Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Not to mention those years of poverty level living conditions that they suffered through simply to "serve their country". It's no suprise the left dosen't get this because they showed that with decades of underfunding.

Back on the topic, Jack can bitch all he wants and blame Harper if it snows in winter. Jack simply has no credability.

   

The point he rasied is invalid?

   

The NDP arguing for putting more effort into securing Canadian sovereignty (which means such things like boosting military spending, being more aggressive in international politics) is like the Conservatives arguing for state ownership of industry and increased social spending.

Sort of leaves you standing there wondering "What the fu*k?"

   

if we don't do anything more than plant a flag up North we are so toast...
the resources there will more than cover the cost of putting a military preasence
there...and not a token Ranger or Two ...it has to have teeth and the support to use it

   

Take the blinders off.

   

Just stating the obvious... or do you think its realistic that the NDP would boost defence spending and have a more aggressive foreign policy.

Yes or No?

   

Read the thread, that was answered on page 1 or 2 I think.

   

No, it wasn't.

   

The same point could have been made by any party not just the NDP and be just as valid.

   

Back on topic ...the only way Canada can show any claim of Canadian sovereignty in the arctic is by being able to project her presence there 365 days of the year. Unfortunately ice crushers will not be able to do that.What we need are ICEBREAKERS! It does't matter if they are Canadian Navy or Coast Guard....what we need are ICEBREAKERS!

   

The icebreakers were already a part of the tory election platform and was removed because of the budget. That the NDP are pointing this out and not the liberals is interesting.

   

Quite correct.
I find it delicious to reflect on the differences between the Canadian and the US in this reguard. Alaska is Alaska because they have developed their resources and the forces are there to protect those assets. Without greed, Alaska would be as desolate as Canada's north.

It's not enough to run a ship by every few months but we actually need to do something with our north, and developing those resources is really the only reason to be there.

   

Sorry riden, but I have to disagree...Alaska is not totally icebound for months at a time.

   

That's not entirely true. Alaska developed the way it did for a couple of reasons.

One was the Yukon Gold Rush, which saw thousands of people flock north (through Juneau - preciptating the crisis that cost Canada the panhandle), which meant that cities/towns and the supporting infrastructure was necessary to support them, as many of them settled in Alaska permanently after the rush.

Another reason was that Alaska was right across a narrow body of water from those godless Commies, who, as 50s era propagnada told us, were just a short step away from taking everything from us. That factor necessitated a string of bases (some built to supply those same Commies in WW2) to protect it. It wasn't until quite a bit later that Prudhoe Bay opened up production in 1977. Alaska also currently provides a good staging area for possible future operations in East Asia, should they ever be necessary.

I guarantee you, that if Canada's arch-nemesis (whoever that may be) was a few hundred kms from Diavik diamond mine, we would have a far more powerful Arctic presence than we do. The old Airborne Regiment was actually tasked with providing a mobile force to protect the Arctic. However, the end of the Cold War has lessened the perceived need for such forces. Hopefully, with the development of the diamond mines and the Mackenzie Gas pipeline will force our government (whoever they may be) to actually patrol AND defend the Arctic properly. Perhaps we need to find diamonds or oil on one the major islands near the Passage to get them off their asses...

Personally, while Harper's new corvettes are a welcome addition, we also need several new heavy icebreakers for the Arctic, as well as more defence infrastructure up there (airfields, barracks and that new port). Heavy icebreakers are really necessary as only one of the two we currently have is less than 20 years old, with the other one being older than our Iroquois DDHs.

   

I'll have that and good on him/her!

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next