Harper's Management Style and Lebanon

[tudararms]

"If we're going to continue to participate in missions to Afghanistan, Bosnia and now perhaps helping to police the Lebanon-Israel border, it would be useful to be able to move our own gear."

Abeja: No, I think Aod is implying, like all Liberals believe, that Canada shouldn't have a military to begin with, or at least that we shouldn't actually fund it or equip it!

 

[billy corgan19982]

If anything I would like to see more spending on defense. With global warming, the Northwest Passage will eventually allow for year round shipping and with no artic presence countries like the US and Russia might challenge our sovereignty over the arctic. As of now they refuse to recognize the passage as Canadian waters.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

turdararms:

Abeja: No, I think Aod is implying, like all Liberals believe, that Canada shouldn't have a military to begin with, or at least that we shouldn't actually fund it or equip it!

Do not presume to think or not think what I am implying, much less align my views with any political party.

I believe we should have a military focused on defense, not transcontinental power projection to unexplained ends.

bc:

The US certainly did on several occasions. There were on and off plans to build icebreakers and nuclear subs which lead to nowhere.

AoD

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I believe we should have a military focused on defense, not transcontinental power projection to unexplained ends.

Defense, offense, whatever. If we have to fight to defend ourselves, someone's country is going to get trashed, as the Lebanese are finding out now. Far better that it be some other country than this one.

Kevin

 

[Duplicitous]

Or we could buy fifty or more Dash-8s for the same price, combined, again, giving more payload and volume.

As someone with family at DeHavilland for the last 30 years, they couldn't build 50 and complete the order for a decade. The place is on skeleton legs now, the workforce decimated and skills in short supply, and no one believes they will still be in Downsview in a decade anyway.

 

[unimaginative2]

More importantly, then, who owns that incredibly valuable land? If it's Bombardier, why haven't they shut down and developed it yet? It's probably their single biggest asset.

 

[tudararms]

"I believe we should have a military focused on defense, not transcontinental power projection to unexplained ends."

The job of the military is to do what the government directs it to do. If you don't like the policies of the government you can express that at election time. That doesn't change the fact that every sovereign nation requires a military, and we have grossly neglected ours, which was irresponsible.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

tudararms:

Lest I remind you the current government is one of a minority situation? In addition, I shall express my displeasure at government policies anytime I see fit, and not limited to election time.

Where did you read that I suggest that our nation should 1. live without a military and 2. that our current military isn't degraded or neglected?

As to the matter of responsiblity, don't forget the democratically elected government at the time (and a majority at that) chose to neglect the military (and other priorities) in order to balance the budget.

AoD

 

[Duplicitous]

Lest I remind you the current government is one of a minority situation? In addition, I shall express my displeasure at government policies anytime I see fit, and not limited to election time.

The Afghan mission is EXACTLY the same one that the Liberals set up. Both the command and mission objectives are identical to that as instructed by Chretien and Martin.

Nothing changed with Harper. It i funny that people equate this mission as being different all of a sudden.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Duplicitous:

My comment is directed at the current spate of military spending announcements.

AoD

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

As to the matter of responsiblity, don't forget the democratically elected government at the time (and a majority at that) chose to neglect the military (and other priorities) in order to balance the budget.

There was a lot more to it than cutting the budget. The budget cuts would have been okay without the accelerated wartime deployment schedule they also gave to the forces, which lead to the military using the capital budget to fund operations. That directly lead to the large number of projects that need funding now, and the current funding announcements.

Kevin

 

[unimaginative2]

Our military is so underfunded that we spend more than Spain, a country with 150,000 troops and an aircraft carrier.

 

[tudararms]

"Lest I remind you the current government is one of a minority situation?"

Is a government only allowed to govern in a majority situation? Does that apply to Liberal minorities too?? Shame, it seems to me we have more of a democracy in a minority situation.


"As to the matter of responsiblity, don't forget the democratically elected government at the time (and a majority at that) chose to neglect the military (and other priorities) in order to balance the budget."

It was their position to neglect the military? Was this in the "red book"?? Maybe it is somewhere near the section where they vowed to abolish the GST??


"Where did you read that I suggest that our nation should 1. live without a military and 2. that our current military isn't degraded or neglected?

...then believe it or not, we are in agreeance!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

tudararms:

Is a government only allowed to govern in a majority situation? Does that apply to Liberal minorities too?? Shame, it seems to me we have more of a democracy in a minority situation.

Don't confuse governance as per the the mechanisms set up in the constitution and governance as per the general wants and needs of the people, they are not necessarily congruent. Interestingly, it does apply to Liberal minorities - and one should read into what Harper et. al. have said about behaviour the said government during its' lifetime, vis-a-vis arrogance in particular. I suppose those who live in glass houses...

Would you care to clarify, by the way, the way we have more of a "democracy" in a minority situation? Not that I necessarily disagree, but this comment is rather confusing. I don't know about you, I am all for proportion representation for a more democratic system of governance.

It was their position to neglect the military? Was this in the "red book"?? Maybe it is somewhere near the section where they vowed to abolish the GST??

It was their position to reduce spending so as to balance the budget, so much so at the cost of other things. I believe the electorate know that, and went along with it. Also keep in mind that in spite of the inability to follow through on the cut on GST, the party in question went for 3 back to back majorities.

...then believe it or not, we are in agreeance!

No, we are not. The devil is in the details. And by the way, I haven't read a single comment by you as to where you've read that I suggested both things.

AoD

 

[tudararms]

"Don't confuse governance as per the the mechanisms set up in the constitution and governance as per the general wants and needs of the people"

Liberal hegemony was a phenomenon resulting from a divided "right". Look at 'popular vote' election results from many ridings and you find that the opposition vote actually trumps the liberal vote, only it was divided...so much for 'governance as per the general wants and needs of the people"! Which is why:

1. The liberals were elected back to back majorities in spite of consistently broken election promises and scandals.

2. A government has to govern and be judged accordingly, whether a majority or a minority, whether having the popular vote or not.


" Would you care to clarify, by the way, the way we have more of a "democracy" in a minority situation? Not that I necessarily disagree, but this comment is rather confusing. I don't know about you, I am all for proportion representation for a more democratic system of governance."

Look at the current situation with Harper and his minority government where they are consistently having to go to the House to approve (or not) his mandate and his agenda. In this process there is negotiation and compromise, and an ability to bring down the house if the ruling party is not being responsive. Contrast this with a majority government situation where the ruling party can simply push through whatever they choose, whether it was part of their mandate or not, whether it alligns with their election promises or not.

"It was their position to reduce spending so as to balance the budget, so much so at the cost of other things."

Wasn't this the same with the Harris Conservatives in Ontario: slashing healthcare and what are basically other 'essential' services in the name of balancing the budget? How is this responsible governance?