|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2012 13:16:10 GMT -5
Haven't read the rest of the replies as yet, HA. We're talking about two different things when it comes to sovereignty. You're talking about building up our north for the possibility of an armed conflict with another nation. I'm talking about maintaining our sovereignty through establishing of settlements and consistent patrolling of our northern waters. You're talking about our northern regions by arming them to the teeth. The USA wanted to do that with their National Missile Defence program, but the Liberals refused. Why did they refuse it? Because such an initiative would have just generated another Cold War scenario (my analogy anyway) and, as the link says, it would create another unnecessary arms race. IMHO, I believe that arming the arctic region to the teeth would promote the same thing and, as a former serving soldier, no, I don't want to see anything like that. I don't want to see another Cold War and I don't want to see any more companies using fear as a platform for profits. This is what your scenario would facilitate, IMHO. However, I do think that an established visual presence is necessary. There was an iniative started by the Tories in which Canada would establish a base in the arctic. It is an ambitious plan that has been put on hold for now, but I'd like to see this revisited once the budget permits. And note how it will be armed. Those icebreakers I talked of earlier, were part of a plan to maintain sovereignty through a visual presence anyway. No, they won't detour any Russian menace, but there's really no menace to speak of anyway, and there's no reason to think there will be a menance anytime soon. In addition to those icebreakers, I think it's necessary to establish new settlements where we can in the arctic, while maintaining the current ones we have. Any country wanting to establish "squatters rights" wouldn't have a case in international court, or so I think anyway. Cheers. Even if we move populations to Arctic islands, like the Chinese can, the Russians are not arguing about 12 and 200 mile limits. No one is. Ice breakers running around in our waters does nothing for that nor act as any deterrence. They are arguing that they have ownership of a large part of everything else up there including our shelf. Only military might deters that claim. See Turkey. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 13, 2012 16:22:13 GMT -5
Haven't read the rest of the replies as yet, HA. We're talking about two different things when it comes to sovereignty. You're talking about building up our north for the possibility of an armed conflict with another nation. I'm talking about maintaining our sovereignty through establishing of settlements and consistent patrolling of our northern waters. You're talking about our northern regions by arming them to the teeth. The USA wanted to do that with their National Missile Defence program, but the Liberals refused. Why did they refuse it? Because such an initiative would have just generated another Cold War scenario (my analogy anyway) and, as the link says, it would create another unnecessary arms race. IMHO, I believe that arming the arctic region to the teeth would promote the same thing and, as a former serving soldier, no, I don't want to see anything like that. I don't want to see another Cold War and I don't want to see any more companies using fear as a platform for profits. This is what your scenario would facilitate, IMHO. However, I do think that an established visual presence is necessary. There was an iniative started by the Tories in which Canada would establish a base in the arctic. It is an ambitious plan that has been put on hold for now, but I'd like to see this revisited once the budget permits. And note how it will be armed. Those icebreakers I talked of earlier, were part of a plan to maintain sovereignty through a visual presence anyway. No, they won't detour any Russian menace, but there's really no menace to speak of anyway, and there's no reason to think there will be a menance anytime soon. In addition to those icebreakers, I think it's necessary to establish new settlements where we can in the arctic, while maintaining the current ones we have. Any country wanting to establish "squatters rights" wouldn't have a case in international court, or so I think anyway. Cheers. Even if we move populations to Arctic islands, like the Chinese can, the Russians are not arguing about 12 and 200 mile limits. No one is. Ice breakers running around in our waters does nothing for that nor act as any deterrence. They are arguing that they have ownership of a large part of everything else up there including our shelf. Only military might deters that claim. See Turkey. Dude ... what you're suggesting is that Canada arm themselves to compete with Russia. Well, if we do arm ourselves for a "possible eventuality" then the Russians will do the same. We don't have a hope in hell of competing with them in an arms race. Doing what you suggest means more reliance by Canada on the USA just to keep up with the eventual arms race and Cold War that this scenario will more than likely develop into. We don't need it. Moreover, we simply don't have the same threats as Turkey does. However, if you want that threat to appear, just keep going along the path you're taking. You'll get more than you bargained for AND it won't be an all-Canadian show of patriotism or might. If you were to suggest that we pick up state-of-the-art fighters to provide our fighting forces with proper air support while on operations, I would have bought into it. However, as it is now, I just don't see the substantiation, the Turkish situation notwithstanding. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 13, 2012 21:00:26 GMT -5
