Harper Sinks Navy

[Wilber]

No thanks. I'd rather have a local cache of arms and weapons on hand so I could make our occupation so painful that the invaders would feel compelled to leave. Advertize our intent beforehand, blow off a nuke or two to underscore the point and...Bob's your Uncle. You'd have to be so stupid to invade us that your level of stupidity would preclude the possibility of ever being smart enough to occupy us.

Blow up our own cities and sacrifice our families, that'll learn em.

[bush_cheney2004]

Blow up our own cities and sacrifice our families, that'll learn em.

Yea....great strategy...it worked so well for the Russians and Europeans. Salute!

[eyeball]

Blow up our own cities and sacrifice our families, that'll learn em.

Why would you want to do that?

[cybercoma]

The getting-to-be-regular Friday night releases of bad news by the Harper government now has cancelled the ships they loudly announced in broad daylight:

New beginning? Committed?

If we need the ships we need the ships. Harper needs to quit spending so much money mailing out propaganda and put it to use where we need it.

I prefer a fiscally responsible government to one that blows budgets for no reason.

[Fortunata]

I prefer a fiscally responsible government to one that blows budgets for no reason.

There is no way that you could define this government as fiscally responsible. They are blowing our money left, right and center on everything from propaganda to pandering. How is something so vital fiscally unresponsible to you yet giving Bombardier millions responsible?

[Wilber]

Why would you want to do that?

Why do you think you would have a choice? It amazes me that you would think freezing your ass off in the bush while trying to fight people who have occupied your towns and homes is a better strategy than trying to fight them on your borders, or even better, on their borders and in their towns and homes.

Good thing the Brits didn't buy that strategy in June 1940 in spite of the fact most of the world had written them off.

[AngusThermopyle]

I prefer a fiscally responsible government to one that blows budgets for no reason.

So are you saying that purchasing new AOR's to replace our current 50 year old ones is "blowing the budget"? Even though these ships are essential for Naval operations and our Navy would be crippled without them?

[Smallc]

So are you saying that purchasing new AOR's to replace our current 50 year old ones is "blowing the budget"? Even though these ships are essential for Naval operations and our Navy would be crippled without them?

So then all of this begs the question of why they are being postponed. If the money needs to be spent, it needs to be spent.

[Topaz]

Blowing the budget? You mean like US Blackwater training out soldiers for $850,000 for a one year with an option of a second year??? So now Canadian taxpayers are paying for our troops to learn how to shot and kill???? Does anyone know exactly how much and were our $$$ are going for this war???

[Wild Bill]

Blowing the budget? You mean like US Blackwater training out soldiers for $850,000 for a one year with an option of a second year??? So now Canadian taxpayers are paying for our troops to learn how to shot and kill???? Does anyone know exactly how much and were our $$$ are going for this war???

Are you suggesting that our troops should NOT know how to shoot and kill?

Just exactly what do you think they should do?

[AngusThermopyle]

So then all of this begs the question of why they are being postponed. If the money needs to be spent, it needs to be spent.

Actually thats pretty much the way I feel about it. In this case I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the money needs to be spent, so why the delays? Unless they're actually looking for new tenders that are more in line with what they originally budgeted for them.

Are you suggesting that our troops should NOT know how to shoot and kill?

Just exactly what do you think they should do?

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I have to admit the post left me sort of confused though, it was barely readable and somewhat lacking in coherence. Perhaps I misunderstood what Topaz was trying to say.

Edited August 27, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[cybercoma]

There is no way that you could define this government as fiscally responsible. They are blowing our money left, right and center on everything from propaganda to pandering. How is something so vital fiscally unresponsible to you yet giving Bombardier millions responsible?

I wasn't defining the government in its entirety as being fiscally responsible, however, turning down a contract because it would come in over budget is fiscally responsible and I appreciate it.

[cybercoma]

So are you saying that purchasing new AOR's to replace our current 50 year old ones is "blowing the budget"? Even though these ships are essential for Naval operations and our Navy would be crippled without them?

