Trump / Clinton

[sdw]

So other than spending the USSR into the poor house was there anything else that enlightened you to think Clinton or Obama were not as good Presidents vs the Republican Clowns?

Any President can use tax payers money to make a point.

At least these two Democratic Presidents did try to make a difference for the US Electorate.

You missed the point. Reagan used the American Left and the Soviet Intelligence Network to convince them that much, much more was being spent on "Star Wars" than was actually being spent. Of course it wouldn't have worked if there had been a Edward Snowden inside the loop. There were massive demonstrations against "Star Wars" inside the USA. Many, many protest songs and even a movie. MIT students were told not to involve themselves in "Star Wars" projects. http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N50/sdi.50n.html All of the protest convinced the Soviets that Billions were being spent on "Star Wars", when in reality "Star Wars" was defunded and shelved in 1985. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1957.html

One of Reagan's controversial proposals was the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a system intended to make the U.S. invulnerable to nuclear missile attacks by the Soviet Union. By stationing those defenses in outer space, the U.S. was able to circumvent the United Nation's Anti-Ballistic (ABM) Treaty.

In a speech in 1983, President Reagan announced his plans to create a shield against nuclear missile attacks. The news media quickly dubbed his new proposal for the SDI as "Star Wars," as well as characterizing it as a carelessly drawn-up science fiction idea.

Based upon original work by Nikola Tesla, SDI was designed to vaporize missiles from space by way of a laser guidance system, before they reached U.S. soil. The system grew into a series of systems that also formed a layered ballistic missile defense. The SDI was capable of zeroing in on only 30 percent of the earth's surface, and wasn't able to get a fix on the Soviet's nuclear launch sites.

By 1985, after billions of dollars but minimal results, Reagan's SDI was shut down but research continued. The debate over such a defense program continues to simmer over its advisability. But the elusive technologies of that time are a reality now, in the early 21st Century. This is not to state that the 1980's SDI is now a reality, just the portable high powered laser beam which has been deployed in large aeroplanes and in Space.

And yet, prior to the 1986 disarmament talks, the Soviet Union still believed that the USA was deploying "Star Wars", the Soviets, in fact, made "Weapons in Space" a topic of the talks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

In 1986 Carl Sagan summarized what he heard Soviet commentators were saying about SDI, with a common argument being that it was equivalent to starting an economic war through a defensive arms race to further cripple the Soviet economy with extra military spending, while another less plausible interpretation was that it served as a disguise for the US wish to initiate a first strike on the Soviet Union.[78]

Very few disinformation campaigns have been as successful.

The Soviets couldn't legally acquire the computer chips used in the SDI systems, (8086 and 8087 math co-processors in an IBM built AP-101) so they had to spend immense amounts of money cloning what they needed. http://www.cpushack.com/soviet-cpus.html

Intel still makes the 8086/8088 and 8087 families of chips for the space shuttle and various war planes designed in that era. A few years ago NASA had to beg for chips and ended up certifying Soviet chips for service.

 

[FreeG]

You make these blanket assertions based on what exactly? Republican Doctrine handouts and their Blogs?

Obama would have been a great President but had the Republican Congress throwing roadblocks in front of him constantly. Blame the disfunctional republicans for wasting 7 years in office because they were more concerned with Politics and his birth certificate than getting on with the business of running the country.

He accomplished:

Health Care - not perfect but again it was a compromise with the Congress.

Handled the Wall Street debacle that made the western world teeter on collapse. Bush Jr was way over his head with that mess and it required a steady hand to pull the US economy out of the shit house. Shame on Obama for not sending the Wall St old boys club to jail after that mess.

Saved the Auto Industry from collapse.

Added 4 million jobs during his Presidency.

Reduced unemployment to 5% the lowest it's been in years during a shitty economy.

Put wage equity into law.

Legalized same sex marriage

Bin Laden - got him and dealt with the body so it did not become a touch stone for Jihadists world wide.
Decreased troop levels in Iraq and made Afghanistan the centre to focus on (which it should have been during Bush Jr administration).

