra while calling for yet more spending on the arm,ed forces? If so, how the hell are we suppossed to pay for the increase? That's like taking a pay cut to buy a Cadillac.

I think the Conservative idea is that by cutting all the welfare, flag, do-gooding, subsidy boondoggles, there would be enough money to increase military purchases and also to cut taxes. But that response avoids your question. Taxes could be cut even more if military purchases were not increased.

The Right typically likes to protect property rights and a strong military/police does that. I'm certain that that ultimately is the US reasoning. (It goes under the name 'national security'.)

In Canada, we can free ride on the US military. IMV, our own military has primarily two raisons d'être: 1) to suppress any violent dissent (FLQ, native Indians) and 2) to make English Canadians feel good by sending peacekeepers to weird places. Maybe a third: Flying helicopters to sinking ships.

What's DND's budget? 13 billion or so? That's about $400 per Canadian, or a daily pack of gum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an aside here, but why is it if one were to suggest increasing government spending on, say, health care or education, the conserva-chorus would be up in arms with the usual denunciations and accusations of governemnt waste and inefficiency. But when the military is concerned, they can't write the cheques fast enough.

Now first off, since I'm new, I feel that I should say that I consider myself a "Social Conservative", in that I agree with a very large percentage of both the formor PC and CA platforms, and when they get one, the new Conservative party. With that said, I also consider myself a realist.

I'd be all for increased defence spending, once we fixed the problems that are already evident within DND, because I feel that there is an extreme amount of waste within the department of defence. Now the same can be said within almost all other government departments.

Like I alluded to above, we need a massive review/audit of the entire government, followed by a strong stomached Prime Minister that has an equally strong cabinet that is not afraid to swing an axe in the direction of pork.

Now I can only guess since I've never seen the books, but I imagine with the right leadership, many of the postive current government programs/departments (ie defence, Healthcare, education) that appear to suffer from lack of funding, would be doing alot better if the money was spent right.

Well duh :rolleyes:

As for increases to different programs/departments, I'd fix the current ones, at current funding levels and slash the ones we don't need. After that, with the now inproved clarity know what needs to be really fixed, then throw some money around.

Here's a question: would anyone support an increase in the top marginal tax rate in order to pay for a bump in military spending? Or are we to keep chanting the tax cut mantra while calling for yet more spending on the arm,ed forces? If so, how the hell are we suppossed to pay for the increase? That's like taking a pay cut to buy a Cadillac.

You do bring up a good point, how would we pay for everything? Like I said, I guess that alot of "hidden money" could be found in the books if managed properly. Then with the increased effectiveness of the current money, the task of a increase of funding wouldn't seem as great.

I think the Conservative approach has a few more steps then you acknowledge.......but thats another debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stoker, why? If all that bureaucratic waste was somehow, well, eliminated, why not cut taxes instead? That's the point.

Now I won't "dive into" other parts of government (for now) I'll say this:

Once we "fix" the current problems in defence, through better spending habits, thus being able to maintain our current abilities. Then decide as Canadians what it is that we want to do with the forces, then I say that we should start increasing the funding, hence increasing the capability of our armed forces........and lower taxes ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lower taxes? No problem here.

But why increase military expenditure?

To increase the capability of our armed forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To increase the capability of our armed forces.

Well, I assumed that if we increase military expenditure that would mean buying more military equipment and hiring more people to do military things. All of this, I assume, would increase the "capability of our armed forces" - if it was done well, of course.

My question is: why do we need to increase the capability of our armed forces? (This is not a trick question. I'm genuinely interested to read what you think.)

I'm inclined to think we don't need a more capable military. But I'm open to argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is: why do we need to increase the capability of our armed forces? (This is not a trick question. I'm genuinely interested to read what you think.)

I'm inclined to think we don't need a more capable military. But I'm open to argument.

Let's look at it this way, if the current problems within DND are solved and the money is put to good use, and our current capabilities are kept, our armed forces, in comparsion to other nations of our size would still be lacking.

As it was said before by another poster in this thread, a nations armed forces are akin to a "pee pee" measuring contest. Unfortunately if we "come up short" in maters relating to defence, unlike the above mentioned "contest", Canadian lives and intrests could be put at risk........

.....and IMHO, for a country like Canada that relys as much on trade as we do for our well being, I'd want to be sure that we could protect that trade, to a certain degree on our own if need be, or at very least, a major contributor to a coalition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian lives and intrests could be put at risk

We're assuming the money is well spent, and we only do what we have to. What's that? Well:

As it was said before by another poster in this thread, a nations armed forces are akin to a "pee pee" measuring contest.

