# Liberal or Conservative?



## AZA-02 (19 Jun 2004)

Which one will keep their promise to bring the National Deffence back to life?

Liberal
600 million for 2004
+5000 men/women regular
+3000 men/women reserve

Conservative`s
1.2 billion per year for 5 years
+30 000 men/women regular!
+ ?????  reserve


----------



## stukirkpatrick (19 Jun 2004)

This should probably be moved to the political forum.

Personally, I can't trust either side to commit to drastic increases in military spending...but I trust the liberals less, especially after both the trial education reinbursement program ended (probably too costly to continue) and my summer infantry course was cancelled because of a lack of instructors.  No...I'm not bitter at all.


----------



## AZA-02 (19 Jun 2004)

i didn`t know there was a political forum?
i shall continue my search.
How do you become a full member?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Jun 2004)

Thats just a title for your number of posts. Vous avez les meme droits que tout les autres ici.
BRUCE


----------



## tabernac (19 Jun 2004)

300 posts... Oh! and would you look at that! I'm no longer a Junior Member, but a Member!


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jun 2004)

Who will keep their promise?

Neither.
Something will come up. Thats the way of politics.
I think the conservitives will come closer to keeping their promise than the liberals though.


----------



## sgt_mandal (19 Jun 2004)

I think so too. Even if they don't reach their goal fully, there would still be more money and personel in the forces. I hope you can understad what I an tryin to say :-[ lol


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Jun 2004)

Elections are always full of false promises. I wont be voting in teh Cdn election, as I am still a Cdn citizen, I believe why vote if I no longer reside there, and I think thats fair.

We too here in Australia are having a federal election rumoured to be in August, but either way it will happen this yr. One thing about our voting system,  it is compulsory to vote in any local state or federal election. If not you are FINED, unless you have a bonified reason to miss out.

Its the Liberals vs the Labor here, and here Libs are the conservatives, and Labor is liberal.

So when there is an election its always on  a Saturday, and there is no early knock off from work either. You must find the time to vote or get fined. with such a low population (19,000,000) over the years, the compulsory vote is the only way to encourage everyone to get it done. I value the democratic system, and I love voting, so I never miss one.

The current govt has the lowest unemployment in over 25 yrs, are in the green budget wise, and are pro-defence, so I am sure 'Jackboot Johnnie' (AKA John Howard) will be re-elected. we now have a very anti-assylum seeking policy where it comes to boat people etc, and this is the overal want of mainstream Australia. Our immigration laws have been indeed strengthened.

At the end of the day all pollies lie, promisse and kiss babies, thats one thing that never changes.


Cheers,


Wes


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jun 2004)

I always admired John Howard's conduct regarding the War on Terror.  Its good to hear that he is competant domestically as well.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Jun 2004)

Maybe it's just my opinion but I think some of the biggest problems in Ottawa with DND and all the other bureaucracies
will not be fixed with money alone.   I believe there needs to be an inherent philosophical shift in "how we do things".

I think the chances of Liberals forcing such changes are exactly nil.  

I think the chances of Harper forcing such changes are actually pretty good.

On that note alone, the Conservatives would earn my vote.

But the one thing I've actually found most troubling (and I've watched a ton of political coverage this year) is that after
really paying to attention to Liberal tactics and ethics (kind of an oxymoron), I wouldn't let Paul Martin much less any of 
his scumbag advisors (Tim Murphy his chief of staff in particular) as much as carry my golf clubs. 

They are a truly repugnant and deceitful group and should not have any influence whatsoever on the shaping of our society.




Matthew.   ???