Increased the use of Drones UAVs to take out Al Queda in the Persian Gulf states. Did that bring rise to ISIL? It's debatable but it's a certainty that the fight picked by Bush Jr in Iraq brought all the crazies together in one place to fight the infidels from the coalition.

The thing is very little is ever said about the Republicans, their Tea Party and their Negative Effect upon the USA. It's just easier for people to turn around and blame Obama.

IMHO Obama and Bill Clinton were the best Presidents to lead since JFK.

Who did the US have as President since LBJ?

Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Bush Sr
Clinton
Bush Jr
Obama

Try and convince me of any of those Repubilcan Presidents shining more prominently than Clinton or Obama? Ironically, I read recently that Nixon is considered a good President because he ended the Vietnam War and established trade relations with China. Reagan could read a TelePrompter and it's debatable that Bush Jr could actually read. Reagan was present during the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the former Soviet Union but did not do anything instrumental to assist in their downfall. They were already doing that all on their own.

Think about it. The USA would never have had Obama unless their Supreme Court had not appointed Bush Jr in the biggest fraud ever in US history.

Carry on.

I agree, bbb. NYTimes had a recent article on Sen. Mitch McConnell, who instead of DOING something productive & collaborative, has instead focused his energies on leading defiance on Obama at every corner. Its utterly depressing. The recent bullshit on their plan to block any Supreme Court justice nomination is just nauseating and completely selfish & short-sighted.

One thing about Reagan is that he did seem to reach across the aisle more and build collaborative efforts more. Not perfect by any means. Bush Sr. was considered a very good VP and one of the key architects to end the Cold War and building consensus with Allies, but he didn't get much credit as a President. Bill Clinton seemed to be lucky that he came in a time of relative peace and booming economy. Bush Jr's biggest fault was his choice of VP & SecDef, two warhawks who coerced the country into a devastating war that, if SDW is correct, will be the beginning of the US' downfall. $3T or so, wasted, with only more bitter enemies and a hollow remaining military to show for it.

As for the top 2 given choices, I agree that the 'Drumpf' thing is a bit of a silly distraction. Ok, when John Oliver tells it, its a HILARIOUS distraction! But few people have scared me as much as Trump does, in his flippant remarks and blatant grandstanding for the masses (Cruz is scarier in that his statements are almost as bad but in the name of God). I think Hillary Clinton would be better except that I foresee more of McConnell and his types continuing to dig down to selfishly block a Democratic president's agenda instead of build a constructive give-and-take relationship (because the Republicans want the presidency back). For some reasons, she seems more divisive than Obama - maybe its her single-minded ascent to her current status, maybe its her air of arrogance about the Benghazi silliness and email questions, her lack of humility, her connection to Bill (who some Republicans still despise and distrust). Again, NYTimes had a good article on her role in Libya's current state, reflecting yet again that the US has no clue in the Arab/Muslim world.

<sigh> SOOOO glad I'm on this side of the border! But still worry about the months & years to come.

 

[sdw]

But SDI came very close to bankrupting the USA as well & they were starting in a much better economic position than the USSR. The massive expansion of the US military made a very expensive tool that had no monetary value - They couldn't just sell the weapon systems on the open market to someone else. Politically, they couldn't close bases & eliminate weapons production lines willy nilly after the USSR fell. So it sat there sucking huge amounts of cash from the national accounts. And so a use had to be found for it & the USA became much more interventionist.

Jimmie Carter who served through the economic malaise and high inflation following the 1973 oil embargo entered office with a debt to GDP of 33% and left office with the debt to GDP ratio of 32%. GDP rose by $968 billion and debt rose by $280 billion. Reagan started at this point and serve eight years through a period of strong economic growth except for the 1981 recession. At the end of his first term the debt to GDP ratio was 38%. GDP rose by $1,227 Billion and debt rose by $656 billion. Four years later it was 49%. In that four years GDP rose by $1.213 billion and debt rose by $1.036 billion.