This is what was quoted in the original post:

"In a news release, the government announced it had rejected the bids it had received for the navy's $2.9-billion Joint Support Ship project. Both bids were significantly over the established budget for the shipbuilding program, the release stated."

So, what I'm saying is, good for the government for rejecting a bid that comes in SIGNIFICANTLY over the budget.

[cybercoma]

Blowing the budget? You mean like US Blackwater training out soldiers for $850,000 for a one year with an option of a second year??? So now Canadian taxpayers are paying for our troops to learn how to shot and kill???? Does anyone know exactly how much and were our $$$ are going for this war???

I'm sorry, but do you have a point about the government rejecting the bid?

[AngusThermopyle]

So, what I'm saying is, good for the government for rejecting a bid that comes in SIGNIFICANTLY over the budget.

Ah, I see now.

Initially I thought you were saying the government shouldn't spend money on these ships. In some ways I agree with you, in others not so much. It would be nice if we could get them for the budgeted cost, however we do need these ships, in a very big way. That being the case, if they can't get them for the budgeted amount they'll just have to spend more on them.

That simply isn't open to debate. Not unless some think its wiser to start renting them instead. This would be undesirable and unworkable for a plethora of reasons.

[Fortunata]

This is what was quoted in the original post:

So, what I'm saying is, good for the government for rejecting a bid that comes in SIGNIFICANTLY over the budget.

If the bids were that significantly over I would suggest that the budget wasn't enough to start with. Did the government know this beforehand or did they think dollar store ships would suffice?

[Smallc]

If the bids were that significantly over I would suggest that the budget wasn't enough to start with. Did the government know this beforehand or did they think dollar store ships would suffice?

That's another good question. Why would the ships come in so much over budget unless someone screwed up the numbers?

The fact is, we need those ships, and we need them soon or we're going to lose significant ability to do so many things from being independent at sea to delivering large shipments of aid.

[Smallc]

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...s-a-bullet.aspx

Interesting article/blog entry.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Smallc

[AngusThermopyle]

That is an interesting article, he makes many valid points. I never liked the JSS concept from the beggining, for many of the same reasons.

The whole "buy canadian" concept has to change, it has hampered and crippled us for years. Back in the late seventies the US offered us ten Spruance class destroyers, we refused them. The primary reason being that the US stipulated all refits be performed in American shipyards. This was unacceptable to our Government so we passed on a very respectable force instead.

Real smart of us.

[cybercoma]

If the bids were that significantly over I would suggest that the budget wasn't enough to start with. Did the government know this beforehand or did they think dollar store ships would suffice?

And if Harper and Flaherty were to budget for even more military spending, do you think Dion and Layton would be fine with that?

Edited August 28, 2008 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

That is an interesting article, he makes many valid points. I never liked the JSS concept from the beggining, for many of the same reasons.

The whole "buy canadian" concept has to change, it has hampered and crippled us for years. Back in the late seventies the US offered us ten Spruance class destroyers, we refused them. The primary reason being that the US stipulated all refits be performed in American shipyards. This was unacceptable to our Government so we passed on a very respectable force instead.

Real smart of us.

I'm not really sure why we don't jump on with US projects. It would decrease costs for both countries as we could both contribute to development and neither one would have to pay the whole bill.

[Smallc]

dp

Edited August 28, 2008 by Smallc

[Fortunata]

And if Harper and Flaherty were to budget for even more military spending, do you think Dion and Layton would be fine with that?

Would Dion have a choice? Wasn't it the Libs who first put this together? Layton? Who cares?

[cybercoma]

My point is that you know damn well any sort of major increase in military spending, justifiable or not, would have Stephen Harper painted as a war-mongering redneck akin to Bush.

Edited August 29, 2008 by cybercoma

[jdobbin]

My point is that you know damn well any sort of major increase in military spending, justifiable or not, would have Stephen Harper painted as a war-mongering redneck akin to Bush.

Citation that Dion has criticized the military spending except to say that it should have gone to tender?