Dude ... what you're suggesting is that Canada arm themselves to compete with Russia. Well, if we do arm ourselves for a "possible eventuality" then the Russians will do the same. We don't have a hope in hell of competing with them in an arms race. Doing what you suggest means more reliance by Canada on the USA just to keep up with the eventual arms race and Cold War that this scenario will more than likely develop into. We don't need it. Moreover, we simply don't have the same threats as Turkey does. However, if you want that threat to appear, just keep going along the path you're taking. You'll get more than you bargained for AND it won't be an all-Canadian show of patriotism or might. If you were to suggest that we pick up state-of-the-art fighters to provide our fighting forces with proper air support while on operations, I would have bought into it. However, as it is now, I just don't see the substantiation, the Turkish situation notwithstanding. Cheers. I'm not suggesting an arms race to match anyone, I'm suggesting a credible deterrence. All geopolitical decision/actions are usually based on a calculated risk/reward assessment. Russia does not pose any threat to our homeland and neither do we to theirs. Without that, there is no existential threat and thus need for Cold War level arming. Then the next step is reduced to vital strategic interests. The Arctic is not of vital strategic interest to either Canada or Russia. Whatever mineral/oil there is in the Arctic is also available to either with lesser potential of conflict. That is a magnitude or two of less of a military threat and need to defend. What we have left is economic interests. That again, in itself is another magnitude of a lesser threat and military need. So what we have left is....will Russia raise the economic issue to a military conflict if we have the means to deal with it? I think not. There scale of risk reward both in economic and strategic terms are not enough to do so. So what is Russia likely to do? We have history. Today, like it has done for decades, Russia will bluster. Decades after a cold war which it lost badly, Russia still sends bombers close to our air space. We meet them, fly next to them and eventually they turn around and go home. They know that we are easily capable of bringing them down and they will NOT and NEVER have been brave enough to test that. Same thing will happen in the Arctic with their destroyers. They will sail through, we will buzz them with a credible means of destroying them and the "incident" wont amount to anything. We don't lose face or geopolitical standing. Russians will gain nothing from it other then international condemnation. On the other hand, it will look like pure comedy to shadow warships with ice breakers or F-18's lit up like Christmas trees....or falling from the sky because we have no tankers to keep them in the air. Not only are the optics painful, if anything, the shear impotence of it will encourage more of the same. Ice breakers to help as support ships? Fine. But not in lieu of military capability. Last but not least..... While I'm proud of what Canada has done throughout our military history, but, given the results of Libya and Afghanistan, I no longer support military expeditions without clear self interests. I prefer to divert resources into strategic defence rather then expeditionary engagement and support equipment. More air refuelling tankers. Jets who primary mission is interception, not ground offence. Air-to-air, air-to-ship missile technology. Submarines that are not British. ETC. At no time have I ever suggested and never have believed in anything but a strong military. That's my 2 shekels..... |
|
|
|
Post by oldhabsfan on Apr 19, 2012 18:43:10 GMT -5
I think the F-35s were about:
1. Helping the Americans rule the world by beating up whoever.
2. Helping the Americans finance and justify an expensive weapon.
3. Industrial offsets.
I don't think the needs of the defence of Canada had that much to do with it.
I think that 28 years and counting is getting old for a fighter and the F-18s will need to be replaced. I don't think it has to be with a greatly superior aircraft, and the proposed developed version of the F-18 might be OK. I doubt that drones can do the job we need them to do especially since they depend on someone else's satellites.