Bush the Senior has the savings & loan crisis, a large war and 1991 recession all in his one term as the debt to GDP ratio rose to 61% and the debt rose by $1,401 Billion. Clinton (the First?) got it back down to 54% in eight years mostly on strong GDP growth with the debt only rising by $1,627. Bush the Younger ran it up to 67% (up $4,357 billion) playing with his army men in his sand box. Recession, debt load and continued playing in the sand box has done the rest as the ratio rose to 102% in 2014 before dropping back to 100% last year with the debt rising by $8,134 billion in seven years.

The last time the debt to GDP ratio was at 100% was in 1947, coming down from 116% in 1945. Every single president since Truman reduced the debt ratio in their term until Reagan. And there was no pressing need for him to do so. The cold war was 35 years old when he took office & the Soviet Union was beginning to collapse. He did enormous damage to the US economy and the structure of the federal budget and set the stage for what will inevitably be a default by the US government on its debts. There is no basis for growing down the ratio in today's low growth world.

Most of that money wasn't spent on "Star Wars". It was spent on Reagan's "600 ship Navy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/600-ship_Navy and various programs for new aircraft. Tremendous amounts were spent on the F-18A/B program and B-1 Bomber program. Reagan also re-established military units that had been retired at the end of WWII at tremendous cost.

The American military strength of the present is mostly due to Ronald Reagan. Bush 1 wouldn't have been able to "defend" Kuwait if Reagan hadn't built up the US military. Bush II wouldn't have been able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq without the Reagan build up.

Aircraft Carriers and Nuclear Submarines aren't inexpensive and Congress has approved very little additional building since the 1980 - 1988 years.

 

[sdw]

I agree, bbb. NYTimes had a recent article on Sen. Mitch McConnell, who instead of DOING something productive & collaborative, has instead focused his energies on leading defiance on Obama at every corner. Its utterly depressing. The recent bullshit on their plan to block any Supreme Court justice nomination is just nauseating and completely selfish & short-sighted.

One thing about Reagan is that he did seem to reach across the aisle more and build collaborative efforts more. Not perfect by any means. Bush Sr. was considered a very good VP and one of the key architects to end the Cold War and building consensus with Allies, but he didn't get much credit as a President. Bill Clinton seemed to be lucky that he came in a time of relative peace and booming economy. Bush Jr's biggest fault was his choice of VP & SecDef, two warhawks who coerced the country into a devastating war that, if SDW is correct, will be the beginning of the US' downfall. $3T or so, wasted, with only more bitter enemies and a hollow remaining military to show for it.

As for the top 2 given choices, I agree that the 'Drumpf' thing is a bit of a silly distraction. Ok, when John Oliver tells it, its a HILARIOUS distraction! But few people have scared me as much as Trump does, in his flippant remarks and blatant grandstanding for the masses (Cruz is scarier in that his statements are almost as bad but in the name of God). I think Hillary Clinton would be better except that I foresee more of McConnell and his types continuing to dig down to selfishly block a Democratic president's agenda instead of build a constructive give-and-take relationship (because the Republicans want the presidency back). For some reasons, she seems more divisive than Obama - maybe its her single-minded ascent to her current status, maybe its her air of arrogance about the Benghazi silliness and email questions, her lack of humility, her connection to Bill (who some Republicans still despise and distrust). Again, NYTimes had a good article on her role in Libya's current state, reflecting yet again that the US has no clue in the Arab/Muslim world.

<sigh> SOOOO glad I'm on this side of the border! But still worry about the months & years to come.

You have to remember that Bill Clinton spent money on wars also. American Presidents don't seem to be able to leave the US Military "On the Shelf". They have this deadly toy, and they keep using it. And yes, the US Military and the wars the US has needlessly involved itself in are the reason that the US is bankrupt. The only reason that their bankruptcy isn't called by the rest of the world is - you guessed it - the US Military. That's why the Chinese did their demonstration of their Song class submarine a few years ago. Approaching an Aircraft Carrier and surfacing along side, demonstrated that China can sink American ships at will.

