PDA

View Full Version : Canadian Conservatives to Form One Party



Gio
18 Oct 03,, 02:15
From: http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/article/header/nytlogoleft_article.gif
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/international/americas/17CANA.html?ex=1066968000&en=0f3417fe1588943a&ei=5 062&partner=GOOGLE


By THE NEW YORK TIMES
EDMONTON, Alberta Oct. 16 After more than a decade of often bitter relations, Canada's two conservative parties reached an agreement Thursday to unite into a single party in an effort to give the governing Liberal Party a competitive race in national elections next year.

The Canadian Alliance, a populist party strong in the west, and the Progressive Conservative Party, which is strong in the Maritime Provinces, remain far behind the Liberals in the polls. But the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Peter MacKay, predicted that the unifying of the right will spark "a groundswell of support" that would completely change the political dynamics of the nation.

The Liberals dominate the House of Commons, and recently won provincial control in Ontario and Quebec, the provinces that dominate national politics.

Mr. MacKay said the goal is to create an "exciting national conservative party that brings people together and offers Canadians a choice."

The parties face difficult issues on how to unify behind one leader, work out who will be responsible for their respective party debts, and mesh platforms. The Canadian Alliance has espoused more conservative positions on social and economic issues and uses sharper rhetoric.

"There has to be a big tent and diversity of views" in the new party, said Stephen Harper, the Canadian Alliance leader.

Ironduke
18 Oct 03,, 02:17
I think it would be very beneficial for the US if the Conservatives came into power in Canada. There would be alot less economic issues between the US and Canada, they would probably send troops to Iraq and assist us in endeavors all over.

Just think, the US, Canada, UK, and Australia working together. That just leaves NZ.

Leader
18 Oct 03,, 02:21
Maybe the Canadians will get there act together, although I'm not that hopeful.

ZFBoxcar
18 Oct 03,, 06:33
it wont be for the 2004 elections, because the Liberal Party is running a conservative candidate. So that gets them a portion of the leftwing vote (just for being the Liberal Party), a large section of the centre vote, and a small section of the right vote. Once Paul Martin is gone, then the Conservatives will have a chance.

Gio
18 Oct 03,, 06:33
Originally posted by ironman420
That just leaves NZ.

/shudders, Helen Clark.

Ray
18 Oct 03,, 06:44
And God:D

Officer of Engineers
19 Oct 03,, 04:01
The Conservatives have just as many screw ups as the Liberals. Those of us who remembered the Somali Crisis and the military funding issues as well as the first woman Prime Minister of Canada (non-elected, just assumed the head of the Party in power and then abruptly disastrously lost the election) who was also the Minister of Defence.

The CF was screwed by both parties.

JulianStarr
19 Oct 03,, 19:26
Anglophone Canada should be welcomed into the American Union. Western Canada will elect Republicans and Eastern Canada Democrats, it will work out smartly.

America needs the land, resources, petroleum and water. Canada needs the protection of a Superpower, the direct access to the American market, the Federal Reserve Note and the likes.

bobbylad
19 Oct 03,, 20:46
they would probably send troops to Iraq and assist us in endeavors all over.

Didnt the Progressive Conservative Party oppose the war in Iraq like the Government did?

Anyway if a Conservative Government in Canada ever did lead the country on one of Bush's crusades somehow I dont think they would ever be getting reelected again.

I seriously doubt this new party will do what it says it will, it will be internall divided forever and although their share of the seats will be larger than what both parties had combined due to the nature of Canadas electoral system their share of the vote will almost certainly go down. The PC had more in common with the Liberals than they did with the Alliance and a hell of a lot of PC voters will probably switch to the voting Liberal now. In the long term however it may be a good strategy for them, without proportional representation they would never have stood a chance but if they can shake off their far right image the Alliance will bring them with they may be a potent threat to the Liberals in about 10 years time.

Officer of Engineers
20 Oct 03,, 02:10
Originally posted by JulianStarr
Anglophone Canada should be welcomed into the American Union. Western Canada will elect Republicans and Eastern Canada Democrats, it will work out smartly.