By that measure, you lose 50% of the vote. Heck, let's buy $13 billion of Viagra and make everyone happy. Is this what is meant by "military capability"?

for a country like Canada that relys as much on trade as we do for our well being, I'd want to be sure that we could protect that trade

About 80% of our trade is with the US. What's to protect? I can understand that in the 18th century, we may have needed canals, fortresses, even railways. I happen to think Americans are largely peaceful people now. Live and learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're assuming the money is well spent, and we only do what we have to. What's that?

I fail to understand the question.

By that measure, you lose 50% of the vote. Heck, let's buy $13 billion of Viagra and make everyone happy. Is this what is meant by "military capability"?

Well I might lose 50% of the vote, do I still have the other 50%? If I do, then I would build new equipment for the armed forces in Canada, by unionized Canadians, in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

Does that garner me some of the NDP and Bloc vote, thus pushing me over 50%? Perhaps closer to 60%?

About 80% of our trade is with the US. What's to protect? I can understand that in the 18th century, we may have needed canals, fortresses, even railways. I happen to think Americans are largely peaceful people now. Live and learn.

So is the other 20% of our economy not important? I don't know about yourself, but I couldn't afford a 20% decrease in my own income.

Also, shouldn't Canada be looking at diversifying it's trade

portfolio so as not to rely as much on US trade? And if we did, I'd also think that we would want to protect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're assuming the money is well spent, and we only do what we have to. What's that?

I fail to understand the question.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. "What's that?" means what the Canadian military should have the capability to do. IOW, what do you think Canadian army people should do?

by unionized Canadians, in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec

Sorry, I don't see the connection with Canada's defence

So is the other 20% of our economy not important? I don't know about yourself, but I couldn't afford a 20% decrease in my own income.

We're talking about 20% of about 40%. About 8%. I'd be unhappy if I lost 8% of my income. But would I be willing to give up 4% of my annual income to protect the small chance of losing 8%? More, a country is not a person. There are 6 billion people in the world. I'm sure Canadians could find others to trade with.

Also, shouldn't Canada be looking at diversifying it's trade

portfolio so as not to rely as much on US trade? And if we did, I'd also think that we would want to protect it.

Are you suggesting that, even though individual Canadians want to trade with Americans, the government should stop them and force them to trade with non-Americans? Are you a Communist?

BTW, this is interesting. You make me think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I wasn't clear. "What's that?" means what the Canadian military should have the capability to do. IOW, what do you think Canadian army people should do?

What I would like to see, is very close to the CA's white paper, in that I think it would be reasonable to have the ability to deploy a army battlegroup into a combat zone about the same size as what we sent to A-stan, but fully supported by the Canadian navy and airforce. Then be able to maintain that size of force in that combat zone, supported by Canadians, for a period of 12-18 months.

On top of that, be able to maintain another army battlegroup, up to the same size as the one in combat, on a UN Peacekeeping mission, supported by Canadians......

On top of also keeping our current commitments to NATO, NORAD, SAR and other government departments. Then increased funding to the Milita, so as to help further safeguard Canadians against such things a natural disasters or possable terror attacks.

Sorry, I don't see the connection with Canada's defence

We/Me as the government would have a large percentage of new equipment for the armed forces built in Canada, thus creating jobs, and trying to keep as much money as possable spent on defence in Canada.

We're talking about 20% of about 40%. About 8%. I'd be unhappy if I lost 8% of my income. But would I be willing to give up 4% of my annual income to protect the small chance of losing 8%? More, a country is not a person. There are 6 billion people in the world. I'm sure Canadians could find others to trade with.

How much of a percentage of your annual income do you spend on insurance? I don't plan on ever getting into a car crash or having my home burn down, as I'm sure you don't, but do you risk not buying insurance because there is only a slight chance of either happing to you?

WRT trade, our potential partners may not be the ones to cause the problems for us, but perhaps our partners neighbors.....ie Kuwait and Iraq 14 years ago.

Are you suggesting that, even though individual Canadians want to trade with Americans, the government should stop them and force them to trade with non-Americans? Are you a Communist?

Not at all. I'd like to keep the same level of trade, in terms of volume, with the United States. What I would like is to add to the amount of trade that we do with other countries, and with this decrease the percentage of trade with the United States, well at the same time, allowing our economy to grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last point first.

Not at all. I'd like to keep the same level of trade, in terms of volume, with the United States. What I would like is to add to the amount of trade that we do with other countries, and with this decrease the percentage of trade with the United States, well at the same time, allowing our economy to grow.

