Harper unveils Arctic plan
- Thread starter Said1
- Start date
Mr. Harper has finally proposed an idea that I could vote for. A permanent Armed Forces Base in the Arctic and warships of our own--we definitely need these. But,these have to be built in Canada.
Harper's costing sucks though. He said he'd spend 5.3 billion on the military. This puts him up around 6.5 billion and the rumour is that there's at least one more announcement to come. He's over-budget by more than a billion dollars and it isn't even election day yet. Toss in that military programs rarely run on budget and this is really wonky.
To me that says that he either has no intention of keeping these promises...and the ice-breakers run ten years into the future...or he's planning to make some drastic cuts someplace else.
To me that says that he either has no intention of keeping these promises...and the ice-breakers run ten years into the future...or he's planning to make some drastic cuts someplace else.
I'm concerned that a Conservative Government under the leadership of the Hon. Stephen Harper could well ruin Canada's streak in terms of balanced budgets. The Conservatives' proposals are pricy — and with my understanding of current Government expenditures, could not be sustained without cutting something, somewhere.
Do we honestly believe that if strengthening the military had been possible under our current fiscal framework, that the Liberals wouldn't have already done something similar? Even with the "scandals" alleged against the Liberal Government, the funds claimed to be involved are minor in comparison to the overall budget, so I'm worried about how Stephen Harper plans to pull this off.
Do we honestly believe that if strengthening the military had been possible under our current fiscal framework, that the Liberals wouldn't have already done something similar? Even with the "scandals" alleged against the Liberal Government, the funds claimed to be involved are minor in comparison to the overall budget, so I'm worried about how Stephen Harper plans to pull this off.
The sooner you quit thinking of these men as honourable, the sooner things will start to get better.
lol, whether or not I disagree with Stephen Harper's policies, I think that anyone who is willing to go into public office to represent Canadians, even to support policies that oppose my own opinions, deserves a great deal of respect. That's just my opinion though, and I know many people will disagree. lol
That's just my opinion though, and I know many people will disagree. lolThey deserve no more, and no less, respect than the man or woman building your road.
Leaders have vision that earns them extra respect. None of ours do. Martin and Harper need to be led around by the noses, their vision is so bad. They prefer to be led by corporatists, so even their sense of smell is questionable. Layton might have vision, but so far he's just a good politician. We'll see if he can see or if he just watches where things are going soon.
That puts Layton out in front in my books, but I'm still looking for the guy who can change things. There are political messiahs, whether you agree with them or want to spike them up. We need one about now...not just in Canada either.
hey the new handgun ban is supposed to cost and estimated $700 million taxpayer dollars, that is much higher than what was predicted for the first gun registry which ended up costing us close to 2 billion. I think most sane people would like to see the illogical handgun ban scrapped and the funds put to defending canadian arctic sovereignty.
but seriously I think protecting and having a presence in our north is an importiant issue, and one that I will back no matter which partisan group it comes from. I think there is enough money do undertake projects like this with surpluses nearing 10 billion in Ottawa. We should also compare Canada with other similar countries like Australia who spend much more on defence. If we want to stop living under the defence of the US we should support proposals like these.
but seriously I think protecting and having a presence in our north is an importiant issue, and one that I will back no matter which partisan group it comes from. I think there is enough money do undertake projects like this with surpluses nearing 10 billion in Ottawa. We should also compare Canada with other similar countries like Australia who spend much more on defence. If we want to stop living under the defence of the US we should support proposals like these.
I've kinda lost track of the billions that Harper plans to spend but I know it's a lot. I'm not too concerned about submarines poking around our northern waters, who the hell cares? Anything they want to know about Canada or our resources can be found out from ground, internet, or satellite intelligence. We are an open society so we don't have a lot of secrets and we just don't have any enemies because we stay home and mind our own business.
What I am concerned about is updating and improving our Universal Health Care system., that really affects me and everyone I know. I don't want to open the gates to the for-profit medical providers and insurance companies either, I want health care that anyone can afford just as it was originally envisioned. Our current system is a good one but it is badly outdated and needs to be improved. What we do need is a Federal Standard of Universal Healthcare that all Provinces must meet and the ongoing commitment of Federal money to do it. For some reason, the two leading parties are reluctant to discuss it. Jack Layton appears to be the only one that cares about this very important issue.
:wav:
What I am concerned about is updating and improving our Universal Health Care system., that really affects me and everyone I know. I don't want to open the gates to the for-profit medical providers and insurance companies either, I want health care that anyone can afford just as it was originally envisioned. Our current system is a good one but it is badly outdated and needs to be improved. What we do need is a Federal Standard of Universal Healthcare that all Provinces must meet and the ongoing commitment of Federal money to do it. For some reason, the two leading parties are reluctant to discuss it. Jack Layton appears to be the only one that cares about this very important issue.
:wav:
I would agree that protecting Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic is a major concern — however, we need to be sure that the fiscal framework we are dealt can sustain the measures that Mr. Harper is "promising" (sorry for the quotes, but I am wary of campaign promises from any party, including the Conservative Party).
While I will not likely vote for the Conservative candidate in the riding of Newton — North Delta, I would be willing to support the Conservative Party's policy regarding Arctic sovereignty so long as I have a good-faith belief that it won't be dependant on a red-number budget.