That is a very over-generalized statement. NDP (a very leftist party) has been provincial governments all over Canada. And Anglo-Canada is the most adament Canadian nationalists there are, trying to preserve the Dominion with Quebec. They won't fight to keep Quebec just to hand themselves over to the US.


Originally posted by JulianStarr
America needs the land, resources, petroleum and water.

That's what NAFTA is for.


Originally posted by JulianStarr
Canada needs the protection of a Superpower,

Never did. Never will. The only power we needed protection from is the US and against her, bend over and kiss our collective butts goodbye.


Originally posted by JulianStarr
the direct access to the American market, the Federal Reserve Note and the likes.

NAFTA.

Officer of Engineers
20 Oct 03,, 02:14
Originally posted by bobbylad
Didnt the Progressive Conservative Party oppose the war in Iraq like the Government did?

Anyway if a Conservative Government in Canada ever did lead the country on one of Bush's crusades somehow I dont think they would ever be getting reelected again.

I seriously doubt this new party will do what it says it will, it will be internall divided forever and although their share of the seats will be larger than what both parties had combined due to the nature of Canadas electoral system their share of the vote will almost certainly go down. The PC had more in common with the Liberals than they did with the Alliance and a hell of a lot of PC voters will probably switch to the voting Liberal now. In the long term however it may be a good strategy for them, without proportional representation they would never have stood a chance but if they can shake off their far right image the Alliance will bring them with they may be a potent threat to the Liberals in about 10 years time.

It's a question of leadership of which Canada has been sorely lacking. Public opinion should never be the criteria to go to war or not since most of the populace is not privy to sensitive information.

That's what the elected leadership is supposed to do. They have to examine the data and determine what is in the best interest of Canada and follow that path and stand up and take the responsibility for it.

Instead, we say one thing and do another. We say we won't help in Iraq and ended up being the 4th largest force in that war doing behind the scene support (ie naval protection).

Praxus
20 Oct 03,, 02:30
Never did. Never will. The only power we needed protection from is the US and against her, bend over and kiss our collective butts goodbye.


You are refering to the 19th Century not today right?

Officer of Engineers
20 Oct 03,, 03:05
Originally posted by Praxus
You are refering to the 19th Century not today right?

Just responding theoritically. The only viable possible threat comes from the US.

JulianStarr
20 Oct 03,, 03:12
That is true, you set up that Confederation two years after we defeated the Confederate States of America.

Ironduke
20 Oct 03,, 05:17
Originally posted by JulianStarr
That is true, you set up that Confederation two years after we defeated the Confederate States of America.

The US House of Representatives passed a bill outlining how Canada would be annexed. I think it was a quite serious matter. I don't know what happened to it, don't know if it was defeated in the Senate, put on the backburner to disappear or what.

Scott
20 Oct 03,, 20:59
Hey Jules, I see you've wandered by this place as well...your posts bring back vibrant memories of those famous chats between us ;) lol


Originally posted by Leader
Maybe the Canadians will get there act together, although I'm not that hopeful.

If that's in reference to us not always agreeing with United States policies and wants regarding our nation, then it really isn't a qualified statement. We Canadians will determine what we want with regards to our "act" whether the United States likes it or not...we are a sovereign country you know and one with different values, somewhat, from the US. Sure the government isn't a friend of the military, for example, however, that's because the population hasn't historically been overtly pro-military regularly, like in the United States...hence why every government ever in power in Canada has been able to keep military spending at the lowest possible amount...even if the Tories/Alliance made the next government, not much would change in defense spending/policy judging by our military history.

Oh...and will my IP get banned again for disagreeing with you?

Ironduke
20 Oct 03,, 21:57
Canada is a sovereign country and can do as it wants, yes.

The United States is also a sovereign nation and can do as it wants. Remember, 84% of Canadian exports go to the US and it is the fortunate location of Canada (bordering the most powerful nation on Earth) that makes it so secure.

Scott
20 Oct 03,, 22:44
the fortunate location of Canada (bordering the most powerful nation on Earth) that makes it so secure.


Um, not really. You have to remember that barely any nation has the resources on hand to mount an effective invasion of North America, not because the United States is so powerful, but mainly since there is no other nation in the world that has the amphibious resources to mount an invasion, or the airlift resources. North America is currently a "fortress", even if the United States wasn't the world military leader, since no one has the resources to make it over here in one piece, or survive an initial fight with the defence forces.

Bill
20 Oct 03,, 22:47
In a one one one fight, the Russians and the British could mount the neccesary forces to invade Canada succesfully.

Do not be so foolish as to think the United States is not the big brother that protects Canada from the world.

Quite frankly, the California National Guard alone could probably wipe out the Canadian military.

Scott
20 Oct 03,, 22:52
I'm not disputing the benefits of being the neighbour of the United States, but the British military and the Russian Navy don't have that many amphibious resources...let's remember the state of the Russian Navy now. As for the Brits, they have some Amphibious resources and some strategic airlifters, but nothing that would allow them to really mount an effective invasion of North America.

Americans also have to remember that just because Canada is a smaller country with a small military force, doesn't mean we're totally incompetent compared to the United States military...an invasion from Britain or Russia could be defended against so long as it remained conventional...the only real threat to Canada, as stated previously, is really the United States and we haven't had to deal with that one for almost 200 years now, and I doubt if we will have to in the forseeable future.

Anyways, apologies to everyone for causing this topic to go off on a tangent.

Ironduke
20 Oct 03,, 22:57
the only real threat to Canada, as stated previously, is really the United States and we haven't had to deal with that one for almost 200 years now, and I doubt if we will have to in the forseeable future.
In the late 1860's Canada did.

Officer of Engineers
20 Oct 03,, 23:01
Originally posted by M21Sniper
In a one one one fight, the Russians and the British could mount the neccesary forces to invade Canada succesfully.

You have to give it a time frame. During the Cold War, maybe the Brits and only with big time American help. The Russians would get stuck in the Yukons and would have to nuke us all the way to the American border.

Today, not possible for either power. The Brits spent themselves silly in invading the Falklands. Canada is alot stronger than Argentina. Russia? They'll freeze hitchhiking through Alaska.

Officer of Engineers
20 Oct 03,, 23:11
Originally posted by Scott
Sure the government isn't a friend of the military, for example, however, that's because the population hasn't historically been overtly pro-military regularly, like in the United States...hence why every government ever in power in Canada has been able to keep military spending at the lowest possible amount...even if the Tories/Alliance made the next government, not much would change in defense spending/policy judging by our military history.

You have to explain that one to me because we have one of the most adventurous militaries on earth. Not one Canadian gov't since the end of WWII has not tossed us in one war or another all in the guise of peacekeeping, a contradiction in policy if there ever was one - Canadian troops have used lethal force to destroy hostile formations but it's ok because it's under the UN banner.

Bill
20 Oct 03,, 23:13
" but the British military and the Russian Navy don't have that many amphibious resources..."

Russia only needs to traverse the Bearing straits. They can do that with yachts and tankers if they have to(The distance is much shorter than it is from China to Taiwan). Sure, it would be a bloodbath for the Russkies, but they have proven time and again that they don't particularly care how many casualties they take. With the MASSIVE edge in manpower, armor, and airpower of the Russians, they would win a long bloody battle of attrition against Canada. Canada's navy is in no position to stop a Russian or British naval taskforce, nor is it's airforce.

" As for the Brits, they have some Amphibious resources and some strategic airlifters, but nothing that would allow them to really mount an effective invasion of North America."

And what is to stop Britain? A few squadrons of old CF-18's and a small and dreadfully underequipped army using a few obsolete tanks?

If either nation made it a national priority to take Canada, then take Canada they would. There are a few other nations you could add to the list as well.

Remember, we're talking about Canada, alone, fighting against the invader, alone. No US help, no US interference.

Canada's sole hope would be in smashing the attack on the beachhead, which to me, i cannot see happening. Once the beach was secured, it would only be a matter of time before the tiny Canadian military was overwhelmed.

No offense intended to the good colonel, but the Canadian military is a joke anymore. Without US assistance, they would not stand a chance against Russia, and would be hard pressed to stop the Brits- at least in my opinion, humble as it may be.

Of course, it will never happen, because the US DOES care what goes on up North, and we would intervene against any and all comers.

Bill
20 Oct 03,, 23:19
Though of course, i am more than happy to entertain opposing views and opinions.

Could make for an excellent debate if done indepth.

Bill
20 Oct 03,, 23:21
Actually, forget the Bearing straits....LOL, that would be an Invasion of the US, and would not fare so well. ;)

Officer of Engineers
20 Oct 03,, 23:58
Actually, I'm thinking alot more simpler than that. I've worked with the Brits and regt against regt, we're their equals. We have to be. We insert units into each other sectors on a regular basis.

What I'm thinking of is what the Brits can afford to send and they can't afford to send much. At most, they can send and maintain one divison. The terrain is forbidding, especially the Maritime Provinces. Against that, the CF can throw in two bdes immediately and a division within 30 days.

Terrain knowledge is fairly equal between the two since everybody trains in Canada. So, they would be familiar. Just that the numbers game ain't there.

Depends on when the Brits attack. I really doubt any beachhead can be sustained in the north Atlantic over winter. The LOC ain't there.

As for the Russians, even giving American free passage, the Bearing Straits can only be transversed two months out of the year, during the summer. Forget any ice bridge. Those of you who've seen the unpredicatable nature of ice would understand. You can change position 20 miles in any direction within a 10 hour period just by standing still.

That leaves only their Air Assualt regts and against the CF, they're meat.

Officer of Engineers
21 Oct 03,, 01:08
I don't know the status of the Russian navy, so I won't comment but any beachhead they can secure on the West Coast is automatically contained. That is one dense forest patch there, impossible (and I mean impossible) for any armour to transverse. I'm talking a man can walk into the bush and spend 10 hours walking 100 feet.

There is only one point in which large scale formations can get into the interior of Canada and that's the Fraser Valley. A modern day Thermopalaye but with the defence on far stronger positions. Blow a couple of bridges and the Russians are effectively isolated on the West Coast.

Then, there is the issue that there's only a few places in British Columbia that can get above Indian fighting (ie SOF raids against one another). Since the Canadians would already occupy these places, the Russians would be extremely hard pressed to bring critical mass to the battlefield.

On the East Coast, the terrain is a little more forgiving. However, the distance is greater and the North Atlantic winter is a bitch and a half. The RN no longer have the sea lift to sustain even a div over. The Falklands War shown the limits of its force projection capabilities and the size of Canada would exhaust it even further.

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 03:11
"I don't know the status of the Russian navy, so I won't comment but any beachhead they can secure on the West Coast is automatically contained. That is one dense forest patch there, impossible (and I mean impossible) for any armour to transverse. I'm talking a man can walk into the bush and spend 10 hours walking 100 feet."

Seems to me then that that would allow the Russian engineers to plow through a road(after a fashion) without fear of counter-attack.

However, i'll rule out the Western landings to keep this more realistic.

So it's the Soviet Navy coming in from the East Coast.

Officer of Engineers
21 Oct 03,, 04:51
Originally posted by M21Sniper
Seems to me then that that would allow the Russian engineers to plow through a road(after a fashion) without fear of counter-attack.

It'll take them several years, especially those building those bridges. It's the Rockies. During that time, it would be an Indian fight.


Originally posted by M21Sniper
So it's the Soviet Navy coming in from the East Coast.

Soviet or Russian? Two very different forces here.

Officer of Engineers
21 Oct 03,, 06:21
I thought about this some more and I still give the edge to Canada.

Say it's Russian

The Russians took six months from fighting in Dagestan at the militia level to a full scale invasion of Grozny and that's a 100,000 man force they assembled.

