Tories drowned by calls attacking $2-million fake lake
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Zipperfish @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:48 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
Fair enough and well articulated. My opinion remains that I don't care if the rest of the world "takes us seriously" or not. Just like I don't care if people take me, personally, seriously or not. I care about the opinions of those who judge me by my actions, not by those who are impressed when I cover the bar tab.
EyeBrock @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:51 pm
It's the only thing that a hostile press can focus on Zip.
What's your solution? No G20? No opportunity to market Canada to the world's press?
Come on. As Boots said, it's the cost of being in the big-boys club. And it's obvious that the costs from other G20/G8's have been reckoned with a different methodology.
The G20 planners have used methods and lessons learned from previous events. I'm sure any wiki-orientated journo can find a few more bad news stories before the Black-Bloc start throwing molotov cocktails at the Toronto cops as they burn all the McDonalds and banks they can find.
Bodah @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:03 pm
Curtman Curtman:
andyt andyt:
Ok,. I get your point. Now address the point that last year's cost 18 million vs our 1.1 billion.
That wasn't the overall cost of last years event, those numbers are what was spent on security. 120 million (2010 Canada) -vs- 13 million (2009 U.S.)
I'm actually curious on the security figures as well because it is alot of money, I don't know if shutting down parts of Toronto had anything to do with the money discrepencies when it comes to the security aspect of it.
After all we should expect a large contingent of anarchists to show up from around the world to do as much damage as possible to Toronto, that's a giving.
There are other security concerns as well.
Time will tell.
Zipperfish @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:25 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
It's the only thing that a hostile press can focus on Zip.
What's your solution? No G20? No opportunity to market Canada to the world's press?
What's your solution? No G20? No opportunity to market Canada to the world's press?
My solution would have been limiting security expenditures to a small fraction of a billion--10 or 20%. Also, in this particular case, I would have passed given the costs to the public purse to hold the Olympics which took place this year.
ASLplease @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:30 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
It's the only thing that a hostile press can focus on Zip.
What's your solution? No G20? No opportunity to market Canada to the world's press?
What's your solution? No G20? No opportunity to market Canada to the world's press?
My solution would have been limiting security expenditures to a small fraction of a billion--10 or 20%. Also, in this particular case, I would have passed given the costs to the public purse to hold the Olympics which took place this year.
perhaps they should have arranged the 2 events sequentially to get a cost reduction in security efforts
EyeBrock @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:44 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
It's the only thing that a hostile press can focus on Zip.
What's your solution? No G20? No opportunity to market Canada to the world's press?
What's your solution? No G20? No opportunity to market Canada to the world's press?
My solution would have been limiting security expenditures to a small fraction of a billion--10 or 20%. Also, in this particular case, I would have passed given the costs to the public purse to hold the Olympics which took place this year.
How can you place an arbitrarily chosen dollar value on security? You need to robustly respond to any threats posed. This is a gathering of very high risk targets.
If you agree to be in this exclusive club, you have to take on the responsibility that it brings.
I don't see this as a partisan issue at all. I would expect a Liberal government to play this the way the Tories have. This event will be under the scrutiny of the planet.
We should ensure that we look organised and effective on the security end and we should promote our country at every opportunity, fake lake or real.
I think that there have been some disappointing levels of partisanship shown on some these postings. It's not really debating is it?
This is Canada hosting the most powerful nations on the globe. We should try to impress.
Curtman @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:39 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I think that there have been some disappointing levels of partisanship shown on some these postings. It's not really debating is it?
This is Canada hosting the most powerful nations on the globe. We should try to impress.
This is Canada hosting the most powerful nations on the globe. We should try to impress.
This is awesome. EyeBrock is defending the Harper government spending 1.2 BILLION dollars on a 3 day conference.
June 15th 2010, mark it on the calendar.
RUEZ @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:45 pm
Curtman Curtman:
This is awesome. EyeBrock is defending the Harper government spending 1.2 BILLION dollars on a 3 day conference.
June 15th 2010, mark it on the calendar.
June 15th 2010, mark it on the calendar.
Ya it's just a conference. No different than E3 to you I guess.
EyeBrock @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:53 pm
Curtman Curtman:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I think that there have been some disappointing levels of partisanship shown on some these postings. It's not really debating is it?
This is Canada hosting the most powerful nations on the globe. We should try to impress.
This is Canada hosting the most powerful nations on the globe. We should try to impress.
This is awesome. EyeBrock is defending the Harper government spending 1.2 BILLION dollars on a 3 day conference.
June 15th 2010, mark it on the calendar.
I defer to a much more representative Canadian Liberal; Boots.
You are so partisan. It's futile trying to hold a discussion with you on anything political.
Lemmy @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:32 pm
There is so much wasteful government spending that this whole debate is really just like picking gnat shit out of pepper. Why can't we just concur that all political parties spend tax dollars poorly?
Proculation @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:15 pm
it costs 2 millions to plug a hose to the water and fill a lake ?
andyt @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:50 pm
Curtman Curtman:
andyt andyt:
Ok,. I get your point. Now address the point that last year's cost 18 million vs our 1.1 billion.
That wasn't the overall cost of last years event, those numbers are what was spent on security. 120 million (2010 Canada) -vs- 13 million (2009 U.S.)
My understanding is that out of a total of 1.2 billion, security accounts for 1 billion - so that's still 50 times as much as last year.
CanadianJeff @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:03 am
As long as people beleive that Allah is of a higher order then them and that killing others will please him there will be no stopping terrorism. We must quash the ideas (similar to the crusades) from the Middle East before war will end.
Guns will not do that, soldiers will not do that.
Education and freedom will. When people no longer feel trapped or feel like they need a reason to live they turn away from god and turn towards self reflection.
HyperionTheEvil @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:54 am
$1:
bootlegga wrote:
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
Canada matters because we try not to elect half-witted leaders who would drop us into the middle of a war in Iraq for 7 + years and still have the nerve to call it "Mission Accomplished".Canada matters because we take our fiscal situation seriously and don't blow money on silly projects, till we had this new lake anyways.
If Canada 'matters' so much because of Afghanistan then why didn't the rest of the NATO members, whom supposed we're there to impress or something come along for the fun and games? and why is it that the US stil seems to think were a suburb of their country
All that being aid i believe that Canada does have a role and it's time we returned to the UN model of Peacekeeping, we tried it the American way of bombing the shit out of people and then expecting them to thank us, and shockingly enough they're not terribly grateful.
The US governments international integrity , trustworthiness and financial stability have all gone straight down the toilet in the last 10 years. Thank you im' quite happy without wanting to emulate their example.
EyeBrock @ Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:10 am
UN peacekeeping? Just like we did in Rwanda?
What a joke you are.
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next