carepov

So 21 % of people follow Islam after 1300 years, call me back in the year 3300 and maybe I'll start to worry.

To anyone worried about muslims taking over Canada: -Muslims make up 3.2 % of our population -To put your mind at ease, watch a few episdes of "Little Mosque on the Prairie" -The idea is in the same realm of idiodic paranoia as "the Jews contol everything"

Seems that just like religious faith is not a pre-requisite to charity, it is not a pre-requisite to gullibility either.

Don't forget we are in NATO therefore we have all of NATO defending us against an attack.

Regarding Canada's contribution to NATO, Canada made more than its fair share of commitments in Afghanistan. Also, NATO is primarily in place to protect Europe and is full of G8 nations with plenty of resources. It is sad the way the government makes promises that it cannot deliver and then expects the military to pick up the slack. Unfortunately the current path of F35s and 35 Billion on overpriced ships will make this problem worse. Regarding adaptability, I did not make myself clear, Canadian troops are very adaptable, I am sure Taylor would agree. It is the bureaucracy that is rigid. Regarding operating costs, I get your point but and in general you are right it is almost always cheaper... but did you look up the projected operating costs for the F35's? Crazy! So you want to at least double our military spending. No thanks. You speak of potentially heavy casualties, where? You speak of defending Canada, from whom?

It seems like it is a stupid move by the PQ - but I would not extend judgement to Quebec itself. The commission on "reasonable accommodation" is a better reflection of Quebec's tolerance. I am hopeful that a strong majority Quebecers will reject these proposals and the trial balloon will die a quick death.

Thanks for the well though out post. We agree on a great many things: -There is significant waste in all government departments that should be cut (including Defence as per Leslie 2011) -Canada should work closely with our allies and live up to our commitments -Canada cannot do everything that the US does (i.e. our capabilities are limited) -The government expects DND to do too much with insufficient resources -Military matters should be discussed more in the civilian public and we civilians should learn more about our military -Canadian soldiers and their families are second to none and deserve great admiration and appreciation for the sacrifices they make --The DND needs to change but it is resistant to change: "Taylor, a former soldier, notes that the culture at the Department of National Defence is not one that embraces change. "There's a culture of resistance, a culture of internal empire-building, so these guys are going to push back at everything."" ""morale is going into the toilet for the army."" http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html Let's get to the differences: I did do some research and my opinions are based on experts such as Taylor: "For Taylor, that [current Harper] strategy is "a hodge-podge and every direction you look it's going to need huge amounts of money." If the military goes ahead with its current procurement plans, Taylor notes, the operating costs for the new equipment will be huge. "We just can't move forward in all the directions they say they are going to move forward, not with the amount of money that's in the pot now," Taylor told CBC News." Lagasse, also thinks that the current procurement strategy is unsustainable and we will end-up repeated the same mistakes of the past: "At the same time, the military keeps going with its procurement programs, "even though they are unaffordable, and eventually force the government to be in a bind and have to give you more."" Finally what I am proposing is consistent with what NATO reports call for: "In 2010, NATO proposed that its members eliminate some overlapping capabilities, with just one or a few members specializing in some tasks." In your opinion how much should we spend on defence? (we now spend ~1.3% of GPD, 9% of our budget) I propose a gradual decline in such a way that we more-or-less keep our same capabilities and that we are selective on the new capabilities - definitely not 65 F35s and no overpriced ships. Aside from cutting waste (including overpriced new equipment purchases), I do not think I would cut the budget. How much more do you think we should spend? Why do you think we should spend more? Where should the money come from?

Military matters do not scare me, please try not to make these kinds of assumptions, as I said before I am not anti-military. I hate waste and I feel that there is a lot of wasteful spending on defense, this is significant because defense spending is 9% of our budget. With better allocation of resources I think that Canada can have a better military AND spend less money. How much money do you think we should spend on the military? Do you think Canada should have all the capabilities as the US military, if not which capabilities would you limit? You see, we are better off admitting that our military cannot do everything and choose our capabilities strategically. What we seem to do now is pretend that we are capable of doing everything and then end up cutting programs ad-hoc when we realize that there is no more money/manpower. This is not only stupid and wasteful but I imagine quite demoralizing.

No, I am not screwing with you. The things I specifically mentioned we do not currently have anyways - hence I am proposing a military "similar to what we have". OK, surely it is you screwing with me, n'est pas?

