Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
Source: International Institute for Straegic Studies - Military Balance.
I advocate making five years military service compusory for every citizen at 17 years of age.
After service in the regular forces, two months service per year in the active reserve until age 35. That is what the Swiss do.
I also advocate the developement of the full range of tactical and strategic nuclear forces, particularly ERD's.
If Isreal can defend itsself, so can we.
If as is obvious, Canadians do not want to defend the country, why have a Defence budget at all. Having a few thousand people in uniform giving their lives because they are not given the resources needed is a waste of money. Either you make the commitment to defend the nation or put out the welcome mat.


I don't think anyone would argue with most of that. We certainly don't need to increase taxes to afford it though. Gut the welfare state.

I'm not sure you can compare us to Israel. We share the longest undefended border with the most powerful nation on earth.

The real question is who wants to die for a country filled with people who force their wives to cover themselves in public?
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The point is, neither of us are in sync with the voting population. Canadians want to keep the welfare state and do not wish to have a large military.
I have come to terms with the fact that my views are not shared with 99% of the voters.
Cutting Government services is opposed by probably 80%. While many of us say cut Government spending, what we mean is cut Government spending on those programs I don't like or don't use. I never hear anyone say cut the services that I rely on most.
Governments are appointed to govern according to the wishes of the people.
bsenka





Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 227
Reputation: 86.8Reputation: 86.8
votes: 4

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thurmas wrote:
many people born to unwed teenaged mothers live a life of poverty and crime and become dependant on the welfare state to support them.


So the solution is to murder the child? Because the POTENTIAL for poverty/crime/welfare exists? Why stop there? Let's kill everyone whose household income is below the poverty line. We'd be doing them a favour, right? :roll:
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
The point is, neither of us are in sync with the voting population. Canadians want to keep the welfare state and do not wish to have a large military.
I have come to terms with the fact that my views are not shared with 99% of the voters.
Cutting Government services is opposed by probably 80%. While many of us say cut Government spending, what we mean is cut Government spending on those programs I don't like or don't use. I never hear anyone say cut the services that I rely on most.
Governments are appointed to govern according to the wishes of the people.


You are making numbers up.

And besides, even if your numbers are correct, are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't fight for what I believe in because most Canadians don't support it? That is ridiculous. This thread is about WHAT I BELIEVE IN - not what most Canadians believe in. Public opinion is malleable and I intend to change it through fighting.

I guess that is another thing I believe in that you don't - fighting for what I believe in.

And you don't speak for me. I say cut government spending on programs regardless of whether or not I use them.

And governments are not "appointed". They are "elected". And they are not, as you contend, elected to do the wishes of the people. They are elected to do what they said they would do in their platform - and in this country that means about 39% of the population has to support it.


Last edited by Craig on Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:25 am; edited 4 times in total
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bsenka wrote:
thurmas wrote:
many people born to unwed teenaged mothers live a life of poverty and crime and become dependant on the welfare state to support them.


So the solution is to murder the child? Because the POTENTIAL for poverty/crime/welfare exists? Why stop there? Let's kill everyone whose household income is below the poverty line. We'd be doing them a favour, right? :roll:


We should also abort people with Alzheimers. Don't forget them. They are such a "burden" on society.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
queenmandy85 wrote:
The point is, neither of us are in sync with the voting population. Canadians want to keep the welfare state and do not wish to have a large military.
I have come to terms with the fact that my views are not shared with 99% of the voters.
Cutting Government services is opposed by probably 80%. While many of us say cut Government spending, what we mean is cut Government spending on those programs I don't like or don't use. I never hear anyone say cut the services that I rely on most.
Governments are appointed to govern according to the wishes of the people.


You are making numbers up.

And besides, even if your numbers are correct, are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't fight for what I believe in because most Canadians don't support it? That is ridiculous. This thread is about WHAT I BELIEVE IN - not what most Canadians believe in. Public opinion is malleable and I intend to change it through fighting.

I guess that is another thing I believe in that you don't - fighting for what I believe in.

And you don't speak for me. I say cut government spending on programs regardless of whether or not I use them.

And governments are not "appointed". They are "elected". And they are not, as you contend, elected to do the wishes of the people. They are elected to do what they said they would do in their platform - and in this country that means about 39% of the population has to support it.