While I'm not excited about Trump or Clinton becoming President of the USA, Clinton is a much better choice than Trump. Trump will alienate what few allies America still has and provoke adventures that could easily escalate. America cannot afford to spend another 10 years in war.

I think with the absolute craziness of the Republican candidates for President, Congress and Senate - Hillary Clinton will have a good chance at a super majority. Hopefully, she won't waste it the way Obama did.

Neither Trump or Clinton is a friend of Canada. Canada will either have developed new markets or will have a deep recession.

 

[westwoody]

Canada needs to join the European Union. We are too dependent on the US market.

Regarding their military buildup: much of it was about lining the pockets of Republican backers. A lot of junk was bought that the military did not even want. Same thing has happened in Canada, shoddy material has been provided by contractors who had connections in Ottawa. Defense is a good way for parties to create jobs in their own ridings. Mulroney was very good at it but it seems to have gone unnoticed.

 

[badbadboy]

You have to remember that Bill Clinton spent money on wars also. American Presidents don't seem to be able to leave the US Military "On the Shelf". They have this deadly toy, and they keep using it. And yes, the US Military and the wars the US has needlessly involved itself in are the reason that the US is bankrupt. The only reason that their bankruptcy isn't called by the rest of the world is - you guessed it - the US Military. That's why the Chinese did their demonstration of their Song class submarine a few years ago. Approaching an Aircraft Carrier and surfacing along side, demonstrated that China can sink American ships at will.

While I'm not excited about Trump or Clinton becoming President of the USA, Clinton is a much better choice than Trump. Trump will alienate what few allies America still has and provoke adventures that could easily escalate. America cannot afford to spend another 10 years in war.

I think with the absolute craziness of the Republican candidates for President, Congress and Senate - Hillary Clinton will have a good chance at a super majority. Hopefully, she won't waste it the way Obama did.

Neither Trump or Clinton is a friend of Canada. Canada will either have developed new markets or will have a deep recession.

I think Clinton should have been much more pragmatic when dealing with Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen and the rest of the Persian Gulf during his Presidency. He too was influenced by public polling and what the rest of the world would say about their intervention. Granted some of the missions were part of the UN Peace Keeping and the US didn't have the final word on all decisions.

Obama did not exhibit the same reluctance as Clinton by utilizing many of the tools that we only hear about after the fact. The age of UAV's and small insurgent forces i.e. Seals and Delta's are being deployed rather than Brigades of Army Rangers etc.

I am just really disgusted with the way the Republican candidates have turned this election into a school yard shouting match rather than discussing any policy that would indicate they really want to lead. The debates are an absolute farce worthy of Jerry Springer being the moderator. Personal insults, shouting over top of the other speaker who has the floor and just turning the whole "debate process" into a chaotic mess.

One can wish for a President who will do the right things and actually lead not some Trump bozo who's claim to fame is he inherited a lot of money as a young man and was able to parlay that into a mega fortune. Someone who can actually work with that dysfunctional Congress to make real change.

I have a lot of respect for Clinton and Obama because they were very well educated, had a sense of what needed to be done in America and most of all respect for all Americans. I get US visitors into my territory often and many of these people are from Red States. Whenever the question evolves about Health Care in the USA and not everyone is covered; a typical response from them is "that's their problem".

How does a society as a whole become so uncaring?

 

[sdw]

Canada needs to join the European Union. We are too dependent on the US market.

Regarding their military buildup: much of it was about lining the pockets of Republican backers. A lot of junk was bought that the military did not even want. Same thing has happened in Canada, shoddy material has been provided by contractors who had connections in Ottawa. Defense is a good way for parties to create jobs in their own ridings. Mulroney was very good at it but it seems to have gone unnoticed.

lol, I've always wondered who made money on the Submarine deal? We know that the person(s) will be a Liberal, that's the government that bought them.

I don't think that Canada has much room to grow in the European market. Where the potential is is Pan Pacific nations like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, Philippines and Papua New Guinea. We already trade with New Zealand and Australia and South Korea isn't all that interested in additional trade with Canada. It would require our government to set up Trade Legations in the Oceania Nations.