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Jun 2004)

Hey Cole,

When ya get to Sydney, and if I am in town (AASAM deployment 10-25 Nov), I'll take ya to the oldest pub in town. Its at The Rocks right at Circular Quay and its called The Fortune of War Pub, and needless to say quite crouwded every 25th April! 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Jun 2004)

Cole, try www.therocks.com.au and www.seesydney.com and www.ourshire.com.au and www.news.com.au  Check out the live surf cams on the ourshire site. But beware the seatemp is 19C and its winter here right now.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Noyon (19 Jun 2004)

Im not able to vote due to my age right now, but if I was I would vote for conservatives. I watched the english debates and conservatives seemed to be worth their salt on the military issue. Liberals were avoiding questions and try to cover up their sponsorship scandal more than discussing their platform. I also believe Harper to understand why Canadians need military personnel, equipment, and entering the Star Wars program while Martin kept saying "Canada is a neutral country, we don't need to protect ourselves by putting missles in space" etc. etc.

Dunno bout the rest of Canada but I'd like to be safe from long range missiles if crap ever hits the fan.

My 2 cents, I can only hope Conservatives get a majority from my military stand point.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (19 Jun 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just my opinion but I think some of the biggest problems in Ottawa with DND and all the other bureaucracies
> will not be fixed with money alone.   I believe there needs to be an inherent philosophical shift in "how we do things".
> 
> I think the chances of Liberals forcing such changes are exactly nil.
> ...



That's how I determined who I would vote for. The Liberals had over 10 years to make all these changes, why didn't they make them then. Or better yet, why did they decrease military spending during those years? It's kind of silly for them to think people are going to believe that they're going to, all of a sudden, put more money into the military.  :


----------



## AZA-02 (19 Jun 2004)

Imagine having the budget of the American army. I know it ridiculous, but imagine having 500 billion dollars just on the military. we wouldn`t have to pay our debts to the countries we owe money to. I think  thats what the Americans are going to do. But it highly improbable.anyway we would have a greater power of decision over other countries. not that we should.


----------



## Herecomesthegun (20 Jun 2004)

The buget for the american military is not that high, its just over 300 million i believe, and a huge percentage of that money goes to their over sea comitments, so you cant picture that all that money goes towards equipment purchases.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (20 Jun 2004)

Good God....if it was 300 Million, Indonesia would have a bigger force than them....

The US defence budget is roughly 400 Billion. (almost half our GDP...)


----------



## AlphaCharlie (20 Jun 2004)

Yeah the americans have a shyte-load of money being poured into the military...


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2004)

> The buget for the american military is not that high, its just over 300 million i believe, and a huge percentage of that money goes to their over sea comitments, so you cant picture that all that money goes towards equipment purchases.



Again you interject with useless information; if your going to state a fact, please provide a link to the proof less this thread get even more convoluted with schoolyard guessing.

Google is a charm, kids:

http://www.cdi.org/budget/2004/world-military-spending.cfm

400 Billion is the figure, as Lost Warrior stated, and I highly doubt it is being used to blackmail other countries into releasing the US from foreign debt; where do you guys come up with this stuff?


----------



## AlphaCharlie (20 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> where do you guys come up with this stuff?



They like pretending they're special. 

300 million... haha... that would pay for their ammunition... maybe.


----------



## jswift872 (20 Jun 2004)

AlphaCharlie said:
			
		

> Infanteer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



doubt that, lol


anyway, i like the conservatives Mr. harper seems to be willing to put his money where his mouth is, and BTW, did you guys know that stephen harper wrote a letter or apology to the Americans stating that he is sorry we didn't go to Iraq, sorry, no link, watched it on the debate.....i will post a link if i can find one


----------



## 100235067 (20 Jun 2004)

Liberal or conservative? I would have to say conservative, This Liberal gov't was the one who neglected the armend forces in the first place. By nature a conservative style party, i.e PC/Alliance and now the new conservatives have always had a view that we need a larger armed forces and supported more defence spending. Yes, all politicians are liars, but i think that the conservatives will for sure be better than the Liberals regarding the military. 

As for the links posted above, are those figures accurate? Says the budget is only 7.6 billion, when it is almost double that according to the federal budget.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (20 Jun 2004)

In all honestly, I like Mr. Harper's plans for military spending and all that he's promised, but i'm still left wondering where he's going to get this extra money?