I am doubtful about the utility of stealth aircraft for our job. I understand that many of them can be picked up by old fashioned longer wave radar. Though they may be effective against radars that can be mounted on a supersonic missile. (I suspect the long wave types need an aerial that is too big)
I suspect that Harper fumbled by trusting Peter M. and DND, and by not anticipating the effect of the financial crisis on the defence budget. I suspect he's not totally unhappy about having an ex-PC twisting in the wind. I also suspect that he's not quite as enthused about being an unquestioning backer of the U.S. as he was a few years back. He may think as I do that the U.S. has been weighed in the balance and found wanting, and he may rather enjoy being top dog in a solvent semi-independent small country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 22, 2012 19:39:28 GMT -5
I think the F-35s were about: 1. Helping the Americans rule the world by beating up whoever. 2. Helping the Americans finance and justify an expensive weapon. 3. Industrial offsets. I don't think the needs of the defence of Canada had that much to do with it. I think that 28 years and counting is getting old for a fighter and the F-18s will need to be replaced. I don't think it has to be with a greatly superior aircraft, and the proposed developed version of the F-18 might be OK. I doubt that drones can do the job we need them to do especially since they depend on someone else's satellites. I am doubtful about the utility of stealth aircraft for our job. I understand that many of them can be picked up by old fashioned longer wave radar. Though they may be effective against radars that can be mounted on a supersonic missile. (I suspect the long wave types need an aerial that is too big) I suspect that Harper fumbled by trusting Peter M. and DND, and by not anticipating the effect of the financial crisis on the defence budget. I suspect he's not totally unhappy about having an ex-PC twisting in the wind. I also suspect that he's not quite as enthused about being an unquestioning backer of the U.S. as he was a few years back. He may think as I do that the U.S. has been weighed in the balance and found wanting, and he may rather enjoy being top dog in a solvent semi-independent small country. Good post, man. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 22, 2012 22:08:58 GMT -5
I suspect that Harper fumbled by trusting Peter M. and DND, and by not anticipating the effect of the financial crisis on the defence budget. I suspect he's not totally unhappy about having an ex-PC twisting in the wind. I also suspect that he's not quite as enthused about being an unquestioning backer of the U.S. as he was a few years back. He may think as I do that the U.S. has been weighed in the balance and found wanting, and he may rather enjoy being top dog in a solvent semi-independent small country. I don't agree that Harper trusted Peter M. I don't think he trusts anyone. He has the worst case of micro managing of any PM ever. He doesn't even let MP's voice an opinion unless it's vetted by the PM's office. Harper is an ultimate control freak, so I can't agree that he lets anyone do anything without him knowing about it and approving it. Now perhaps some people might chafe at that (Really?!) and say or do something else to spite him, but that's less a case of trusting than one of rebellion. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 24, 2012 1:34:51 GMT -5
I love the spin about control freak. That and the "secret agenda". Try something a little less sinister.....like MP's spouting something, anything and the lefty media mob making a 24 hour news story.
Rules are pretty simple....anything a politician says will be held against him PARTICULARLY if it's a right wing politician.
Conservative MP......"Great weather we are having today. Unfortunately, my cat died of old age."
Toronto Star headline the next day..."Conservatives Say It's Great That His Kitten Was Killed By Climate Change".
By ten pm....CBC lead story....."Harper denies drowning kitten in Alberta tar sands pit to hide secret agenda on destroying the climate".
You think I'm joking? Then you never subscribed to the Toronto Commie Truth......and company....
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 24, 2012 6:42:32 GMT -5
Ice breakers to help as support ships? Fine. But not in lieu of military capability. Wasn't suggesting this at all. The international courts need to know that there's a Canadian presence in the arctic. These ice breakers would be only part of that. The Tory vision of a lightly-armed military base in the Arctic would be another. By the way, we still have an early-warning station at CFS Alert. It's not a show of military might, but it is proof that Canada has it's Arctic. So in addition to national security, you want a military that can promote Canadian personal interests abroad. You're sounding like the USA and/or Britain when they went into Iraq. I do like your intent to protect Canada and her borders, but I'll pass on your additional philosophy of Canadian imperialism. Shekels ;D ... that's funny. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 24, 2012 11:42:41 GMT -5
So in addition to national security, you want a military that can promote Canadian personal interests abroad. You're sounding like the USA and/or Britain when they went into Iraq. I do like your intent to protect Canada and her borders, but I'll pass on your additional philosophy of Canadian imperialism. Imperialism? Where did I mention domination and subordination of anyone? In fact, I don't want to play at the pseudo nation changing unless it will benefit or protect us. See Afghanistan and Libya. Neither present any benefit or direct danger and both have reverted or will revert to their crazy world. |
|
|
|
Post by oldhabsfan on Apr 24, 2012 12:42:42 GMT -5
I don't agree that Harper trusted Peter M. I don't think he trusts anyone. He has the worst case of micro managing of any PM ever. He doesn't even let MP's voice an opinion unless it's vetted by the PM's office. Harper is an ultimate control freak, so I can't agree that he lets anyone do anything without him knowing about it and approving it. Maybe "trust" was the wrong word, but I think he thought he could rely on them to do their job efficiently. It's hell when you need to do everything yourself, and can't. About being a control freak, with his MPs he needs to be. If he wasn't, what's happening to the Wild Rose would be happening to him, and the rest of the country is not exactly like Alberta. Also, those pesky scientists and other civil servants have a nasty habit of talking about the real world instead of filtering everything through the Party line. For the sake of a Conservative majority they need to keep their lips zipped. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 25, 2012 1:26:08 GMT -5
I can't stand Harper, for various reasons, so full disclosure. He's either a control freak, who wants everyone to be an extension of himself, or he's surrounded himself with a bunch of idiots. Neither scenario paints a picture of a capable leader, especially the second one. Guys like him are invariably insecure and want to control everything, so usually they don't surround themselves with capable people. Good people don't put up with that kind of crap. The only ones who will are those who are satisfied to be yes men and take whatever power their leader gives them.