I see today that Mitt Romney is busy trying to kill off Trump's campaign. For what? Cruz? Unless Romney intends to run again, he should just let the Republican Party die. There is a natural split of the Republican Party into the Republican/Tea Party and the Conservative Party (old line Republican) that will happen after Trump has lost to Hillary Clinton. - Well, at least I hope that's what will happen. Having Trump as President for even one term is much too interesting for me. Having Clinton as President will be quite interesting enough, thank you.

 

[overdone]

Canada's government needs to recognize that and seek new trading partners now. It's going to get more difficult to get products into the American market.

what do you think Harper did?

TPP, EU, ect....

or are you delusional enough to think the model did these deals in the last 3 months?

those 2 pretty much cover anybody worth trading with

pretty sure he did some deals with China along the way too, lol

 

[a_lee_n]

I may have mentioned this earlier, but so long as

1. Money is considered free speech.
2. Corporations are individuals for #1
3. Two party system based on first past the post.

There will be no meaningful change regardless of who gets elected.

As for Clinton, I will never forgive him for his and his advisers endlessly debating the meaning of genocide while 250k to 1 million people were murdered in Rwanda. I was in the US Army from Bush Sr. to Clinton, and one thing I noticed was that Bill had no clue what to do with the military. He went from embarrassment of Somalia (although the military commanders were at fault for "Black Hawk Down") to paralyzation about Rwanda to having save face by getting involved in Kosovo (Although ending this war was good, I do not believe Clinton did it to stop the ethnic cleansing).

 

[badbadboy]

I may have mentioned this earlier, but so long as

1. Money is considered free speech.
2. Corporations are individuals for #1
3. Two party system based on first past the post.

There will be no meaningful change regardless of who gets elected.

As for Clinton, I will never forgive him for his and his advisers endlessly debating the meaning of genocide while 250k to 1 million people were murdered in Rwanda. I was in the US Army from Bush Sr. to Clinton, and one thing I noticed was that Bill had no clue what to do with the military. He went from embarrassment of Somalia (although the military commanders were at fault for "Black Hawk Down") to paralyzation about Rwanda to having save face by getting involved in Kosovo (Although ending this war was good, I do not believe Clinton did it to stop the ethnic cleansing).

Care to comment in a similar fashion about Bush Jr going into Iraq when there was no WMD and he built a case to go to war?
Care to comment about the lack of US direction towards Saudi Arabia who had 17 of 19 Terrorists from the The Kingdom in 9 11?

I take your point about Clinton and his lack of effectiveness in Rwanda. Canada was involved there too and listening to the General Romeo Dallaire on CBC it was certainly the clusterfuck of the African Continent. To be fair, it was UN and it was totally mismanaged from the get go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roméo_Dallaire

The Black Hawk Down episode is epic about how the White House were making the wrong decisions and not letting the Military do its job properly. The lack of Spectre Gunships to provide cover over Mog was insane. Once again, the UN had a hand on how to deal with Mohamed Farrah Aidid and it did not turn out well at all.

 

[sdw]

what do you think Harper did?

TPP, EU, ect....

or are you delusional enough to think the model did these deals in the last 3 months?

those 2 pretty much cover anybody worth trading with

pretty sure he did some deals with China along the way too, lol

Of course Harper was working on alternative trading partners. After 7 years of Keystone, the Quebec and BC Lumber industry and the Alberta Meat industry - Harper was under no illusion on how good a friend the USA is.

But let's not blame where we are on the Blue or Red Teams. It's the Orange Team that has put effort into organizing protest against Trade Deals (they were also against the NAFTA), developing and shipping Oil, any alternative energy that isn't Solar Panels (they are against Wind Power and micro Hydro) and any major infrastructure project (they talk about public works, but protest Highways, Light Rail, etc - public works for them = paying people more money to do nothing)

Trudeau (the model) has already said his government will sign TTP, is already seeking a way to get Energy East through or around Quebec and is planning a trip to China in March to talk about increased trade for Canada. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...n-free-trade-deal-with-china/article28029612/

Do you think a Mulcair government would be doing any of that?

