Canadian Election: It's On

[notyoueither]

Ahhh, helicopter 'aircraft carriers'. Nice try.

btw, why is the Star the only one to report that? I haven't found that on CTV or CBC yet.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
About Harper's Navy, see:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1086127811174&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

Harper wants an 80,000-person military, up from 52,000 today. He'd retrofit aging CF-18 warplanes, replace antique destroyers with new warships, buy several supply ships and some heavy tanks. And on the costlier side he'd purchase two helicopter aircraft carriers to ferry troops and armour to hot spots, and strategic lift aircraft to get troops there even faster.

Reuters story calls them "hybrid maritime carriers" (Damm it, we need carriers for the Great Lakes and to stop them Saskatchewan pirates!)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N31220066.htm

So basically, make it a stronger support for the American military?

[notyoueither]

Harper also wants Parliament to "ratify" overseas combat missions. That's worth talking about. While the Prime Minister must retain the final responsibility for sending troops abroad as an elected head of government, he should consult Parliament and poll MPs on their views.

In all, the Tories have put forward an ambitious but credible program, assuming they can reconcile it with the big tax cuts they promise, without savaging other priorities. That's a big "if," and one the Liberals will be sure to challenge. Yesterday Martin suggested Harper's program is an overly costly "Cold War" strategy that doesn't reflect Canada's changing role in a 9/11 world, or public concern that health is the chief priority.

Still, both sides agree that the Canadian Forces must be able to fight, and prevail, when need be. And that more money is needed.

Yes, he must have flipped his wig.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Expected to be released on Thursday, the Liberal platform includes $27 billion over five years on various commitments, with a remaining annual budget reserve of $3 billion.

Sorry, I can't help myself. You should see the numbers they use when describing our budget

You do realise that this is talking about new spending not the entire budget, eh.

And the Libs would still maintain a $40+ billion surplus. You remember the word surplus. It's been a while since your government has had one so I wouldn't be surprised if you problably forgot what it means.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Yes, he must have flipped his wig.

If he wants to buy any type of carriers, then yes, he's flipped his wig.

Retuers has a report. See my edited last post.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


If he wants to buy any type of carriers, then yes, he's flipped his wig.

Retuers has a report. See my edited last post.

Are you campaining FOR him?

The United States and NATO have chided Canada for having let its defense budget slip in proportion to the size of the economy to the second lowest level in the alliance, ahead only of Luxembourg.

Standing outside the Trenton Air Force Base in eastern Ontario, Harper pledged to restore the size of the military to 80,000 trained personnel from 53,200 currently, though reaching only 65,000 by the end of his first term.

He promised to inject an immediate C$1.2 billion ($900 million) a year into equipment replacement, with a longer-term goal of moving toward the NATO European average of defense spending. The current defense budget is C$13.3 billion.

Harper also said he would buy tanks, reversing a Liberal decision to abandon them, and buy new hybrid maritime carriers for helicopter support and lift.

If he can reequip the Forces and give them the needed transport capacity to be able to go where NATO or the UN need us without American charity, and keep us at or near the NATO average for expenditures, he would be doing very well indeed.

[notyoueither]

btw, Tingkai. Those are glorified transport ships that are being mentioned. They are NOT CVNs.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If he can reequip the Forces and give them the needed transport capacity to be able to go where NATO or the UN need us without American charity, and keep us at or near the NATO average for expenditures, he would be doing very well indeed.

Sure, we need to beef up the Forces, but what the hell are we going to do with helicopter carriers. If you want to transport helicopters then equip the existing fleet with new ones, or yes, buy strategic transport planes that can carry them, or failing that you lease an ordinary cargo ship.

But to spend billions building helicopter carriers and paying to keep these ships operational is just stupid.

[notyoueither]

Why? What is the crew? What is the cost of each ship? How much to maintain? Is it assured that they would be purchased if DND advised him there were higher priorities?

In what way would be being based off on floating bases enhance Canadian operations in problem spots for the UN and allow rapid deployment of reinforcements, or evacuation of endangered troops if the situation demanded it?

What do you know about it, other than the Conservatives are stupid and you want us all to throw rocks at them?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Did you miss the part about wealth redistribution?