Really good leaders can leave the company/government/association alone and it functions just fine without them. No scandals, no huge errors, just business as usual. Can one say that about Mr. Harper?
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 25, 2012 11:04:49 GMT -5
Really good leaders can leave the company/government/association alone and it functions just fine without them. No scandals, no huge errors, just business as usual. Can one say that about Mr. Harper? - Warren Bennis Unfortunately, doing the right thing isn't always the practice when it comes to politics. Paul Martin was arguably the best Finance Minister we've ever had in this country, but (like his predecessor) he was a self-serving jerk as a Prime Minister. If you were either part of the Chretien Camp, or if you disagreed with the way he told the party to vote, you were history. Harper is the same animal, IMHO. You tow the line for no other reason than keeping the status quo; keeping the Tories in power and Harper calling the shots. And, in keeping with that thought, Chretien was all about consolidating his power as well. He parachuted Brian Tobin in to counter Martin's rise in the party. When John "Beaker" Manley's star started to rise, Tobin was pushed out of the scene; his contribution to the party having ended, so as to clear a path for Manley. To me, this internal power stuggle is what decimated the Liberals at the leadership level. Governing the country was secondary to Chretien and Martin, as they focused their efforts on consolidating their power. Chretien's focus was squarely on preventing Martin from obtaining the PM position. Martin's focus was squarely on becoming PM. To me, we're still seeing the effects of this power struggle. The party has no leadership to speak of and it doesn't look like it will get any better any time soon. Had these leaders done ""the right thing," so to speak, I think there'd be at least one party that could challenge the Tories. As it is now, the Tories would have to seriously step on their "Harpers" in order to sway the vote. The Canadian political scene is a mess and the Liberals (and their attempt at a coalition) can take their share of blame for that. Cheers. Oh yeah, HA, I agree that a strong military presence earns respect and acts as a deterent; however, your use of "self interests" threw me off. That term, by itself, isn't one I associate with Canadian international policy, or with the Canadian military for that matter. Arming the troops with the best-possible equipment when going on operations is the absolute right thing to do. The Liberals started that process when they sent the boys and girls into Afghanistan. However, that soared under the Tories. About time. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 25, 2012 11:12:19 GMT -5
Old narrative......
Harper had a secret agenda.
But none where found.
New narrative......
He is a control freak.
Because? He runs a tight ship and doesn't give in to those who don't like him to create the controversy they so desperately seek.