Keeping a Harper government was not an option, he was well past his shelf life for a multitude of reasons.

There is a reason that many nations have term limits. Governments and politicians enter politics with an agenda. If the population agrees with most of the agenda, they elect that government. There are no political agendas that take longer than 8 years to implement. If the government has failed to deliver the agenda - they are an incompetent failure. If the government succeeded in implementing the agenda - do you want to find out what they have come up with for the next 8 years? Every lobbyist for every cause has had input into that second agenda.

 

[a_lee_n]

Care to comment in a similar fashion about Bush Jr going into Iraq when there was no WMD and he built a case to go to war?
Care to comment about the lack of US direction towards Saudi Arabia who had 17 of 19 Terrorists from the The Kingdom in 9 11?

I think Iraq was a colossal mistake, with the motivation (IMO) not being the WMDs but unfinished business of the 100hr 1st Gulf War. I also believe that contract $$$ was a huge influence as well. I personally hate shedding blood over the same ground multiple times. Desert Storm should have finished Hussein, but we couldn't back then because of the "Iranian power balance" in the region, now we DGaF about Iran. There has been a policy in the US military to grind up infantry men to the point combat ineffectiveness with no concerns about the fact that actual people are dying and getting maimed, while piling on billions into "toys" of dubious value (missile shield, F-35, Littoral Combat Ship). You can see this attitude since WWII (Peleliu to Okinawa in the Pacific, Hurtgen to the Ruhr in Western Europe, practically the entirety of the Italian Campaign in Italy) to the 4-5 deployments that service members endured in Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.

I think Saudi Arabia is one of our worst allies. The Saudi's close association and promotion of Wahhabism (or Salafi), as well as embracing the worst of the Muslim Brotherhood that fled Egypt in the 70s and early 80s helped to create the terrorist networks responsible for many post USSR terrorism. I do not like them, and I really wish for complete energy independence from the Middle East.

 

[westwoody]

I also believe that contract $$$ was a huge influence as well

Bush Junior was a sock puppet for Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Bush didn't run anything, and made no decisions, he did what they told him to. Daddy probably guided things too.
How much money do you think Cheney made with Raytheon and Halliburton?
Cheney said up front he wanted the Iraqi oil. He said the oil would pay for the cost of the war. Worst case scenario for him, he doesn't get the oil but makes cash on weaponry, provisioning the force, and oilfield reconstruction.

 

[badbadboy]

I think Iraq was a colossal mistake, with the motivation (IMO) not being the WMDs but unfinished business of the 100hr 1st Gulf War. I also believe that contract $$$ was a huge influence as well. I personally hate shedding blood over the same ground multiple times. Desert Storm should have finished Hussein, but we couldn't back then because of the "Iranian power balance" in the region, now we DGaF about Iran. There has been a policy in the US military to grind up infantry men to the point combat ineffectiveness with no concerns about the fact that actual people are dying and getting maimed, while piling on billions into "toys" of dubious value (missile shield, F-35, Littoral Combat Ship). You can see this attitude since WWII (Peleliu to Okinawa in the Pacific, Hurtgen to the Ruhr in Western Europe, practically the entirety of the Italian Campaign in Italy) to the 4-5 deployments that service members endured in Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.

I think Saudi Arabia is one of our worst allies. The Saudi's close association and promotion of Wahhabism (or Salafi), as well as embracing the worst of the Muslim Brotherhood that fled Egypt in the 70s and early 80s helped to create the terrorist networks responsible for many post USSR terrorism. I do not like them, and I really wish for complete energy independence from the Middle East.

I agree with your assessment and point out that the USA and Saudi will be best friends for many years to come.

Not only do they hold the power regarding oil but they also own 1/3 of the US Debt. It's probably higher now considering at the height of the two wars in the region costing $1B per day.

It's an interesting situation regarding the terrorists from Saudi. Very little was ever said or done with respect to how they became involved with Al Queda at least from what I learned from books on the subject. Saudi is a very closed society and it's not going to cooperate with any nation that has issues with their citizens.