So, next year, ordinary Canadians decide they want a vacation in the States, not Europe, and you'd stop them - or make it more difficult for them, or encourage them to think otherwise. IOW, you're not a Communist. You're a Socialist!

Next point.

We/Me as the government would have a large percentage of new equipment for the armed forces built in Canada, thus creating jobs, and trying to keep as much money as possable spent on defence in Canada.

So, to have a good defence capability, we should buy a Canadian $45,000 armoured vehicle rather than a French $20,000 armoured vehicle. I have a suggestion: Let's buy the French $20,000 vehicle and give the $25,000 difference, free, to the Canadian vehicle workers who could do something else and have two income sources. Whaddya think?

I think it would be reasonable to have the ability to deploy a army battlegroup into a combat zone about the same size as what we sent to A-stan...

On top of that, be able to maintain another army battlegroup, up to the same size as the one in combat, on a UN Peacekeeping mission, supported by Canadians......

On top of also keeping our current commitments to NATO, NORAD, SAR and other government departments....

Wow. You want the Chrysler 300!

Except, the wife and kids are at home in a 2 bedroom flat eating Kraft Dinner. But you're the man about the house and you want the Olds. But, tell me. What's more important: a new car or a new fridge, or the kids in a decent school.

You still have not convinced me why Canadians should have a bigger "military capability". Let's be serious. Why should Canadians pay to send army battlegroups to A-stan? Peacekeeping group? Why?

But then you add, ominously to me, this:

Then increased funding to the Milita, so as to help further safeguard Canadians against such things a natural disasters or possable terror attacks.

Natural disasters, terrorist attacks? Were you thinking of this: In 1970, Canada's military was important to Canada in a way beyond any foreign war. And Oka? What was that? A natural disaster? A terrorist attack?

How much of a percentage of your annual income do you spend on insurance?

Good question. Probably several thousand all in. Through taxes. the average Canadian spends about $400/year on defence, or about $1/day. Do we need more?

I'm worried about Oka and FLQ, the other stuff you noted, maybe.

Honest? I'm still reading for an answer. My own opinion, nah. I'm satisfied with the coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, next year, ordinary Canadians decide they want a vacation in the States, not Europe, and you'd stop them - or make it more difficult for them, or encourage them to think otherwise. IOW, you're not a Communist. You're a Socialist!

Were did I come close to saying anything near that? I'd increase our level of trade with other countries via free trade agreements and reduced tariffs.....

So, to have a good defence capability, we should buy a Canadian $45,000 armoured vehicle rather than a French $20,000 armoured vehicle. I have a suggestion: Let's buy the French $20,000 vehicle and give the $25,000 difference, free, to the Canadian vehicle workers who could do something else and have two income sources. Whaddya think?

Well to be frank, the French worker in the arms factory is not a Canadian voter or taxpayer, I'd rather keep the other twenty thousand dollars in Canada.

Also, whats to say that the French vehicle will cost less then a Canadian produced one and be of better quality?

Wow. You want the Chrysler 300!

Except, the wife and kids are at home in a 2 bedroom flat eating Kraft Dinner. But you're the man about the house and you want the Olds. But, tell me. What's more important: a new car or a new fridge, or the kids in a decent school.

I think you comparing a luxury item (the Car) to ones defence (increased military) is a rather bad analogy.

You need one, but not the other.

But to humour you, the Americans, British and Australians have the new car, new fridge, and a decent school for the kids, so shouldn't we?

You still have not convinced me why Canadians should have a bigger "military capability". Let's be serious. Why should Canadians pay to send army battlegroups to A-stan? Peacekeeping group? Why?

To protect ourselves, our national intrests and the betterment of war torn countries. Why shouldn't we be doing this?

Natural disasters, terrorist attacks? Were you thinking of this: In 1970, Canada's military was important to Canada in a way beyond any foreign war. And Oka? What was that? A natural disaster? A terrorist attack?

Nothing would preclude our armed forces from intervening in either another FLQ or Oka crisis.....whats the problem?

Good question. Probably several thousand all in. Through taxes. the average Canadian spends about $400/year on defence, or about $1/day. Do we need more?

So would that be more or less then 4% of your annual income, our your GDP if you will?

Infact, I'm not (or the Conservatives as far as I know) even thinking about spending close to 4% of our GDP on defence.....I'd say the NATO average of 2.2 % would be enough.

I'm worried about Oka and FLQ, the other stuff you noted, maybe.

Honest? I'm still reading for an answer. My own opinion, nah. I'm satisfied with the coverage.