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jun 2004)

> As for the links posted above, are those figures accurate? Says the budget is only 7.6 billion, when it is almost double that according to the federal budget.



The figures are given in US dollars.


----------



## 100235067 (20 Jun 2004)

my bad, sorry


----------



## Sheerin (21 Jun 2004)

just checked the CIA world factbook and it listed Canada as having 9.8 billion USD for defense.  

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jun 2004)

Probably a little more accurate, the CDI figures I gave a oudated by a year or two.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

If I was back living in Canada under the skies of sunny Saskatchewan, I would vote Conservative, if I was an American, I would vote Republican, and in this yrs election here in Australia, I will most likely vote Liberal (here a Lib is Conseravtive and the Labor party is the liberals).

For me, its the party who is doing the right thing which gets my vote, as I am what is known here a swing voter. Its the views of the right wing which attract my attn such as, pro-defence, a party for stronger and better justice systems and sentancing, pro-gun ownership, anti-illegal immigration, etc. Thats the stuff I like. Here with the exception of the gunownership issue is the best one can get. 

Cheers,

Wes.


----------



## tabernac (21 Jun 2004)

> Its the Liberals vs the Labor here, and here Libs are the conservatives, and Labor is liberal.


Our right is your left, and your right if our left? Well your toilets do flow backwards...


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

That indeed is a true fact! Our toilets also half flush too (to conserve h2o). But we drive on the RIGHT (literally) ;D side of the road here.   

Yes I will have trouble adjusting to the driving in Canada. The last time I was there 4 yrs ago, I made a few wide left turns :-X

cheers,

Wes


----------



## tabernac (21 Jun 2004)

> Our toilets also half flush too (to conserve h2o)


But they still flush the wong way. 
Remember, NEVER drift into the LEFT lane. :dontpanic: :evil:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 Jun 2004)

AlphaCharlie said:
			
		

> In all honestly, I like Mr. Harper's plans for military spending and all that he's promised, but
> i'm still left wondering where he's going to get this extra money?



I think it's unsaid, but I believe he will gut a lot of the top-down bureaucracy in Ottawa.

As an example I think it was Duceppe who pointed out there were 10,000 people working for Health Canada
in Ottawa that didn't actually provide any services to patients.

Additionally, I would lay bets:
1)   The CBC will likely get a good-sized haircut.   
2)   Via, Canada Post and the other Crown Corporations get a subsidy trim as he extends the Auditor General's
pervue to include all of their activities.   (Of note, they are the only party even looking at this....)
3)   Say goodbye the Heritage Canada Department and see the remainder melded to Tourism Canada.
4)   Bye, bye Gun Registry   
5)   Reduced Corporate Subsidization across the board including the sweetheart deals in Quebec and some
of the nonsense with ACOA.

In short, he'll trim some fat, and then try to reduce duplication of services between the Federal Government
and Provincial Government except where absolutely necessary.     (Example: A National Centre for Disease
Control makes sense)



Matthew.


----------



## tabernac (21 Jun 2004)

> Bye, bye Gun Registry



But thats a good thing though. Isn't it? Cretien sunk so much money into that program.


----------



## Pugnacious (22 Jun 2004)

"1)   The CBC will likely get a good-sized haircut.   "

I remember back in 94 when I was in film and TV  the Vancouver CBC hallways being empty, and in the whole building there were more board security guards then TV people.  Mind you like everything esle the money is back East.

Also I'll be glad if the Gun registry goes bye bye. 
The Criminals don't register their guns anyway.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Jascar (22 Jun 2004)

People are quick to point out that it was the Liberals who began underfunding the military, but do remember that the Liberals came into power just as the Cold War was ending. Of course they spent less on the military, most western nations did because the major reason for spending was gone and public opinion shifted towards other priorities. Now we have the war on terror and public opinion is again shifting towards increased military spending.

