HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2201  
Old Posted Yesterday, 11:53 AM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Taking a Pis fer all of ya
Posts: 5,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
The Army really got shafted under Harper. They got the TAPV which is rather useless for near-peer. They got the G-wagon which is better than the Iltis. ...
Weren't the G-Wagons pre-Harper? Again, from the outside the reasons I heard that FLCV was neutered was that the Army got "loaded" during afghanistan. TAPV was never meant to be CCV, but the problem was if you don't get the full suite of capabilities you overstrech what you get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Leaving a hole in defence and blaming their successor for it seems to the CPC version of LPC signing climate pledges they know their successors can't meet.
Which is always why incumbents plans the heavy lifting after their current term ... JIC.
__________________
Leaving a Pis fer all of ya!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2202  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:18 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Actually, according to the PBO that would be a false arguement.

I have no idea what the CPC plan is (or if there is one), but the PBO has clearly said that the LPC plan will come no where close to the 2% ...


If I have to choose between the PBO or Blair, I know who I’d believe …
They can both be correct.

They published a plan in the policy statement that has a combination of budgeted items with some timeline and some more aspirational items that have no budgets or clear timelines. If they make some of those aspirational items (e.g., air defence, submarines, etc) more concreate then they will better than what the PBO is forecasting. Will we hit the 2%? Probably not. Can we get a lot closer with Liberals over CPC? Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2203  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:32 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
They can both be correct.

They published a plan in the policy statement that has a combination of budgeted items with some timeline and some more aspirational items that have no budgets or clear timelines. If they make some of those aspirational items (e.g., air defence, submarines, etc) more concreate then they will better than what the PBO is forecasting. Will we hit the 2%? Probably not. Can we get a lot closer with Liberals over CPC? Yes.
Don't forget the growth trajectory also matters. Conservatives turning off the immigration tap but also opening up resource development could mean higher or lower growth under them. Grow the economy by 10% and the target becomes that much harder to reach. There is a reason Greece can meet their goal easily.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2204  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:02 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I don't like Trump and think he is a terrible choice for president (again) but this may be for the best in the long run. Europe can and should look after itself. This may be a self-defeating strategy for the USA; I'd rather see Europe defend against Russia and other countries than have them rely on incompetent American leaders to solve their security problems. And the timing is actually kind of nice since Russia and China have ruined their reputation so much now in the EU. I don't think WW2 era fears about Germany or Japan are relevant these days.

Canada needs its own proper military too and shouldn't be far behind a country like France on the world stage in this century.
This is exactly my pov.

While I think we, as Canadians, should throw our weight around a little more given our size, we can get away with abdicating our defense responsibilities to the States because we are firmly in their geographical orbit, separated from our adversaries by the same oceans, and we're self-sufficient in energy.

A country like Germany had the past twenty years to have its cake and eat it too. With no significant energy resources of its own, it relied on cheap Russian gas, let the Americans pick up its security tab, and propped up an artificially low currency that allowed it to have export advantages that destroyed the economies of its European partners - notably Mediterranean countries - that it then gave lectures to about austerity. Watching them fall apart gives me a sense of (no pun intended) schadenfreude.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2205  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:08 PM
whatnext whatnext is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
This is exactly my pov.

While I think we, as Canadians, should throw our weight around a little more given our size, we can get away with abdicating our defense responsibilities to the States because we are firmly in their geographical orbit, separated from our adversaries by the same oceans, and we're self-sufficient in energy.

A country like Germany had the past twenty years to have its cake and eat it too. With no significant energy resources of its own, it relied on cheap Russian gas, let the Americans pick up its security tab, and propped up an artificially low currency that allowed it to have export advantages that destroyed the economies of its European partners - notably Mediterranean countries - that it then gave lectures to about austerity. Watching them fall apart gives me a sense of (no pun intended) schadenfreude.
I'm not sure how having a low Euro harms the European basket case countries, most who rely on tourism. It makes travel those places more popular. And German exports never competed at the bottom of the market anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2206  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:20 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
This is exactly my pov.

While I think we, as Canadians, should throw our weight around a little more given our size, we can get away with abdicating our defense responsibilities to the States because we are firmly in their geographical orbit, separated from our adversaries by the same oceans, and we're self-sufficient in energy.

A country like Germany had the past twenty years to have its cake and eat it too. With no significant energy resources of its own, it relied on cheap Russian gas, let the Americans pick up its security tab, and propped up an artificially low currency that allowed it to have export advantages that destroyed the economies of its European partners - notably Mediterranean countries - that it then gave lectures to about austerity. Watching them fall apart gives me a sense of (no pun intended) schadenfreude.
Not sure about this theory though I know it's doing the rounds. Most of the past 20 years Canada (and the US) has had much cheaper gas and especially electricity and a cheap currency. Why didn't we steal all this fertlizlier, chemical and heavy manufacturing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2207  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:21 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 11,597
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
NBC News is reporting that Harris has more pledged delegates than needed for the nomination and a quarter of a billion dollars raised in less than a day and a half.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/22/live...-campaign.html

They had a Zoom fundraising call for Black Women yesterday. Zoom calls have limits of 1000 participants. They had to get the CEO of Zoom to override the limits and accommodate 44 000 participants. Also reporting that her campaign has signed up 28 000 volunteers across battleground states.

Absolutely amazing to see. And she hasn't even picked a VP yet.

Still very much an uphill fight. But she has a real shot. Hopefully, this is good for Canada. That said, she is a lot more hawkish on foreign policy than Biden. Something which Canadians who think it will be back to the Obama era might find disconcerting.
Trump has forever changed American foreign policy and trade policy. If Harris wins that'll be the most enduring legacy of Trump's otherwise chaotic administration.
__________________
"It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." - Friedrich Hayek
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2208  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:26 PM
YOWetal YOWetal is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Still very much an uphill fight. But she has a real shot. Hopefully, this is good for Canada. That said, she is a lot more hawkish on foreign policy than Biden. Something which Canadians who think it will be back to the Obama era might find disconcerting.
Interesting I hadn't heard this before. In what 2024 way do you think she is more hawkish? Candians of all stripes are probably onside with a much more vigourous support of Ukraine and probably a more agressive stance with China. Or do you mean something like Houthi provacations is more likely to see American boots on the ground than under Biden?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2209  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:33 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 23,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
Interesting I hadn't heard this before. In what 2024 way do you think she is more hawkish? Candians of all stripes are probably onside with a much more vigourous support of Ukraine and probably a more agressive stance with China. Or do you mean something like Houthi provacations is more likely to see American boots on the ground than under Biden?
Boots on ground in the Middle East? Can't see it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2210  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:57 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by YOWetal View Post
Interesting I hadn't heard this before. In what 2024 way do you think she is more hawkish? Candians of all stripes are probably onside with a much more vigourous support of Ukraine and probably a more agressive stance with China. Or do you mean something like Houthi provacations is more likely to see American boots on the ground than under Biden?
She lived in Montreal as a teen and understands Canada far better than any past American president would have.

While that could be good for us in some ways, it also means she could very well put more pressure on Canada.

Her in Washington and Freeland in Ottawa would make for an interesting dynamics on Ukraine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2211  
Old Posted Today, 1:57 AM
Dartguard Dartguard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
She lived in Montreal as a teen and understands Canada far better than any past American president would have.

While that could be good for us in some ways, it also means she could very well put more pressure on Canada.

Her in Washington and Freeland in Ottawa would make for an interesting dynamics on Ukraine.
Freeland may be lucky but dread surviving the upcoming election. Where are the up side votes for a continuing Liberal Government?
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:32 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.