I saw it.

a) I just don't believe that this one brand of oppression is so much more important than any other brand that you need to design an entire government system around it

b) Again, you missed the part where I mentioned that the small Canadian provinces are actually the largest per-capita recipients of the federal government's largesse

c) How come a small piece of a state is not to be afraid of these wealth redistributions and only whole states get protection from them? Take Silicon Valley or some other anomalous region inside a state

And all those areas have to worry about are being exploited within their state, so the federal government has nothing to do with it.

Why not? The Federal government may exploit them as well. States are not uniform blocs of interest. Some are. Some (especially the ones that are already disenfranchised by the US system) are very much not.

feudal?

You can laugh all you want, but the word is very appropriate here. The government of 1789 was very much controlled by the landed aristocracy of the US. The Senate viewed themselves as peers of the realm (sometimes even more than this; there are a few anecdotes about this). The franchise was limited to perhaps 20-25% of the total adult population (not that much larger a base than in England at the time).

How? They are both equally hindered by a bicameral system.

NO THEY AREN'T. Minority governments barely pass legislation through one house. They will never get it through two houses. I can guarantee you that if we had a similar Senate to the US we never would have passed the legislation we did under minority governments. There is a correllation between strength in the upper and lower houses, but it is not strong enough to guarantee that a political alliance in the lower house will be strong enough in the upper house to pass bills, especially when they pass by the skin of their teeth in the lower house. A strong majority will likely be strong enough to pass most of its legislation in both houses, so the second house is almost no obstacle. As the majority gets slimmer and slimmer the chances of passing a bill which is at all controversial diminish far more rapidly than in a unicameral system.

[Tingkai]

NYE, use your head. If you have a new type of ship then you need to train specialised crews for the ship.

What are the operational costs. Well they ain't free.

And since when have the politicians ever listened to DND.

When Canada is involved in UN operations then by definition we have access to land bases. If the area is hostile and our forces have to be at see then we need more ships to protect the carriers. More money.

If you need to move in or evacuate troops, the best way to do it is with tactical or strategic transport, not helicopters.

Any person with an ounce of common sense would realise that this is a crazy idea. Canada does not have the financial resources to maintain a naval carriers. We have no need for them.

[notyoueither]

Tingkai, use your head. You first reported this as Aircraft Carriers. What do you know about it, aside from just about zero?

If the UN is something we want to support, what will do that? Are frigates and CF-18's effective peace-keepers? Or are boots on the ground needed?

If a ship can get boots on the ground, and support them, how is that not in keeping with Canadian priorities for the military?

I will admit, I assume that Harper would not do something DND told him was stupid. Call me an optimist.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I saw it.

a) I just don't believe that this one brand of oppression is so much more important than any other brand that you need to design an entire government system around it

Everything else can easily be provided for constitutionally.

b) Again, you missed the part where I mentioned that the small Canadian provinces are actually the largest per-capita recipients of the federal government's largesse

Which is obviously accepted by the larger states, so it's OK.

c) How come a small piece of a state is not to be afraid of these wealth redistributions and only whole states get protection from them? Take Silicon Valley or some other anomalous region inside a state

Because a state is treated as a whole - the federal government doesn't set policy for individual parts of a state. Any redistribution to be feared is within the state and beyond the scope of the federal government.

You can laugh all you want, but the word is very appropriate here. The government of 1789 was very much controlled by the landed aristocracy of the US. The Senate viewed themselves as peers of the realm (sometimes even more than this; there are a few anecdotes about this). The franchise was limited to perhaps 20-25% of the total adult population (not that much larger a base than in England at the time).

That has nothing to do with "feudalism".

NO THEY AREN'T. Minority governments barely pass legislation through one house. They will never get it through two houses.

Exactly my point - they're harmed equally.

As the majority gets slimmer and slimmer the chances of passing a bill which is at all controversial diminish far more rapidly than in a unicameral system.

That's the entire frigging point. You generally will have to get some people on both sides to agree about something before it goes through, which will result in legislation acceptable to a much larger number of people and less likely to infringe on anyone.

[KrazyHorse]

Harper with a military would be JAB: Just Another Blair

He wanted us in Iraq. 80% of us think we dodged a bullet on that one. I wouldn't want him to have access to any more toys to get us in trouble with. Point finale.

[notyoueither]

Good point. The Yanks were wrong and some believed them. We should disarm in that case.