 

[a_lee_n]

Well the Pentagon generals don't like ground force totals, what they like is combat materials. The first thing that gets cut is boots, not planes or tanks, and the last thing that get increased is boots. Never mind the crap care veterans get in the VA, and cutting benefits to personnel and their families.

 

[sdw]

Well the Pentagon generals don't like ground force totals, what they like is combat materials. The first thing that gets cut is boots, not planes or tanks, and the last thing that get increased is boots. Never mind the crap care veterans get in the VA, and cutting benefits to personnel and their families.

During Vietnam dependents had to live on food stamps - even when living on base. According to this article, nothing has changed. http://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/25/wealth-poverty/military-families-turn-food-stamps In Canada, the government has tried to eliminate disability pensions in favor of a one-time payout.

The military leaders love the big toys, as do the politicians. You don't put a politician's name on a rifle or a pair of boots - you put it on a ship, base or other large expensive thing. For a politician, it's "delivering the bacon", for the military leader, it's future employment and "consulting" fees. When Canada sent troops to Afghanistan, the troops didn't even have body armor. What did get to Afghanistan to support the troops is of so little value, that it's not being brought back to Canada. The stuff costs more to ship than it's worth.

 

[sdw]

It's always a balancing act when it comes to budgets and the toys become obsolete at a much faster rate than the troops. They also take much longer to develop. So not only is there a requirement to have enough equipment for the present & immediate future, they also have the development and production pipeline filled with the next generation of toys. If you hail to do that you wind up sending your troops into battle in 30 year old modified Volkswagen Rabbits.

The crap care in the VA is, of course, an inevitable outcome of American culture where for a large segment of society it is a sacred belief that healthcare is a luxury commodity that people are not entitled to as a right. It's hard to justify providing first class treatment for free to disposable people whose sole job is to expand the empire when society won't provide it to poor members who actually contribute to the economy...



In Canada's case, it was strictly money issues. Unlike the US, Canada had gone for decades without any periods of sustained combat operations. We had no real need for much in the way of armed forces except for the pressure exerted by our NATO allies. So governments of all stripes spent the money elsewhere.

Our troop levels remained below what government studies recommended and all our equipment became worn & obsolescent with only the least effort made to replace it. Our current front line jet was ordered 40 years ago, we still fly helicopters that are even older. Our Aurora surveillance plane currently in the Middle East were constructed in the same era. We went to Afghanistan with Leopard ! tanks whose original design specifications were set in 1954. The bottoms have rotted out of our replenishment ships and so they are now decommissioned with replacements years away.

Canadian politicians when given the choice between troops and toys chose neither. The Canadian people have for decades chosen butter over guns. It truly sucked for the troops those first couple of years in Afghanistan but for many decades we've actually been able to use the money on other things, some of them durable like bridges and harbours, dearer to the public's heart by not buying new equipment without fighting a war with it. Some might say that was a poor choice, but the country got through the period without losing a major war so it can be argued that it was a sound decision for the times.

And our politicians & generals don't get bases and major ships named for them. We have names like HCMS Calgary & HCMS Athabascan and Camps Shilo, Gagetown & Suffield.

Canadian naming just goes deeper into British History. Queen Victoria, Lord Cornwallis, Lord Halifax, House of Windsor, Captain George Vancouver, Lord John Gage, Baron Suffield. The Americans like their namesakes to still be alive to be at the Launching, USS H.W. Bush, USS Jimmy Carter, USS Ronald Reagan, USS John F. Kennedy (launched by daughter Caroline)

 

[westwoody]

ROTFLMAO Trump called Jeb Bush "Little Dinkley McBirthright".

If it comes down to Shillary or Trump I might pick Trump. Shillary personifies everything bad about US politics.
She is as big a liar as Trump.
She is just as evasive when asked direct questions.
She has entitlement issues.
She is a career politician with little knowledge or interest in the world outside the Beltway or her New York condo.
She has been bought by Wall Street and will govern according to their interests.
She doesn't give a shit about the little people.