Yup....Harper is evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 25, 2012 11:26:08 GMT -5
Oh yeah, HA, I agree that a strong military presence earns respect and acts as a deterent; however, your use of "self interests" threw me off. That term, by itself, isn't one I associate with Canadian international policy, or with the Canadian military for that matter. Arming the troops with the best-possible equipment when going on operations is the absolute right thing to do. The Liberals started that process when they sent the boys and girls into Afghanistan. However, that soared under the Tories. About time. Cheers. We never disagreed on a strong military, it's only about what their focus should be. I use to support the Afghanistan mission but changed my mind. We sacrificed a lot of Canadians and mark my words, in a few years, all that sacrifice will be erased. I did not support the Libyan mission because just as I expected, it's Islamist replacement isn't anything better. So now, unless we have a clear interest or outcome, I don't support any more military excursions. Right now, in my opinion, the focus should be on protecting our north with the best equipment possible. I would, given clear intent and outcome, support regime change in Iran. Otherwise, let China, US and company be policeman. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 26, 2012 0:24:57 GMT -5
Old narrative...... Harper had a secret agenda. But none where found. New narrative...... He is a control freak. Because? He runs a tight ship and doesn't give in to those who don't like him to create the controversy they so desperately seek. Yup....Harper is evil. I don't recall saying anything about a secret agenda. I admit I don't like his style of leadership, which I think in the long run will lead us into a worse situation than we are now. I didn't care for Chretien either. Didn't like Trudeau because when you stand back and see what he achieved it was actually very little. He 'brought back the constitution' and enshrined a bill of rights that has our court system tied up in knots because there's always a court challenge to someone's rights. He also started the debt load we now face, so he basically bought a lot of his popularity and we're paying for it years later. Yup, not a hero to me. In fact there are very few politicians one can be proud of and that's probably a sign of the system we have in place for producing political leaders. It isn't our best and brightest, it's too often our greediest, laziest and most power hungry. Some of our local mayors are much better leaders than the guys who make their way to the nations capitals. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 26, 2012 3:17:25 GMT -5
Why exactly would the best and brightest run for office? To get the privilege of getting scrutinized, spun and dried by the guttered media or the ravenous opposition? From Kleisthenes till today, 2500 years later, democratic politics has always been a system that only those with the thickest skin and the sharpest knives have the ability to survive a win for the highest office. Extra bonus points for honesty and brightness.
You dislike Harper for, in your words "control freak" and my words, tight ship. Yet, you do not acknowledge that the opposition and media would sink into the pleasure of Four Years of the Long Knives in his back the minute he lets them. Why would he do that? For sport? Pleasure? Medieval blood letting of sins? You want Harper held accountable for the Canadian burro'cracy and yet, scoff and scuff at him for not letting burros run amok with their mouths and/or agendas.
For some, he is not spending enough. For some, he is spending too much. For some, he's just about to unleash social agenda hell, for other, they wonder when will that day of rapture happen. For some, he's not praying enough to Gia, for others, he's letting the Gia worshippers clog our economic interests. For some, he's not taxing to death everyone else but them, for others, he's taxing too much. For me, he's just right.
Last but not least......
The ideal Prime Minister does not exist because everyone's idea of ideal is bathed in self interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2012 5:58:06 GMT -5
self interest? speak for yourself -- I just want what I want ;D
Harper is the best of a bad lot. I thought that McKay might be good but he has sunk into the ooze of career politician. not much on the Conservative/conservative horizon, less on the Liberal horizon [and Dion and Ignatieff keep doing their best to kill the brand], and the NDP will self-destruct within a couple of years with Mulcair trying to bring them more to the middle and the power brokers in the party [even though everyone is equal in the NDP, some are more equal than others -- I love being able to point to Animal Farm] wanting the party to veer left again.
were in for a long time wandering the political wilderness in Canada, searching for berries worth picking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 28, 2012 15:01:49 GMT -5
Harper is the best of a bad lot. . The grass is always greener........particularly if you smoke it.... If we wait to have the perfect leader that will will bend to everyone's me-myself-and-i then we will have nothing but a populist flip-flopper. Pass the weed.... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 28, 2012 15:02:22 GMT -5
Talking about Harper....
The way he is handling the economy and ever rising Lonnie is terrible. Why can't we have an NDP tax-and-spend government and economic turmoil to match the rest of the Western world?
It's so unfair.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 30, 2012 11:21:03 GMT -5
We never disagreed on a strong military, it's only about what their focus should be. Right on. I think that northern base the Tories suggested is a step in the right direction. I just don't think we need the F-35 to facilitate that kind of coverage. It's the top-of-the-line fighter, but I'm not sure just how much money that would tie up in the military budget, which, by the way, is being cut as part of closure to the Afghan mission. I'm thinking a purchase such as this might put a strain on that new budget and possibly reduce the amount of purchasing options that may be required for the future. Something like taking on Scott Gomez's contract I guess. Both the strategy and the player didn't work out and as a result that contract has limited the amount of options to the organization. It won't take a few years, HA. As for supporting an invasion of Iran, I'd suggest looking at the lessons learned from the US-led venture into Iraq first. Removing a nuclear threat is one thing, but anything more than that would just end up as a Bush-type failure, IMHO anyway. As for reverting to the Liberal way of doing business ... I don't think we'll see a Tory government let the military slide the way other parties have. Cheers. |
|