I do believe in fighting for what I beleive in. Before I climb a mountain, I like to know how high it is.
I would never presume to speak for you. I obviously have my own views of what the military should be...powerful enough to destroy any enemy.
Governments,- that is the Prime Minister and the cabinet,- are appointed by the Crown. The selection is based on who commands the confidence of Parliament.
The Queen through her Governor General, may appoint anyone she wishes, but to create a ministry that will succeed, she appoints those who have the confidence of the House.
Never give up fighting for what you believe in.
thurmas





Joined: 04 Aug 2009
Posts: 227
Reputation: 36Reputation: 36Reputation: 36Reputation: 36
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it would be impossible for canada to have an army to destroy any enemy, say the u.s. invaded canada their whole military budget is over $500 billion while the whole national budget of canada for everything is $245 billion.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
Before I climb a mountain, I like to know how high it is.


Quote:
I obviously have my own views of what the military should be...powerful enough to destroy any enemy.


These two statements seem to be contradictory. You are preoccupied by what the Canadian public is willing to accept but want a military capable of destroying any enemy?

My military goals are much more modest but you contend that I don't have the support of the Canadian population.

I'm not sure what your point is.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Having a weak military is a waste of money. I do not believe a modest defence policy can defend the country. A modest defence policy backed up with nuclear weapons may, but, as you see, I have a lot of work to do to persuade people.
The same can be said for my views on the Monarchy.
I will say that I don't know how popular your views are but I encourage you to keep working to change minds.
With that, I am travelling for a few days and must withdraw from the thread.
Thank you for your thoughts.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 224
Reputation: 94.4Reputation: 94.4
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thurmas wrote:
it would be impossible for canada to have an army to destroy any enemy, say the u.s. invaded canada their whole military budget is over $500 billion while the whole national budget of canada for everything is $245 billion.


I said it would be expensive. However, the North Viet Namese defeated them. To defeat an American invader, you have to bleed them to death.
The Americans are unlikely enemies but defence policy is based on what could happen rather than what is likely to happen. Hence, Defence Scheme Number One.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
I said it would be expensive. However, the North Viet Namese defeated them.


But the North Vietnamese didn't have a great army. They just had a huge tactical (a jungle) advantage and the backing of the second most powerful nation on earth. Likewise Iraq had a horrible army but by using terrorist tactics they fared pretty well against the Americans for a long time.

Maybe you would prefer that instead of spending vast sums of money trying to build a better army than the USA we simply train our troops to ignore generally accepted rules of engagement and employ terrorist tactics???
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7516
Reputation: 300.8Reputation: 300.8
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As it pertains to the Military;
We are members of NATO, this pact with larger nations assists us in being able to protect ourselves from any external threats.

The argument of defending ourselves from the Americans is hardly a realistic benchmark as to the effectiveness of our military.

We need to contribute to our commitment to our allies at a level that is practicable within our population and level of revenue.

Flying our troops in Sea Kings Helicopters built in 1967 or providing air support in CF 18 Hornets that were purchased in 1982, or having troop carriers (which are finally being phased out) that were procured by the Diefenbaker government is not honoring our commitment.

Under the previous Liberal Government our soldiers were actively deployed to Rwanda, Somalia (UNOSOM II), Kosovo, and Afghanistan as well as a half dozen other more conventional peacekeeping missions yet the materials we provided our troops was allowed to rust away as they watched their budget slashed as they saw their workload explode.

At a minimum we need to give our forces the materials they need to do the job they are being asked to do.
Jason Kauppinen





Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 113
Reputation: 74.2
votes: 5

PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
I advocate making five years military service compusory for every citizen at 17 years of age.


Manditory military service is socailism plain and simple.

No human being's life belongs to the state. The state's reason for existence, and it's only reason for existence is to secure the individual rights of it's citizens. It has no "inherent rights" of it's own and certainly does not have the right to compel other people into service... any more than an individual does.
thurmas





Joined: 04 Aug 2009
Posts: 227
Reputation: 36Reputation: 36Reputation: 36Reputation: 36
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

why does canada want to become vietnam, the u.s. defeated itself in vietnam ie: the democrats pulling out and north vietnam had huge soviet aid.nobody will ever invaid canada, there could be terrorist attacks but no invasion especially with the strong allies we have.
bsenka





Joined: 02 Dec 2008
Posts: 227
Reputation: 86.8Reputation: 86.8
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a difference between being able to defend our own borders and being able to attack another country.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


What do you believe in?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB