Canadian Military Arms Export

[McG]

If it was such a concern for Canadians, then they should be insisting that any fuel used domestically, and any products produced are done using non-Gulf oil.

I am sure somebody is campaigning for this. 

 

[The_Falcon]

If it was such a concern for Canadians, then they should be insisting that any fuel used domestically, and any products produced are done using non-Gulf oil. The sad truth is, that there are always a couple of narrow minded, limited scope individuals that would latch on this as a negative, and scream the heck out of it.

These are the same people I'd love to have man the food bank in London when some of those families who were inevitably laid off by GDLS come calling.....

Well said.

It never ceases to amaze me how much the protest this and that community, gets it's panties in a twist and trots out "Women and Gays and etc are persecuted in Saudia Arabia/ME, don't sell them stuff!!!" and in the same breath will decry the reversal of an oil pipeline so it can export Alberta oil instead of importing Saudia oil.

The selective moral outrage is tedious.

 

[WPJ]

If it was such a concern for Canadians, then they should be insisting that any fuel used domestically, and any products produced are done using non-Gulf oil. The sad truth is, that there are always a couple of narrow minded, limited scope individuals that would latch on this as a negative, and scream the heck out of it.

These are the same people I'd love to have man the food bank in London when some of those families who were inevitably laid off by GDLS come calling.....

You can say that again, we export oil, and then import oil, why not just keep it, I guess my little pee brain understand this bedsides the typical rip off from the CEO's

 

[The_Falcon]

You can say that again, we export oil, and then import oil, why not just keep it, I guess my little pee brain understand this bedsides the typical rip off from the CEO's

There are different grades/qualities of crude oil.  Only a few refineries can refine the really heavy thick stuff (aka Alberta oil). 

Think of it like a blended whiskey.

 

[Kilo_302]

With the recent news of a woman being beheaded in public (for murder, though there wasn't much of a trial apparently), and a blogger being sentenced to 1000 lashes, Canadians are again examining our policy towards the Saudis. Even in a strictly realist sense, supporting Saudi Arabia runs counter to Canadian interests unless we WANT to be fighting Islamic terrorism for the next several decades.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/cozying-up-to-saudi-arabia-how-can-that-be-principled/article22489227/

 

[Edward Campbell]

Look, Kilo_302 I have nothing but contempt for the House of Saud and it's ramshackle country; I will not shed a tear when the Saudi royal family disappears in an orgy of Arab retribution and when the country is divided amongst its warring tribes and/or conquerors ... but until then let's sell them the hardware they need to abuse their own people and threaten their neighbours; it can only hasten their demise.

 

[Kilo_302]

Look, Kilo_302 I have nothing but contempt for the House of Saud and it's ramshackle country; I will not shed a tear when the Saudi royal family disappears in an orgy of Arab retribution and when the country is divided amongst its warring tribes and/or conquerors ... but until then let's sell them the hardware they need to abuse their own people and threaten their neighbours; it can only hasten their demise.

So if I'm correct, you're taking the realist tack, in that Canada will benefit economically while somehow having hundreds of modern LAVs will cause the Saudi government to fall more quickly. This last point is presposterous. The LAVs will be replacing older LAVs in the National Guard, which is the force that would be used in to crush any protests or open opposition. In the long run, arming a despotic regime in Saudi Arabia only guarantees that whoever replaces the royal family will be further radicalized and be immediately hostile to Canada. The classic "they already hate us argument" is also problematic because it assumes these people are not rational actors at all, and are somehow a homogenous group. IF we are at all concerned with protecting Canada ( I don't believe there is much of a serious threat, and if there were, our government's policies are not going to be effective in meeting that threat), we need to be looking at diplomacy, not selling weapons abroad.

 

[Rifleman62]

The LAV's are manufactured in a Union shop. Who in Canada cares? It's jobs. Did the union get on it's "high horse" and refuse to build them? Did the NDP demand the government not sell them, demand the union stop work?

How if they were for Israel  ......

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:Tin-Foil-Hat: anic: :waiting: :rofl:

So if I'm correct, you're taking the realist tack, in that Canada will benefit economically while somehow having hundreds of modern LAVs will cause the Saudi government to fall more quickly. This last point is presposterous. The LAVs will be replacing older LAVs in the National Guard, which is the force that would be used in to crush any protests or open opposition. In the long run, arming a despotic regime in Saudi Arabia only guarantees that whoever replaces the royal family will be further radicalized and be immediately hostile to Canada. The classic "they already hate us argument" is also problematic because it assumes these people are not rational actors at all, and are somehow a homogenous group. IF we are at all concerned with protecting Canada ( I don't believe there is much of a serious threat, and if there were, our government's policies are not going to be effective in meeting that threat), we need to be looking at diplomacy, not selling weapons abroad.

So that took a month and a half to formulate and type?  You're slipping.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... I don't believe there is much of a serious threat ... Agreed [and] we need to be looking at diplomacy, not selling weapons abroad. Arrant rubbish ... we did "diplomacy," pretty much non-stop from 1948 until 2008, what did it get us? Sweet Fanny Adams. Paul Heinbecker and his acolytes in the NDP and on the left wing of the LPC are so full of sh!t that their eyes are brown. "Diplomacy" has failed us and the Americans, Australians, Brits, Brazilians, Chinese, Chileans and Danes and ... well you get my drift, and there is nothing to indicate that it will work now. Diplomacy in most of the Islamic Crescent is a pipe dream of some of the Arabists, especially those in some universities and foreign affairs bureaucracies.

Edit: typo

 

[The Bread Guy]

How if they were for Israel  ......

Like they need OUR hardware compared to theirs - good political point, though.

 

[Kilo_302]

:Tin-Foil-Hat: anic: :waiting: :rofl:
So that took a month and a half to formulate and type?  You're slipping.

An excellent contribution to the discussion as always!

Had I known you were awaiting my reply with bated breath I would have responded sooner. I would suggest YOU are slipping, but that would mean you actually have somewhere to slip from.

 

[McG]

Let's turn the conversation civil - attack arguments not individuals.

Cheers,
The staff.

 

[a_majoor]

Let's turn the conversation civil - attack arguments not individuals.

Cheers,
The staff.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Didn't know where to put this, but it's sort of related in a way.  Today's Bruce McKinnon's cartoon on the LAV sales to the Saudis.

Chronicle Herald Cartoon 22 Jan 16

 

[Kilo_302]

Didn't know where to put this, but it's sort of related in a way.  Today's Bruce McKinnon's cartoon on the LAV sales to the Saudis.

Chronicle Herald Cartoon 22 Jan 16

That's a great cartoon. It's too bad SOME corners are treating this as a partisan issue. The previous government has zero business being critical of the Liberals on this one. So do the papers that supported (or didn't criticize) the deal when it was announced.

 

[Edward Campbell]

That's a great cartoon. It's too bad SOME corners are treating this as a partisan issue. The previous government has zero business being critical of the Liberals on this one. So do the papers that supported (or didn't criticize) the deal when it was announced.
[/color

I agree with you, 100%, about the previous government.

The media can attack whatever they want ... no one ever said journalists had to be any of honest, unbiased, consistent, accurate and so on ... all they have to do is fill the white spaces between the adverts (and the electronic equivalents (dead air) thereto).

 

[Brad Sallows]

This is all highly amusing.  The CPC brokered the deal.  During the election, as soon as the issue was raised, the NDP and the LPC both got called into backrooms and given the STFU talk by the unions (and the Lib campaign team probably got the same from the Wynne government), and each hastily bent a knee.

If anything is riding over "human rights", it is "union jobs" and "ON jobs".  I'd expect the same for "QC jobs" or "Atlantic Canada" jobs.  The only circumstances under which I could see the anti-arms whingers getting their way is a minor contract with a non-union company in a western province.

Meanwhile, the aggrieved people will try to make the story about CPC hypocrisy - of which there is some, but it's a trivially minor side issue.  I suppose it's the consolation prize.

 

[McG]

If the sale is interrupted, the unions can be appeased if Canada buys as many vehicles as it cancels. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

If the sale is interrupted, the unions can be appeased if Canada buys as many vehicles as it cancels.

Part of the payoff for trade-union support maybe announced today:

According to CBC News, the Liberals plan to reward the unions by "repealing two other Conservative laws that the Liberals argue weaken the rights of trade unions. They are Bill C-377, which requires unions to disclose how they spend members' dues, as well as Bill C-525, which makes it harder for unions to organize in federally-regulated workplaces."