A small general military, similar to what we have, and a hanflul of specialized capabilities based on the needs and capabilities of our NATO allies. Specifically, no submarines, not 65 F35's, no new overpriced ships, probably limitted/no investment in modern tanks or attack helicopters.... Do you think that Canada should own an aircraft carrier?

Yes I heard what you said: and it is exactly what my position is too. If our foreign outlook changed and circumstances dictated a need, then, yes I'd support "x" capabilities: let x = nuclear deterrent let x = 65 F35s let x = overpriced armoured icebreakers let x = amphibious assault ships let x = so many other things Today we do not need "x" therefore let's not waste money on "x"

So you are in favour of limiting Canada's military capabilities, wow, so am I! Should Canada have aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, a submarine fleet, a modern tank division, portable anti-tank weapons, missile interceptors, bombers, paratroopers, mine sweepers, etc...?

How would you explain the fact that some large investments in renewable energy is coming from oil companies like BP?

I am against the idea of Canada having nuclear weapons. Do you support a Canadian nuclear weapons program or do you prefer that we just freeload of American nuclear weapons?

Yes, I support the parts of the Leslie report that advocates cutting bureaucracy but disagree with the strategy of trying to do everything. Sorry if this was not clear.

I also wrote that a small general military is fine. I never wrote about abandoning any core elements. My position is consistent with NATO recommendations. I am not pushing for Canada to be dependant on NATO so that we can freeload, I am advocating a more inter-dependant NATO to make it cheaper AND stronger.

No, I support the main recommendations in the Leslie report: "The report makes 43 recommendations, including these key ones. Reallocating about 3,500 regular forces personnel into areas identified for future growth or investing the funds elsewhere. Reducing by up to 30 per cent the $2.7 billion spent on contractors, consultants and private-sector providers. Moving about 3,500 civil servants into higher priority activities or investing the funds elsewhere. Cutting the number of full-time reservists to 4,500 and converting them into part-time positions." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/19/pol-dnd-report-cuts.html I also strongly support the NATO recommendations that: "In 2010, NATO proposed that its members eliminate some overlapping capabilities, with just one or a few members specializing in some tasks." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html I especially share Lagasse and Taylor's criticisms that we (the Harper and previous governments) promise and start to implement massive military spending initiatives then the money runs out (a big factor being huge cost overruns) then these programs get scaled back almost at random and we end up with scattered "hodgepodge", "ad-hoc" military capabilities where we can do many things with mediocrity. Let's face the facts - we can't do everything alone. Let's admit that and make deals and agreement with our allies. To use your earlier example with large transport helicopters, ink a deal now, or before enterering a Afghan-like mission, with Holland or the USA, or better yet push within NATO to make more efficient use of all the resources with NATO. The flip side that Canada can specialize and do some things better than other NATO allies. Perhaps it's one the items I mentioned earlier, or cold-weather fighting, or something else. But it certainly isn't deployment of an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarines, rockets and nuclear missiles, and certainly other capabilities.

You can have your cake and eat it too. It is a matter of eliminating waste. Private companies do it all the time, governments and bureaucracies are a little slower but it is possible.

Maybe it would seem to you - but that is not at all what I wrote.

No, I propose doing the same (or more) with less. Some (less efficient) capabilities would be reduced, some capabilities would be expanded. Waste would be reduced. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html

You clearly do not understand my position because I have stated numerous times that Canada should be making more meaningful contributions to its allies.

1. Our ability to defend our national sovereignty depends on our alliance with the USA. This would not change whether we cut out military budget in half or if we tripled the budget. (by the way, defend from whom?) 2. I cannot see any scenario where a loss of Canadian sovereignty would be tolerated by the Americans 3. Canada is not Australia 4. Canada would be less of a "freeloader" if our specialized capabilities were useful to the USA and other allies. For example: diplomacy to avert war, logistics, running military prisons, training...

Yes Canada has the luxury of sitting under the umbrella of security provided by fortress America. Why shouldn't we take advantage of our good fortune? Why should we try to duplicate all the capabilities of US defence when we cannot come close to making a significant contribution in most capabilities? A small general military is fine but, knowing that Canada will never go to war on it's own, Canada should pick a handful of specialized capabilities and focus on those: eg: air transport/logistics, training of foreign police and militaries, diplomacy, etc... An analogy is space exploration where we focussed on the Canadarm.

Finally there is some good news, the US administration is waking up to the problem and it looks like members of both parties are agrreeing. This is evry hopeful. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/us-usa-crime-sentencing-idUSBRE97B03320130812