While I will not likely vote for the Conservative candidate in the riding of Newton — North Delta, I would be willing to support the Conservative Party's policy regarding Arctic sovereignty so long as I have a good-faith belief that it won't be dependant on a red-number budget.
as a world we are approaching this in a backwards manner.
what we need is more disarmament, not more armament.
what we need is more disarmament, not more armament.
I agree, the caracal kid. But if the problem with Arctic sovereignty is directly tied into the United States' intrusions into Canadian waters, then the problem might not be easily resolved. Judging from its past performances, I doubt the United States is going to "play nice" just because we ask them to.
Reverend Blair said:
That would be because the fine example gun control in Canada has been of the "vision" the Liberals (and the NDP) have of Canada, for example:
Massive over runs of programs, say those estimated to cost $2 million wind up costing $1.7 billion, plus $100 million per year.
Loss of civil rights for those not politically correct, for example the right to remain silent, the right to be free from unreasonable search, and the right to property for people who dare to own guns.
The intrusion of government into peoples' private lives, with questions about job, educational, and marital performance on license application forms.
The constant repression of individual choice and rights by the imposition of "feel good" legislation (like gun bans) that demonstrably do nothing to affect the problem at hand.....they just make lefty no brainers "feel good"
Next Question?
Harper's arctic babblings are silly, expensive, unrealistic and election bombast. This issue is a cheap shot by the CPC.
Those pesty US submarines are a real problem. I am sure they will be detered by four submarines under repair in Halifax harbour.
Eskimo drug running could also be invested. This is a problem in the future and nothing like a military presence to deter it.
Eventually if the NW Passage becomes of interest as a navigational waterway;the US who barely recognizes Canada's claim, which is tenuous to say the least, will ignore our gunboats with impunity. Solution is treaties and joint agreements.
The norther exposure issue has to be studied in depth with the chief culprits interfering; namely, the USA and Denmark. This should not be a silly election issue.
Durgan.
Those pesty US submarines are a real problem. I am sure they will be detered by four submarines under repair in Halifax harbour.
Eskimo drug running could also be invested. This is a problem in the future and nothing like a military presence to deter it.
Eventually if the NW Passage becomes of interest as a navigational waterway;the US who barely recognizes Canada's claim, which is tenuous to say the least, will ignore our gunboats with impunity. Solution is treaties and joint agreements.
The norther exposure issue has to be studied in depth with the chief culprits interfering; namely, the USA and Denmark. This should not be a silly election issue.
Durgan.
Durgan said:
Actually, Durgan, the NW passage will become a very important water route if global warming continues to shrink the ice there. And our sovereignty over that area is only assured by a military presence.
Nobody is suggesting we blow a US sub out of the water.......that would not be wise, to say the least. What is important is that we "show the flag" so those nations contesting our sovereignty at least have a reason to negotiate with us. If we are not militarily present, why bother negotiating what is de facto not under our control anyway?
It's about the only things the Conservatives have come up with on which they have some solid points. The notion that we live in world of secure alliances, that the Western alliance will protect our soveriegnty, or worse that America will protect it, without demanding something in return is fallacious. We live in a dangerous world, and one of the great prizes in the world is the largely uninhabited Canadian Arctic, with what the world views, as a less than compelling title to it, and an unwillingness to protect it with a strong military.
Canada should have a military force of 100,000 soldiers, as it did into the 80's. It should be spending 2% of its GDP on Defense (as is the Nato norm, the U.S. spends 4%), enough to sustain a defense industry (which can be a substantial industrial, technological and developmental engine for the economy), rather than just being purveyors of foreign armaments. It should have a constant shipbuilding and retrofitting program, including nuclear submarines, essential for patrolling the Arctic waters and ice ways.. rather than waiting for a Conservative government to throw in some money every couple of decades for a buying program.
Peacekeeping is not function of a nation's military. It is just an appendage to its foreign policy. Militaries exist to PROTECT SOVEREIGNTY. This tunnel visioned concept of the World's Peacekeeper that the Liberals have espoused is largely ineffective, and completely unfocusses the military from its real mission. It's just another sign of the moral bankruptcy of the Liberals.. who have given up on Canada as anything but a tiny province of the International Free Trade Oligarchy.. and its enforcers in the WTO, IMF and World Bank
Canada should have a military force of 100,000 soldiers, as it did into the 80's. It should be spending 2% of its GDP on Defense (as is the Nato norm, the U.S. spends 4%), enough to sustain a defense industry (which can be a substantial industrial, technological and developmental engine for the economy), rather than just being purveyors of foreign armaments. It should have a constant shipbuilding and retrofitting program, including nuclear submarines, essential for patrolling the Arctic waters and ice ways.. rather than waiting for a Conservative government to throw in some money every couple of decades for a buying program.
Peacekeeping is not function of a nation's military. It is just an appendage to its foreign policy. Militaries exist to PROTECT SOVEREIGNTY. This tunnel visioned concept of the World's Peacekeeper that the Liberals have espoused is largely ineffective, and completely unfocusses the military from its real mission. It's just another sign of the moral bankruptcy of the Liberals.. who have given up on Canada as anything but a tiny province of the International Free Trade Oligarchy.. and its enforcers in the WTO, IMF and World Bank
Colpy said:
Trust a Conservative to apply as a point of contention, an issue which they, themselves, have caused...
Well done neocon hack...