By that time, CF's secondary reserves, numbered at 82,000, would have been mobilized.

Say it's Soviets,

The furtherest force projection the Soviets achieved was a single regiment in Cuba and that was a peace time deployment.

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 06:49
Yes, but what a nation is capable of in peacetime is not comparable to what it can do in wartime.

Take the Faulklands for instance. The UK brought every possible resource they possessed to bear, shocking most military experts with the level of force they were able to deploy on the other side of the world.

One must also consider that the Russian SSGN force will be raining cruise missiles on all of Canada's eastern seaboard airbases and military facilities.

Then there is the Backfire and Blackjack heavy bomber forces flying over the pole to strike at what the SSGN's can't reach.

After establishing a foothold on Canadian soil, and either seizing or building an airbase, the Russians could start flying in their mechanized units with those massive Antonov transports, as well as follow on waves of commandered Russian merchantmen bringing in mech forces and tactical aircraft.

The Russians would have years to conquer the Canadians if they needed it(and i believe they would).

Canada lacks the neccesary forces to mount a serious counterattack on the beach heads(taking into consideration the pounding that the Russian sub and bomber fleets would put on the Canadian C4i facilities, POL sites, LOC, and marshalling facilities).

I'd expect that the Canucks would bleed the Russians terribly along the way(say 2-3,000,000 casualties), but in the end, the inexhaustable supply of Russian conscripts and military equipment would be more than Canada could handle.

For Britain it's even worse, cause one could make the argument that the US would give the UK forces basing rights(they are our best ally afterall- it would be very hard to say no to them).

One need not sieze the vast wastelands of Canada, just the few cities that actually matter.

I do not state that right now the Russians or the Brits could do it, just that they have the resources and manpower that if they made it a priority they could.

Russia could never focus on Amphib forces because of NATO, but if we are to assume a Canada fighting all alone, that threat is removed, and Russia can expend it's resources on the sea lift it would need for such an operation.

The Russian navy would so utterly dominate the Canadian navy that after the initial landings, the Russian cruisers and DDG's could even begin to act as troop transports in the subsequent weeks and months. If viewed in that light, the Russians actually possess a massive sealift capability methinx.

The Russians or Brits would have to REALLY want to do this, but a 7 or 8% GNP military budget for either state would make it more than plausible, at least to me.(Britan could easily do that if they cut all the socailist domestic programs that Europeans seem so fond of).

The Russians, well, we know they'd starve their own people in the process if they had a hard on for conquest....they've done it more than once in their history.

Officer of Engineers
21 Oct 03,, 07:04
M21,

Ok, that goes way beyond what I had expected when I answer your question.

What you're suggesting is the completely realingment of alliances and force requirements. I don't have the economic and diplomatic expertise to forecast the arms race potentials of each country.

It would certainly take years to accomplish and not all the advantages belong to the Europeans. The Canadians only need to produce tanks and guns. The Europeans need to produce the ships and planes to carry the tanks and guns.

This almost certainly means a collapse of NATO, ISAF, ABCA, and NORAD. The reprecussion of which goes way beyond just Canada, Russia, and the UK, as well as the US. In order for Russia to invade Canada, she has to go through Western Europe.

Then, there's the issue would Canada go nuke? We did before and we have the expertize, largely copied from the Americans when we shared nuke strike packages.

All I can to say is that I don't have the expertise to forecast that much.

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 08:30
Well really, i don't have the expertize either Sir...i am only pontificating cause it's so much fun!!!

You were a field grade, accustomed to commanding hundreds or low thousands of men. Me being a lowly ex-NCO am even more out of my elements in such discussions.

The most men i ever commanded at one time was about a dozen!

I am merely stating that it is my belief that there are a handful of nations that if they made it a national goal are capable of traversing the Atlantic and defeating a Canada that stands alone.(Because it was the statement that even totally alone Canada can defend itself from all comers that got this ball rolling to begin with).

