View Single Post
Old 12-05-2011, 09:21 PM   #3
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by calegrant View Post
I'm all for providing funds to the less privileged, I am not however for allocating huge amounts of money to go towards providing infrastructure in remote areas which greatly elevate the costs. Why should I the tax payer be forced to feel bad about not giving them adequate funding when it's their choice to keep themselves in a region so remote that the cost of providing said utilities doubles or triples? When you cannot get running water or a roof over your head in the GTA or Vancouver something needs to be done. When you've put yourself in a position where others need to go beyond what is considered reasonable to provide those resources you've dug your own hole. Have native communities been shafted for years? Absolutely! Does that mean that we should go above and beyond what would be provided for other non-native communities solely so they can support their traditions? In my opinion, no.
if the rcmp forcing you at gunpoint into reform school for abuse is 'putting yourself in that position' then ok.

meanwhile, contrast that to:

Quote:
Harper's 16 to 29 billion reasons for sending fighter jets to Libya

Would Stephen Harper attack Libya simply to justify spending tens of billions of dollars on F-35 fighter jets? Perhaps. But, add on doing it for major Canadian investors, reinforcing his "principled" foreign policy rhetoric and reasserting western control over a region in flux, and you pretty much have the range of reasons why a half dozen CF-18s four other military aircraft and naval frigate are currently engaged in combat 10,000 km away from Canadian soil.

Over the past few months the Conservative's plan to buy 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets has become a serious political headache. A recent poll showed 68 per cent of Canadians -- including a majority of Conservative supporters -- agreed that "now is not a good time" to spend between $16 and $29 billion on these controversial single-engine jets. So, sending Canadian military aircraft to enforce a UN "no-fly zone" in Libya provides an opportunity to soften opposition to the F-35 purchase, an issue bound to be a hot topic in the election campaign that formally began Saturday. Most critics of the F-35 purchase -- from the NDP's Michael Byers to Project Ploughshares Ernie Regehr to Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae -- support the "humanitarian" mission in Libya. With these and other liberal interventionists supporting a bombing campaign in North Africa, Harper can more easily justify spending nearly $1,000 per Canadian on the best fighter jets money can buy. (Québec housing group, FRAPRU, claims the cost of a single F-35 equals 6,400 social housing units.)

Conveniently, the right-wing press has already begun to connect the dots in support of the Harper government. An Ottawa Citizen headline read, "Libya shows why Canada needs jets," while a Sun Media chain commentary explained, "enforcing a ‘no-fly' zone to shut down a dictator is an expeditionary air operation. Is that something Canadians want to be able to do in the future? If yes, you need an F-35, expensive or not."

Over the past five years, the Conservatives have further militarized Canadian foreign policy. Military spending is at its highest level since World War II -- the Harper government expanded Canada's role in the occupation of Afghanistan, claimed that Russia is planning to attack and sent 2,000 troops to police Haitians after a devastating earthquake.

The Conservatives draw significant support from the military as well as its associated companies and culture. To get us in the fighting spirit, for instance, the Canadian Forces released onboard video footage of a CF-18 destroying a ground target in Libya.

But there is more to it than pleasing the Great White North's version of the military-industrial complex. On March 21, The Financial Times reported that western oil companies were worried that if Gaddafi defeated the rebels in the east of Libya he would nationalize their operations out of anger at the west's duplicity. Presumably, this includes Suncor, Canada's second largest corporation, which signed a multi-billion dollar 30-year oil concession with Libya in 2008.

Home to the second largest amount of Canadian investment in Africa, instability in Libya has put a couple billion dollars worth of this country's corporate investment in jeopardy. Dru Oja Jay, editor of the Dominion and a candidate for the Mountain Equipment Co-op Board of Directors, notes "Canadian investors are legitimately worried about what's going to happen to the $1 billion signing bonus Suncor paid out to the Libyan government, or whether SNC-Lavalin is going to recoup its investments in the country, which is home to 10 per cent of its workforce."And these are some of this country's most powerful corporations. Embassy magazine includes both Suncor and SNC-Lavalin's CEOs among the nine most influential business executives in determining Canadian foreign policy.


http://rabble.ca/news/2011/03/harper...ter-jets-libya
__________________
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote