carepov

I'm sorry that my nerdy (weak) attempt a humor failed. We were talking about he Canadian public's support for the Military - I'm calling it like it is and I agree with you. The public doesn't care nor do they understand - this we both agree on. As for me, care is my middle name and I am trying to better understand the Military. I think (almost) everyone deserves respect and I would they to empathize with any veteran (or anyone else) I meet. You wrong about "my mentality". I am doubting the need for F-35s and over-priced ships. IMO, wasting money on these procurement and on fatty wasteful beureaucracy (as per Leslie) takes money away from where it is really needed - like Chinooks and MRAPs, etc... I am no Liberal partisan - I voter for Harper in 2006 and strongly disliked Chretien. I was embarrassed to have him represent us on the world stage. I am very upset that the Liberals (and military leaders) sent troops to war ill-equipped and am glad that the CPC took corrective action. You are right - actions speak louder than words. That Is why I counter your (and Army Guy's) claim that Canadians do not "support our troops". When did we ever "support our troops"? What countries "support their troops"? Is it not true that being a member of our armed forces is safer now than it ever was historically? Aren't troops getting paid more than ever before? Haven't support services for troops and their families been continually expanding? What do these actions mean? Well it's not Peter MacKay, that for sure. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all the procurement blunders of the last 20-odd years were a result of Liberal politics/incompetence trumping sound military advice. Military leaders have never given bad advice to political leaders and the CPC always go along with this sound military advice. Is that right? Are you also saying that there is unanimous agreement within the RCAF and the RCN for the current procurement plan?

Sure, but if we say that support is a foot long then there is over 750,000 cubic inches of it. Far less than hockey players and celebrities, but more than most proffessions. If it was purchased within the budget, yes. You would be right if there was no waste in the system. As long as there is waste you can cut costs and improve results. Also there is not just one type of "modern fighter, or modern ship" - that will be for another thread...

1. Where on the poilitical spectrum do you think the mayors of Calgary and Edmonton would be? 2. The Liberals are not "Left wing" 3. You are right about provincial polling in Albera - (and BC), they can't always be trusted.

First of all, when you say that "most Canadians don't care about/understand the military" I 100% agree with you. Just like most Canadians don't care about/understand, poverty, the environment, foreign aid, trade, immigration, democratic reform, government budgets, etc.. etc.. However, most "informed and enlightened" Canadians such as the two of you, (and hopefully myself), do care about our military. A good indication of this concern is the fact that so much attention was paid to the four recent deaths. Also, think about how every single military death during the war in Afghanistan was immediately reported and how governments were put on the spot for poorly equipping our soldiers. Compare this to "the good ole days", when on the one hand perhaps we “cheered on” our troops more, but on the other hand, we kept sending out hundreds and thousands of Canadian soldiers out to die. Also, if you are concerned that Canadian civilians do not care about/understand the military, the tone and message in many of your posts are counter-productive. Just because someone disagrees with you or the military leadership on issues and geopolitical threats does not mean that they do not "support the troops" or are in some way "against the military".

First, my deepest sympathies to all soldiers affected by PTSD, their comrades and families... I thought that perhaps someone would have posted the actual report elsewhere on the internet. Exactly. Just because something is mentioned in the report it does not mean that it was in the scope of the report. From what I've read, Leslie's report did not critique the Canada First Defence Strategy. He did not look at F-35 costs and did not look at the costs of the new ships. He did not consider other procurement options that could potentially save money. These issues were out of scope. The report focussed on streamlining operations so that we can have the money to pay for the Canada First Defence Strategy. Consultant, overhead and operating costs are up. Where is the money for the Canada First Defence Strategy going to come from? Regarding ships, F35 and helicopters - good idea, I will go through the threads and we can discuss further there.

Thanks, I had already found and read those two links. ""the explicit goal” to “identify areas where we could reduce overhead and improve efficiency and effectiveness [so as] to allow reinvestment from within for future operational capability despite constrained resources" http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no1/68-shadwick-eng.asp To me this means that the goal of the report was to: "reduce operating costs so that we have more money to buy stuff." And therefore Leslie was not looking at major spending on new ships and planes. Sadly, it looks like Leslie's report is gathering dust so we are faced with a "double-whammy": increased operating costs AND increased equipment costs, and I fear that we are doomed to repeating the same pattern of asking Canadian soldiers to "make do" the next time they are called upon. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/14/john-ivison-f-35-purchase-may-force-conservatives-to-chop-infantry-battalion-from-cash-strapped-military/ Yes, you are correct. However there is plenty of blame that can be spread to CPC and military leaders: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/11/michael-byers-and-stewart-webb-a-government-blunder-teaches-us-how-not-to-buy-helicopters/

The NDP in Quebec went from 1 seat in 2008 to 59 in 2011, while the Bloc went from 49 to 4, anything is possible in Quebec!

IMO, the most likely outcome is CPC majority with Liberals taking a few CPC and NDP seats. The main factor is the unemployemnt rate being not significantly higher than 7.5%. The Liberals cannot do any worse than 2011 and the NDP/CPC cannot do any better. With an recession, the CPC will loose many seats, especially in Ontario. The Liberals will have a chance at a majority with a "Red Wave" as Quebecers may sieze the oportunity to regain a significant voice in Ottawa. The Bloc is dead, I think.

These people were not rational therefore they were unable to make a rational choice.

The root cause of this death is not religion, it is stupidity/mental illness. From the original link: "a spokesman for the St. Petersburg Orthodox Church said“This is superstition, not religion. They should have gone to the hospital.”" In some cases yes, and in some cases religion helps people to act, think and behave creatively, intellegently, think critically and morally. This statement is ridiculous.

Thanks, I appreciate this and other opportunities to learn about our military through this discussion. It's not that I don't beleive you, but I would like a link to verify the scope (or the actual report). If indeed the mandate of the report included looking for ways to save money through procurement of major capital expenses, and no opportunities for savings were found - then I do not fully agree with the report. Please note, I never claimed to have full agreement, knowledge or understanding of the report. I brought it up as proof that there is significant waste in the military. I do not doubt that the CPC and military leaders are doing some good work. However both parties are guilty of procurement fiascos, I cannot say who is worse. Don't you think 8 years is enough time to get some new helicopters? How many retired lieutenant generals are on your CPC team? There are many things with the F-35 program that make no sense. -You said that going with the F-35 is obviously the right choice, -I asked, if it so obvious why has our government backtracked and is now re-considering, -You said "politics" -I said "huh? the F-35 program IS a political fiasco" I'm fine if we drop the subject as I have no interest to get sucked into the blackholeish threads either.

Politics... so the CPC purposefully lied about the F35 costs and then stuck their foot in their mouth by "resetting" the program shooing away MacKay so that they can score political points?

You dodged the question about why the CPC is "resetting" the program. I have read many articles about the report and agree with the recommendations of the report. Do you have a link to the report itself? Do you know what the scope was? Was it or was it not limitted to operations? Yes, untrustworthy (Liberal) leaders working with military leaders. The CPC is no better (F35 and ships) and perhaps even worse. Also the CPC has had enough time to fix mistakes from over 8 years ago... Everything has a price... Helicopters (Afghanistan). Mental health of soldiers. Better shovels (Toronto). hmm. that begs the question of how a Liberal could rise through the ranks so quickly...

I don't trust them because: -Helicopters (Liberal fiasco) -Shitty subs -Trucks (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/military-truck-purchase-cancelled-due-to-cost-concerns-1.1273570) -all the times that budgets are grossly exceeded (yes I know that this happens all the time - it still doesn't make it right) -unclear comminication (lies) about F35 spending as per Coyne I am not against stealth - I am against wasting money. If we waste money on stealth we will not have enough money that would give us a bigger "edge". So why do retired lieutenant generals Andrew Leslie and Romeo Dallaire join the Liberal party and not the CPC?

In the same sarcastic vein, Obviously all the critics of the F35 are wrong and you're right?... Also, the CPC is wrong for pushing the "reset" button? If it was so "obvious" why would the CPC be re-considering their decision?... Sure, government and military leaders don't deserve to be blamed. It's people that want value for their dollar that should be blamed for wasting money. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/04/andrew-coyne-the-f-35-affair-is-a-fiasco-from-top-to-bottom/ Yes I agree with his report - there are many ways to save money. I assumed that Leslie was focussed on operations, not procurement.

Well, perhaps you are right about the "need" for F35s and Canadian-made ships. But I doubt it. I should have been more careful with my earlier statement about trust - I did not mean to imply that I completely mistrust all government and military leaders - I should have said that I don't completely trust them, i.e I do not have blind faith in them. How could anyone trust them after all the procurement fiascos of the last 20-odd years? Regarding Leslie, I specifically said that I look forward to his comments about the F35 - not the RCAF. AFAIK he has not made any comments - not that his advice means anything to today's leaders anyways... http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ex-top-army-commander-sounds-the-alarm-on-defence-spending-1.1390930

I am not satisfied, I do not trust our governement and military leaders. I will need to read more about the navy. I did say that I do not think Canada requires/should have stealth capabilities. I also said (many times) that Canada should have a modern, efficient and effective military. Do you think that stealth capabilities are are requirement for a modern Air Force? From the sounds of it he will make a fine Minister of Defence in 2015. I am looking forward to his comments on the F35.

Yes we should consider them. They are not older and slightly cheaper. My main point about the European ships is not that we should buy them it is that the cost difference between what we are spending and what their new ships cost makes me think that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark". There is not one iota within my posts suggesting Canada divest itself of a modern Navy and Air Force either. You have grossly misunderstood "my conclusions" - in fact I havent really made any conclusions - I basicaly just have a lot of doubt, questions and concerns about waste. Do you know if Leslie is in favour of the F35 procurement?

I am not purporting buying older and slightly cheaper aircraft/ships - where did that come from? I do not feel that there is a requirement for such things (for example, stealth capabilities, ships that cost as much to design as other countries pay to design and build). We can afford them, but we should not waste our money. The more money that we waste on F35s and overpriced ships, the less money we have to help prevent and treat soldiers suffering from PTSD.

I never said that you said that there were no moderates in Iran. I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. My point was that the moderates do have strength - not enough to overthrow the government in 2009 but there is strength in numbers. IMO these numbers make it pretty obvious that there is at least significant potential for moderates to influence change in Iran. When I say "it is in our best ineterest to support the moderates" - I am implying that we should not provide "support" that will backfire and actually increase the power of the extremists. I am not being naive as I do not claim to have any easy answers, I am purposefully being vague and uncertain and I agree with you that actions need to be weighed carefully as they could backfire. Demanding that some inspectors be Israeli is purely a symbolic requirement. The true test of seriousness is already in the agreement - it is compliance with the concrete demands of the agreement. Your additional demand is a roadblock, and a bad idea, because it does nothing to help achieve the goal of stopping Iran from developing nukes and will unnecessarily add fuel to the anti-Israeli fire that the Islamic extremists are sure to stoke.

Sorry I did miss that. I think that a requirement to have Israeli inspectors in Iran is an unnecessary roadblock. It also makes no sense because Israel was not part of the negotiations. Why are US and other P5+1 inspectors not enough?

What do you mean "dog and pony show"? There are plenty of real moderates in Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_Iranian_election_protests It is in our interest to support these moderates. The best way to do that is through peaceful dialogue and diplomacy. Hard-line stances just add to the influence and power of the extremists.

"Doveryai no proveryai" / "Trust but verify." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-s-wrong-headed-position-on-iran-1.2441379

Note: "~" means approximately When you evaluate military procurements, do you even consider the price being paid? Or do you just automatically cheerlead everything?

Derek, I am interested in how you rate the value for our taxpayer dollar for the current procurement of F35s (~$175 milion each flyaway) and new ships (~$1 billion each) 1. Great deals! We are exceeding expectations and really stretching our dollars. 2. Satisfied. We are getting fair value. 3. Dubious/reluctantly accepting. Military equipment is always expensive and there is always some waste. 4. Irate. We are pissing away taxpayer money. We should reconsider our needs/wants and look for better options. For both programs, I'm a 4. I'm assuming that you are 2., right? Now, everything has a price. What is yours? Hypothetically, how much more expensive would these procurements need to be before you reached level 4.? 25% more expensive? double? triple?