The Conservatives say they're going to increase spending on the military and health care while significantly cutting taxes. I am left wondering where the money is going to come from. Other government programs are obviously going to be reduced or cut completely, and while this can be a good thing when the program in question is wasteful, don't kid yourself into thinking that the Conservatives are immune from creating wasteful projects and programs. Every type of government wastes tax dollars, no exceptions.

Another possibility is that the Conservatives won't spend as much as they're now promising on the military when crunch time comes. It always seems easier for an opposition party to make empty promises since they don't have to deal with putting the plan into action unless actually elected. The Conservative plan of increasing military spending arouses my suspicions since they haven't given any specifics. The Conservatives have just given a vague promise of 1.2 billion while the Liberals have promised funding for very specific projects like the Sea Kings. Plus, if anyone is in a position to know how much funding can be moved to defence and where it will come from, it's the guy who's been making the national budget for the last decade.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

> People are quick to point out that it was the Liberals who began underfunding the military, but do remember that the Liberals came into power just as the Cold War was ending. Of course they spent less on the military, most western nations did because the major reason for spending was gone and public opinion shifted towards other priorities. Now we have the war on terror and public opinion is again shifting towards increased military spending.



The Liberals had the unique positon of cutting funding to the military and letting our Forces stagnate while at the same time allowing a record amount of "peacetime" deployments to occur.  I can understand cutting the budget of an inactive department, but it was quite clear that they were more than happy to let the Forces struggle to do more with less.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (22 Jun 2004)

My father tells this great story about while at the University of Ottawa he used to work for the Art Gallery of Canada
and how he used to get paid to carry large pieces of art out so large numbers of Federally-paid art critics could give
their two cents.

Short Version:
1)   It took a long time as these guys were very long winded.
2)   Most of the art that they raved about was crap ('dog poop tribute to mussolini') while anything recognizable or with
an attractive colour pallette was considered junk
3)   There were more lisps that I can portray in a typed post.

Bottom Line:  
There is a huge amount of federal waste spent on our "Cultural Arts", that could be better spent just about anywhere
else.   As an example, just one of these guy's salaries would pay for 2 or 3 one-year leases on new ULEV buses.

We need to be smarter with our money....



Matthew.


----------



## G3RM (22 Jun 2004)

Conservative, liberals have screwed us enough.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jun 2004)

Suppose the Conservatives win. How long before before someone digs up some "dirt" on the them? Like an unpaid parking ticket, Harper passing by a baby without kissing. Someone said something rude about the french in 1987. Someone looking at playboy on the internet. Someone tried to hire a clown for their little boys party and the clown turned out to be a ninja who had ties to the Kyoto (sp?) accord.

The shit never stops. I figure 3 days before some earth shaking story comes out and instead of trying to fix Canada's problems our friends will be at each others throat trying to discredit each other. I can't wait.

I've also heard that even if the Conservatives win, Paul martian can somehow remain the PM. Any truth to that?


----------



## tabernac (22 Jun 2004)

> Paul martian can somehow remain the PM. Any truth to that?


I think the only way that would happen, would be in a coalition gov't. I don't see the Liberals siding with the Tories...


----------



## ags281 (22 Jun 2004)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I've also heard that even if the Conservatives win, Paul martian can somehow remain the PM. Any truth to that?



That's the beauty of our current electoral system. The conservatives could gain the most votes, but the liberals could end up with the most seats, or vice versa. This is also how we end up with strong majority governments that only 30-40% of the population voted for. We really need to get a mixed proportional system going instead of this first past the post crap IMO.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (22 Jun 2004)

The Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister until he submits his resignation to the Governor-General.  If, for example, he has 20 fewer seats than the conservatives, and he forms a coalition with the NDP who have 21 seats, then he remains the Prime Minister.  Until it is proven that he cannot form government by means of a coalition, he is the boss, and his party remains in power.