Do you think an increase in defence spending would impede the government reaction to another Oka or FLQ crisis?

As it stands now, with our forces in Hati, Bosnia, Afghanistan and all the other god forsaken places, I question our ablitiy to respond to another Oka or FLQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd increase our level of trade with other countries via free trade agreements and reduced tariffs

If you mean that you would make it easy to trade with all foreigners, then fine. But then what happens if Canadians still prefer American trade? Is that OK, or do you "diversify"?

Well to be frank, the French worker in the arms factory is not a Canadian voter or taxpayer, I'd rather keep the other twenty thousand dollars in Canada.

Fine, go for the votes or taxpayers. Be a demagogue. But you'll be competing with the Liberals. (Or Nixon: "There ain't a vote in it.") IOW, you'll be telling the workers they'll be rich while telling me (a taxpayer) that a $45,000 vehicle is better than a $20,000 vehicle.

Can you say that better than the Liberals? They're so good at it appears they've got you convinced. True, it's a hard argument to make - buy French, not Canadian. Clinton was a free trader, Bush not. But Clinton was a good speaker.

Also, whats to say that the French vehicle will cost less then a Canadian produced one and be of better quality?

OK, I'm wrong. But the the French army boots are better.

But to humour you, the Americans, British and Australians have the new car, new fridge, and a decent school for the kids, so shouldn't we?

Do you mean the Brits, Americans, Kiwis, Aussies - heck, the French - have it ALL? But we don't?

We ALL have to make choices. If Harper is going to make PM, he's going to have to explain the choices he wants to make to Easterners.

To protect ourselves, our national intrests and the betterment of war torn countries. Why shouldn't we be doing this?

I agree. Pony up. How much? I'm serious. $2,000/year? Why not day care instead?

Nothing would preclude our armed forces from intervening in either another FLQ or Oka crisis.....whats the problem?

ARRRGGGHHHH!

I'm beginning to believe that Canadians outside of Quebec can only see the military in a smug way of sending troops off to strange places where the CBC's The National reports about people dying and thank God we Canadians live in a safe country where, since God chose us, we can live in safety and peace but are rich so we can do our part by helping these poor people in crazy places where they seem to kill each other all the time.

How much is that smugness worth?

Canada's military was used in 1970 and 1991. Both times in Quebec. Both times it mattered to Canada, in a way well beyond smugness, or UN sharing.

Imagine Trudeau or Mulroney had had no troops to send in?

This isn't ancient history.

And we talk of insurance.

I don't mean Canada should have a military in anticipation of a Civil War. What I mean is that CA/Reform/CPC supposedly pro-military are clueless about Quebec, Canada, military capability and - well, day care. Should we choose guns or butter?

I'm an Easterner, I'm fed up with these Liberals, but I fear the CA types are too naive about the choices to be made, and the arguments the lawyers will make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean that you would make it easy to trade with all foreigners, then fine. But then what happens if Canadians still prefer American trade? Is that OK, or do you "diversify"?

I don't have a single problem at all with Americans or trading with them, I'd just like to see increased trade with growing economies.

Fine, go for the votes or taxpayers. Be a demagogue. But you'll be competing with the Liberals. (Or Nixon: "There ain't a vote in it.") IOW, you'll be telling the workers they'll be rich while telling me (a taxpayer) that a $45,000 vehicle is better than a $20,000 vehicle.

How is giving work to Canadians being a demagogue?

Also, the majority of current Canadian military Hardware is either American made, American design but Canadian built or of a Canadian design. Why should we change the trend?

And if we were to buy a forgein design, I want an equal industrial offset coming our way.

Can you say that better than the Liberals? They're so good at it appears they've got you convinced. True, it's a hard argument to make - buy French, not Canadian. Clinton was a free trader, Bush not. But Clinton was a good speaker.

And like I said before, the French worker is not a Canadian voter, the French worker is not going to keep most of the money within Canada, the French worker is not going to buy with his wages goods and services off of other Canadians, and the French worker is not going to pay his taxes to the Canadian government.

Do you mean the Brits, Americans, Kiwis, Aussies - heck, the French - have it ALL? But we don't?

The Brits, Aussies and perhaps the French are able to mange about the same standard of living as us well paying for their own defence. Why can't we pay for our own defence, well maintaining the same standard of living?

I agree. Pony up. How much? I'm serious. $2,000/year? Why not day care instead?

Yeah, that would be fine, that would be somewhere around a twenty billion dollar budget. I'd be fine with that.

How much is that smugness worth?

About 2.2% of our GDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...