Search results

Why should they? Proponents of the ideas of western civilization don't dismiss the pan-civilizational bases from which they are drawn. They just want those ideas to be emphasized and to continue to advance along a liberal vector. Those ideas have largely been secularized and no longer require...

Comparisons between workers and retirees making the same money are irrelevant. Pretty much everyone retired from some kind of ordinary work paid taxes to support someone else's OAS; some of them are bound to want their fair share back. This feeling is bound to be more acute among some of the...

Perhaps. But protectionism is protectionism, even with good reasons/excuses (eg. protect domestic industries). Doesn't matter whether it's defence, auto manufacturing, or dairy. I doubt my emotions are as intense as you seem to think. I appreciate having the USA as neighbours rather than any...

Sure. Imagine the long list of European countries that never play politics to favour their own defence industries.

Europe sure has been hard done by over the years. American Leopards, American LeClercs, American Challengers, American Chieftans, American Marders, American Gepards, American Typhoons, American Mirages, American Rafales...

Except for that time that they decided to participate in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, maybe.

France's complaints, viewed from another angle, amount to merely envy that NATO has never been French enough and that its position is approximately third banana (behind UK and Germany). What exactly is "European sovereignty"?

Are things bad enough that cannibalizing the cadet organization is really worth talking about?

Holding lists are a way of maintaining some attachment to people already usefully trained. A category of people trained approximately to a level at which they might reasonably not injure themselves in a military environment is something less.

That's not how the political structure works there. A party can control Congress and, without a veto-proof majority, be almost powerless in Congress. The executive can do (or try) whatever it wants to (eg. by executive orders), limited only by courts and with its back protected in Congress by...

Whatever. Other nations have had over 80 years to do more and thereby lessen US dominance, and it's useful to remember that it started because a bunch of important players - not just the US - wanted it to.

I understand that there are games that can be played with words and numbers in order to advance points of view. OAS has become a new whipping boy (in some mentions surpassing the deficit itself for first mention), but it works best if the biggest possible number can be presented. So we have...

So, wonder of wonders, we're not going to save $100 billion. People should not keep throwing that number out unless they advocate complete elimination of the program. So keep going. What happens at $81K, or at Canadian median income?

All fine. The US didn't - contrary to what many people think - ask for or seek the role of "world policemen". The US drew down its forces rapidly after WW II, and it was the realization - shared with some of its western allies - that there was no hope the USSR would not be aggressively...

Based on history, expecting Canadians to show low support for defence spending is the safest bet. As much as some people gripe in the abstract about the cost of OAS, I can guess that a large number of people will very concretely have at least one relative or know one recently departed who...

I didn't propose those things. I shall restate what I wrote more explicitly, since implied bits may not have been obvious: "US-favouring foreign policy and procurement [on the part of others] aren't reasonable expectations [on the part of the US]".

Of course they are. Binders full of studies to prove it. When the Boomers are gone, each generation in succession is likely to be equally selfish. It's not as if conservative parties in Canada are overthrowing Liberal and NDP governments everywhere on the strength of voters under 60, and most...

Absolutely unacceptable that it's not reasonable for the US to expect others to fall in line with US foreign policy and buy American? Why?

US-favouring foreign policy and procurement aren't reasonable expectations. As for use, "Please spend a bunch of money establishing facilities in our country. We reserve the right to prevent you from using the facilities" is a difficult proposition to sell.

It'd be refreshing if any of the OAS critics would dig into the data and identify the fraction of the spending which ought to be retained for people in need, and the fraction which is going to people who reasonably do not need it. It'd be more refreshing if they proposed ways to shrink more...