This is fact, and it gives the GG very little choice in the matter.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

In fact, a Prime Minister may legally attempt to hold his position even if they are in a clear majority.  But the reality of the situation often prevents these situations from playing out; for example, Kim Campbell did not try to maintain a Progressive Conservative government with 2 seats in the House of Commons, she simply handed in her resignation the moment she seen her party was finished.  Legally though, I think the Conservatives could have held on as the ruling party until a non-confidence vote was put forward.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (22 Jun 2004)

If I were Mr. Harper, instead of telling the people where I, a politician, think the money should go, I would leave it up to the minister of national defence or someone who acctually knows what needs funding.

Also, when I hear "cut" I immidiatly think of healthcare and education. I'm sure there is a *LOT* of excess fat in the upper echelons of Ottawa, as someone else already said.

I also think that our voting system is screwed up royally. Shouldn't it be Majority of Votes = Winner?


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

> I also think that our voting system is screwed up royally. Shouldn't it be Majority of Votes = Winner?



Then there would never be a winner.  I think Canada has only had one government form from a majority vote in the last 30 years; the others have all been formed from a plurality.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (22 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> > I also think that our voting system is screwed up royally. Shouldn't it be Majority of Votes = Winner?
> 
> 
> 
> Then there would never be a winner.   I think Canada has only had one government form from a majority vote in the last 30 years; the others have all been formed from a plurality.



Shouldn't the voting ballot look like this:

Liberal [_]
Conservative [_]
NDP [_]
Bloc [_]

You put an X on who you want to win. The group that gets the most votes (so if the if the Conservatives get 40%, Liberals get 30%, NDP get 20% and Bloc get 10%) then Conservatives win, Haper is PM and its a conservative government? That makes more sense.


----------



## ags281 (23 Jun 2004)

AlphaCharlie said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the voting ballot look like this:
> 
> Liberal [_]
> Conservative [_]
> ...



That's what a proportional electoral system does. 

With mixed proportional, you have one ballot that looks like that, and another that has names of your local candidates. A certain number of seats in the house would be seats for people who win the local riding MP vote, and remaining seats would be assigned so that the party with the most votes gets the most seats. There are a number of variations that could be done, such as X% of the party vote gets you X% of the total seats, or X% of the party vote gets you X% of the seats remaining after the local riding MP's are elected, or anything in between. Additionally, the number of seats assigned to riding MP's could be 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, etc. 

Ever since I did a bunch of research on electoral reform for an essay back in first year university for a poli sci elective I've been a fan of a mixed proportional system for Canada. It fixes a number of problems with our current system, maintains the local MP idea, and allows for a government that may not have won any riding seats in an area (e.g. Quebec or the west) to have some seats in the house filled by MP's from those areas still with the seats assigned by the party vote. 

Check out www.fairvotecanada.org if you've never heard of proportional or mixed-proportional electoral systems before. (www.fairvotecanada.org/fvc/AboutFairVoting for the quick overview descriptions)


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2004)

The first problem in the electoral system we have to face is that the fact that government is decided by the party with the most seats, not the most votes.   This presents a clear problem to those parties that have their support base diffuse throughout Canada as opposed to regionally centered.   A prominant example would be be the 1997 election, where the Reform Party, concentrated in Western Canada, won 60 seats and the Progressive Conservative Party, with a broader Canadian appeal, only won 20.   Yet _both parties had 19% of the popular vote_

A simple diagram can explain how this works:

Say a party needs five votes to win a seat.   On election day, the voting in five ridings looks like this:
-----
                        Riding 1        Riding 2         Riding 3        Riding 4      Riding 5

Party A            2                        2                        2                        2                       2            

Party B            5                        5                        0                        0                       0               
-----

Although both parties got 10 votes, Party B gets two seats while Party A gets squat.   This system is also the system that allows the Liberals to capture 60% of the seats in Parliament with only 40% of the popular vote; a majority of their votes were concentrated in Seat-heavy Ontario, where they swept the province.   As with the hypothetical Conservative victory you posted, a government is formed on the behest of 40% of the electorate; what do you say to the 60% who opposed that party at the polls?   A glaring flaw of first-past-the-post is that allows for plurality victories, rather than a more satisfying and representative majority vote.   (Mulroney was the only one to get one in the last three decades in 1984; Trudeau never had more than 45%).

