Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!fred
From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada's defence : Doesn't anyone care?
Message-ID: <2007@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 11:36:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.2007
Posted: Thu Sep  5 11:36:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 14:18:58 EDT
References: <833@utcs.UUCP> <764@lsuc.UUCP> <5906@utzoo.UUCP> <774@lsuc.UUCP> <1952@mnetor.UUCP> <781@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams)
Distribution: can
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 63
Summary: More rebuttal on northern sovereinty.

In article <781@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes:
>In article <1952@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes:
>>    Mulroney lost nothing!  What we have to work with is what was
>>left by the liberals, and that is not much.  Not even Ronald Reagan
> 
>     Oh , quit blaming the Liberals for doing *exactly* what popular
>opinion of the day (what the majority of Canadians at that time)

    There is a time to follow and a time to lead.  True, political
leaders are responsible to the people, (or should be), but they also
have the job of examining issues and situations in greater detail
than the average citizen. Ideally, they would have some skill in
analyzing decisions in the political forum. Therefore there are times
when unpopular decisions should be taken.
    We have an excellent example with the issue of the 200 mile
limit, and national defence. Yes it may have been popular to let
defence spending slide and put more money into social programs, but
I look upon this as *close* to trying to buy votes.  It is also not
terribly good for the economy in the long run when one uses
deficit financing to pay for it, but that is another story.
Now as a result we have something like 30% of our tax dollars going
to pay the interest on the national debt, high unemployment due to
inflated interest rates, (ie businesses can't afford to finance
new projects  -yes I know this is a simplification but I'm trying to
save space-), and the *only* good thing to come of it: low inflation!
Actually I would prefer a little more inflation myself so that some
of my holdings would appreciate a little faster, but this is really
a false economy, so I won't insist on it.

>(I believe in some kind of balance, although it's never easy to pin
>down where to put the fulcrum), but the Tories *clearly* would not
>have done much substantially different.
> 
    Three cheers for the balance!!  Lets not condemn the tories for
what we think they might have done, (I am a PC member myself). The
party admittedly does make mistakes, (in my view, expanding Petro-
Can was one), so there is enough to criticize without dredging up
hypothetical mistakes.

>     Both parties, you see, are made up of people with some degree
>of respect for the principles of democracy.
> 
    As a party member I thank-you.

>     How 'bout that.  I should have known better.  I haven't really
>trusted the press that much in years and yet I figured that they
>had there facts straight this time.  Oh well.  Does this mean that
>the US sent the letter before the ship went through?  If not, then
>it looks to me like somebody down there either goofed (impossible)
>or they were testing the political water more than the arctic.
>Now  if we can just settle the Grand Banks problems...

    I think they had their facts straight, they just weren't reporting
all of them.
    It is my understanding that the letter was in our hands before
the ship entered Canadian waters. Whether it was before the Polar
Sea set sail I don't know.  I don't think they goofed either.
    Jim, as a lawyer I thought you would know: the Grand Banks
dispute was settled by the international court, wasn't it?  I was
disappointed with the ruling, but I think we have to accept it.

Cheers,		Fred Williams