Of course, the reality is that Canada doesn't have to because Canada counts among it's allies the two most powerful military forces in the world- the US and UK.

Take all of Canada's allies away, and things to me at least, start to look a lot more iffy.

Even still, i acknowledge it would be an utterly massive undertaking that would require years and massive casualties to accomplish.

Of course, if anyone so much as sets a single soldier's boot in Canada your buddies down South will make them pay dearly when we take the fight to their own homeland, while you Canucks take care of them up North.

Officer of Engineers
21 Oct 03,, 08:50
Then I got a joke for you.

Someone asked me once if I had three wishes, what would they be.

I said, for my first wish, I want Russia to invade Canada and then go home.

The guy was shocked see that I was a Canadian officer. He asked my second wish.

Russia invade Canada and go home.

The guy was even more shocked. And the third wish?

Again.

He can't stand it anymore. He wanted to know why I as a Canadian officer could be such a traitor.

I said I was not. In fact, I'm quite the patriot.

Than why do I want Canada invaded three times.

Because in order for Russia to invade Canada three times, they had to cross France six times.

----- paraphrased from the Polish-Mongol-Russia joke and adjusted to fit this forum.

Given what you stated, I would say Canada's only choice is to go nuke. It'll be a race whether Canada can develop the missile systems in time.

Bill
21 Oct 03,, 09:07
LOL!!!!

Ray
21 Oct 03,, 10:22
Canada is too decent, quiet and apolitical for anyone to take umbrage, especially when US is always there to cause a lot of noise and heat and take the attention away.

That's why Uncle Osama and his cahoots are homing on the US. In so far as this is concerned, Canada should be happy.

Sheikh
22 Oct 03,, 06:00
Also I would like to remind non-Canadians that Canada does have a sizable population of Ex-military immigrants who would make one heck of a Gurellia force. It may not change the course of the war but will free up the military to do more stragically important missions.

Hell! I would grab my Bushmaster, jump in my buddies 4 x 4 and teach the Russians some Canadian hospitality eh Maybe Stop on the way for Timmys (Canadians know what I am talking about) :D

Officer of Engineers
22 Oct 03,, 06:59
Originally posted by Sheikh
Also I would like to remind non-Canadians that Canada does have a sizable population of Ex-military immigrants who would make one heck of a Gurellia force. It may not change the course of the war but will free up the military to do more stragically important missions.

Hell! I would grab my Bushmaster, jump in my buddies 4 x 4 and teach the Russians some Canadian hospitality eh Maybe Stop on the way for Timmys (Canadians know what I am talking about) :D

Thank you, Shiekh. You reminded me that we are an unbeatable warrior people. We play hockey.

Sheikh
22 Oct 03,, 08:54
Those cold Saturday mornings in the area beating the shit out of the other team :blush Ahhh those are fun memories.

Hell we would even score couple of times, after beating the shit out of our opponents. As you can guess Tie Domi is my man! :8

What about you?

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 09:06
I love hockey. I was blessed enough to witness the toughest team to ever play the sport...the 73-76 Philadelphia Flyers, AKA the Broad Street Bullies. :)

Used to love to watch Bobby Clarke instigate the opposition until they retaliated, and then watch Ed Shultz and Bob Kelly clean the ice with the oppositions faces. :)

I was a very young boy, but i'll never forget my Bullies.

Ahhh, the good ole' days. :)

Officer of Engineers
22 Oct 03,, 19:53
Originally posted by Sheikh
Those cold Saturday mornings in the area beating the shit out of the other team :blush Ahhh those are fun memories.

Hell we would even score couple of times, after beating the shit out of our opponents. As you can guess Tie Domi is my man! :8

What about you?

Nobody today with the exception of Lemieux impresses me much. I'm of the era just predating M21's Broadstreet Bullies with Frank and Pete Mavholich, Yvonne Conveyer, Maurice and Henri Richard, Larry MacDonald, the old Montreal Canadienes before the WHA crap. Actually, the 1973 Canada Cup Team (yes, I am that old) is the one that admired.