The method of voting you allude to in your post with your hypothetical voting figures is what is known as proportional representation.   I have highlighted it in more detail on another thread here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17002.15

Even if proportional representation was introduced and a system of voting like you proposed, other problems would become apparent, mainly that you would leave your legislative body to a fate of constant minority governments, with their trademark log-jams, backroom wheeling, and unstableness; Israel's Knesset is a good example.   One of the greatest strengths of the Westphalian system is that a government, once elected with a majority in seats, can go about quite unhindered in its mandate.   That is not a problem in and of itself, it only becomes one when there is no sufficient checks or balances and a weak opposition to the governing party.   This has been the case in Canada for the last decade under Cretin.   No electoral system is perfect, but would would do well to stay away from the pitfalls of Layton's vaunted PR system.


----------



## ags281 (23 Jun 2004)

Ok, so you've found one country where it doesn't work. In all fairness, the Italians have had serious issues with it too. However, this is still merely two countries out of the many that have moved in this direction. I'd say the small chance of ending up with a system that doesn't work well is better than living with a system that we know doesn't work well. Besides, if it goes very very wrong, then we can always go back.

Generally, WRT the problems, I have to agree with the arguments here (oddly enough, I argued the exact same point of view in my essay years back before even seeing this):

arguments against pr/mixed systems

edit: I am ending my participation in the electoral reform debate on this thread to keep it limited to the thread mentioned by Infanteer above


----------



## AlphaCharlie (23 Jun 2004)

Wow. Why does it have to be so complicated? Oh well. I still have a year to go before I must worry about it.


----------



## Tebo (24 Jun 2004)

Three points of note:

1.) A   mixed Proportional / Regional election system has my thumbs up:   Allows us to retain the required voice of under populated regions while alloting popular parties with non-regional power bases a shot at making a difference.   Coalition government operate effectively in many European countries; Canadian politicians might learn to cooperate if they had no choice.

2.) I am a huge fan of the Singapore model.   Universal sufferage at age 21 and voting is mandatory.   The 'joy' of being a lazy, complacent citizen can not match up to the threat of being charged.   100% voter turnout and we can see what the silent majority really thinks.   Is there any argument against this?

3.) Green Party of Canada - "Go Green".   Sounds like something an army type person could go for.   : )


----------



## Pugnacious (24 Jun 2004)

What is the political standings of the Green Party towards the Canadian Military?

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jun 2004)

Tanks tear up the wetlands, airplanes pollute, and training soldiers spoil nature.   Oh yeah, our new submarines will be tasked to blow whalers out of the water....

On a serious note, I guarantee you it involves the word "peacekeeping"


----------



## stukirkpatrick (24 Jun 2004)

Speaking of party stances, the NDP's military plan is confounding.  Other than peacekeeping, they will "purchase safe search and rescue helicopters, and respect members of our armed forces with fair salaries, decent housing and safe equipment."

Don't we already have the new SAR helicopters?  What we need are replacement shipborne helos, to replace the Sea King.  But that would be considered "offensive" equipment, which the NDP also promises to cancel, or not purchase.

I guess the Canadian Forces will be better able to serve the rights of Canadians, and innocents abroad without weapons.   ^-^

They also promote peacekeeping, but anyone who has read "Shake Hands with the Devil" knows just how capable unarmed observers and minimally armed UN troops are in a serious warzone.


----------



## Jascar (25 Jun 2004)

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> What is the political standings of the Green Party towards the Canadian Military?



Military and security:
http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=17

Foreign policy:
http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=18


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Jun 2004)

Jascar said:
			
		

> Military and security:
> http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=17
> 
> Foreign policy:
> http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=18



My take on the Greens is that they are incredibly idealistic but most of their policies fail the "pragmatism test".

Examples:

1) Green Foreign Policy - will only deploy on UN-sanctioned missions.   

Problem:   The UN is not a legitimate body.

2) Missile Defence - will not allow space-based weaponss

Problem:   If North Korea launches a ballistic missile does it not pass through space in effect making it a space-based weapon?
In short, putting defensive weapons in space is a reasonable step to try to defend ourselves against would-be attackers
who do not share other's high moral standing.

3) Israel/Palestine:   Advocate for the creation of viable and secure states for both Israelis and Palestinians. 

Problem:   This basically means bend the Israeli's over and force them to cede land regardless of the strategic or tactical
realities that they are neighbours with a group of people who would like nothing more than to finish the holocaust.

4)   Insist that â Å“preventativeâ ? military actions will only increase the threat of terrorism. 

Problem:   That is just a dumb statement.   Let's bury the PC issues here for a second and recognize that there are no pagan
terrorists, animalist terrorists and Jewish/Christian terrorists are few and far between.   This is a primarily an Islamic issue.   
If we had taken preventative action in Rwanda, would that have increased the likelihood of terrorism?   Sorry, but this is
the kind of nonsense that pisses me off....

I could go on, but if you want to see the problem, check the Arts section where they talk about increased funding, the 
Childcare section in which they propose a mandatory 32-hour workweek, the Energy Section on how they would halt
all offshore drilling for petroleum reserves and phase out nukes (which is nuts if you've done any research on electricity
generation)....

There are so many, I'm out of energy.

Bottom Line:   These guys although well-intentioned need to be medicated.



Matthew.


----------



## Scratch_043 (25 Jun 2004)

> The Green Party will:
> 
> Maintain a Rapid Response and Deployment Force capable of supporting humanitarian, environmental and peace-keeping missions.
> Develop a merged National Reserve Force and Canadian Coast Guard to assume domestic responsibilities currently performed by the Department of National Defence.




...so, what they are saying is:
              We don't need a force for defence, we need an adult boyscout troop to help the people in need in other countries.
-what is the boyscout's motto?? 'do a good turn daily' something like that.


----------



## Jascar (25 Jun 2004)

While I'm not trying to defend the Green Party's platform, I would like to respond to your statements:


			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 1) Green Foreign Policy - will only deploy on UN-sanctioned missions.
> Problem:   The UN is not a legitimate body.


I don't really understand what you mean by that. The UN definately is a recognized, legitimate body. Moving on, there are many nations that only deploy troops on UN-sanctioned missions. This wouldn't be much of a change for Canada since most missions we participate in are UN-backed.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 2) Missile Defence - will not allow space-based weaponss
> Problem:   If North Korea launches a ballistic missile does it not pass through space in effect making it a space-based weapon?
> In short, putting defensive weapons in space is a reasonable step to try to defend ourselves against would-be attackers
> who do not share other's high moral standing.


A missle passing through space is not space "based." Based means it starts in space, like the lasers for an an anti-missle shield would. The subject of Canada's participation in a missle-defence program with the US is controversial and requires far more coverage than I can give it here. It's not quite as simple as "North Korea has nukes, let's build a shield."



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 3) Israel/Palestine:   Advocate for the creation of viable and secure states for both Israelis and Palestinians.
> Problem:   This basically means bend the Israeli's over and force them to cede land regardless of the strategic or tactical
> realities that they are neighbours with a group of people who would like nothing more than to finish the holocaust.


This statement reeks of ignorance of the situation. Israel itself is willing to cede land but the negotiations have been stalled/stopped/rejected several times. And creating a Palestinian state has little to do with those neighbors "who would like nothing more than to finish the holocaust." Palestinian land is one issue, land that Israel's neighbors want back is a seperate issue.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 4)   Insist that â Å“preventativeâ ? military actions will only increase the threat of terrorism.
> Problem:   That is just a dumb statement.   Let's bury the PC issues here for a second and recognize that there are no pagan
> terrorists, animalist terrorists and Jewish/Christian terrorists are few and far between.   This is a primarily an Islamic issue.
> If we had taken preventative action in Rwanda, would that have increased the likelihood of terrorism?   Sorry, but this is
> the kind of nonsense that pisses me off....


The events in Rwanda were all-out war and genocide, not terrorism. The two can't really be compared. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who believe that the invasion of Iraq only made the problem of terrorism worse. They might point out the daily bombings in Iraq as evidence.


----------



## Tebo (25 Jun 2004)

So I did some poking around the Green camp and came across a few things:

"When crisis emerges or disaster strikes in any nation, Canadians are deeply moved to provide help. To play a role in international assistance missions, Canada must maintain a large, highly-trained and well-equipped Rapid Response and Deployment Force (RRDF). This will require new investments in long-range strategic air-lift equipment, disaster-relief equipment, state-of-the-art armoured personnel carriers, personal protective equipment and training for our forces."   They also seem to talk pretty tough when it comes to deploying to UN sanctioned missions.   They want world justice it would seem.

Beyond the military perspective there are provisions for electoral reform, a senate referendum and an interesting ethics based corporate tax reform.   I am of mixed feelings about the Greens.   Surely there is idealism there, but with that comes a healthy amount of vision I find lacking in the alternatives.   They are not close to the hippie-only persona people seem so quick to allocate them.   But go read for yourself, it's somewhat endearing to see a party place food and nutrition as an actual platform component.   It might be worth the vote just to see the responses of Harper and Martin as they sit down in coalition against the Green majority.


----------



## ags281 (25 Jun 2004)

> The Green Party will:
> 
> Maintain a Rapid Response and Deployment Force capable of supporting humanitarian, environmental and peace-keeping missions.
> Develop a merged National Reserve Force and Canadian Coast Guard to assume domestic responsibilities currently performed by the Department of National Defence.



I'd rather see "a rapid response and deployment force capable of CARRYING OUT... missions." Politics is all about the words...   

As long as we're talking small parties here, I think the Canadian Action Party should replace the NDP. They're probably even farther out in left field, but at least they advocate a realistic military, so I might actually be able to listen to some of their ideas without that on my mind. If you're of the opinion that Hellyer messed up the forces though you'd have to resolve the fact that he's the party's founder :blotto: (I'm really going to have to read through his side of the story at some point)

I know for a fact that the conservative candidate is going to win in my riding by roughly 2:1 (again). This means that he doesn't need my vote, and a vote for anyone else is just as useless for determining who wins. The best way to make my vote count for anything is to try and give a little more legitimacy to the little guys.



> Surely there is idealism there, but with that comes a healthy amount of vision I find lacking in the alternatives.



Definately. I'd like to vote green just to try and get them into the debate next election. People hearing more options can only be a good thing. Then again, I might vote CAP because I kind of feel sorry for them having so much idealism and vision - whether 20/20 or not - but zero chance of winning any seats (they better at least beat out the marxists...). Oh yeah, Freedom would be getting consideration, but they don't have a candidate here.


----------



## SOLDIER702 (25 Jun 2004)

I'm pretty confident about the conservatives, besides the liberals have worn out their welcome as far as I'm concerned. In this day and age we need a government that will make our military what it should be. Soldiers should do what they are trained to do, not go to foriegn countries to take peoples garbage out. I'm all for peace keeping (this may sound weird), but often times it needs to be done in a more agressive manner. I say, since I am an employee of the department of national defence and the conservatives say that my job will more comfortable if they are elected; conservative.


----------

