jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Hillier has also made jabs at the liberals, as do most military members, regardless of who they vote for....just so i'm clear does your party chose reflect if your a Yaho or not....does it make your professional opinion any less "say" professional or legitimate.... My view is that if they are Conservatives or potential Conservatives, I think their opinions should be regarded for potential partisanship. I think some would hold the same view on anything Dallaire says. We have already seen that MacKenzie has no professional respect for Dallaire. As I said, I have no problem with an independent study on the subject. No he has been saying we have been punching above our weight in alot of areas.....Those areas are more due to the professionalism of our soldiers than it does our governmental role. I don't think I've read that is all on our soldiers and now from the role the government has played. For example NORAD, which equally protects both the US and Canada...most of the bill is payed out by the US government....most of the equipment used is American....and we as Canadians are OK with this...However NORAD is a large driving factor for our military defence policies, our military spending, and it also reflects our foreign policies.... NORAD is an alliance. The U.S. is ten times our population. There has been times when we let the U.S. put more of the money into it since their concerns as a superpower dictated a large surveillance and intervention component. We have been punching above our weight limit for some time now. We have proved a loyal and stable ally and our budget for military needs has been increasing above the rate of inflation for years now. Same with Can be said with NATO....currently we are involved in Afghan, and our Navy has some ship postions in the north atlantic....is this what you call pulling our wieght....when compared to other NATO partners.... Actually, yes. And it has been noted bu other NATO allies. Alot of things drive a military purchase, we as a military must remain inter operable with our prime defence partner, the US, our capability must work with thiers, plus they must be similar with eurpean NATO partners...that is a big driving piont, next is we don't have a big track record for making huge military purchases, and what we do buy we normally keep well after it's useful life is gone...this practice is why we don't have a large defence industry here in Canada, it is also more expensive to run older equipment which sucks when you have so much of it... Canada is one of the largest builder of weapons in the world. We are routinely put on the hook for cost overruns and delays. Quality of product is another big piont, lots of garbage out there, and i know it is a mout piont but lifes depend on this equipment....most of the time the cheapest bidder gets the contract, something to remember that maybe one day your kids may be using it.... Companies have to pass tech specs. If the assumption is that only the expensive bid should win, we are in big trouble. The military does alot of research on it's equipment purchases, it tests equipment from around the globe....and it is not allowed to asked for a specific make and model....but like other professionals they have preferences...so specs are written the weay they are.... Which various people indicate games the results. After all the people that are doing the purchases are not Military but civilians, and they pick the equipment by the specs we provide, and they pick more than one example.... The military has been gaming the specs so that they are specific to make and model. Politics play a huge role in equipment purchases, once again lifes take a second seat to money, jobs created, and votes....one day we'll all see just how stupid our system is and change it....i mean do we send our wifes down to buy our power tools, or does your wife send you down to pick out her next china set.......why is that....and do we buy the cheapest one available, or do we buy because it creats jobs or gets you votes... As I said, companies have to pass tech specs to get contracts. It isn't just about price. Although the Upholders are newer than the 40-year-old Oberon-class boats that our sailors used to operate, the British subs had never been on the navy's wish list as a replacement. It was the Navy that advocated for the purchase. The government was not interested in these subs until the military pushed for it. When these were purchased it was lean times for the military, and i know the purchase baffeled alot of us ...as the military had already published it's wish list for that year and years to come and subs were not on it... And yet they pushed for it. It wasn't the government that came up with the idea. There are others the famous LSVW, made by western Star in BC....Italian design this veh you could not find a worse veh in the world to buy....they had to take this veh to the desert in the states so it could pass it's final tests....but it created jobs...to bad those boys in BC could not of picked a better truck to build....they where crap, still are crap....only now there are rusting crap... You'll have to ask Mulroney what he was thinking. The trucks were ordered just before he left office. We could argue the piont until one us turns blue....the piont is we where sent to Afghan with light equipment, for many reasons....because we where leaving Bosina and thats what was available, to costly to send in the heavy stuff, but like so many things we where short on we had adopted....and it was not until soldiers started to die that the G wagons where purchased, only a maginal better opition....and when the the member of parlimant was killed, the G wagons where declared non operational for afghan....every politician in the book has been there and when asked the soldier told them we need better equipment....but it was not until each piece had claimed x amount of lifes that it was replaced.... Light equipment was what was thought needed for Kabul. The Iltis, another Mulroney purchase, was thought to be good for the city's narrow streets. Suicide bombers were unheard of when the troops first hit the ground. Within a short time, they became a threat and insurgent were able to do hit our troops. We changed tactics for the heavier G-Wagons and at first they were effective. The insurgents changed tactics and now we have even heavier vehicles. The insurgent now use even greater explosive force. Canada keeps adapting. The British still use vehicles that are comparable to the G-Wagon and look at Canada with interest. There was never a call for tanks by anyone when we first arrived in Afghanistan. It makes since in lean times the first place they vist is the military, so when the GDP is down then military spending goes down, when it's up spending is up.... No government spending should be tied to GDP. It can only lead to waste. Quote
Smallc Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Looks like the forces are growing. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelle...eng.asp?id=2865 Edited May 7, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Argus Posted May 7, 2009 Author Report Posted May 7, 2009 Think that is a bogus argument and you know it. You think a report on military spending from people from Project Ploughshares is going to be unbiased? Yes, I know that Granatstein wants spending tied to GDP. The reason it isn't is because such spending is uncontrolled which is what some in security want. No limits. Nice red herring. But the conversation isn't about tying military spending to GDP. You have simply been informed that GDP is a more accurate way to measure military spending among nations. And that the report from project ploughares was nonsense. Which is why security experts want budgets tied to GDP. It is noted that some on the right don't want budgets for things like health tied to GDP. Again, straw man argument since no one here has even introduced the argument. All we're saying is we need to have enough people to fulfil their duties, and enough equipment to outfit them. Thanks for confirming that some on the right want to cut other areas of the budget to fund defence to 4% or more of GDP. When Mccallum was speaking of cutting the military's budget he was also speaking of spending more money on arts. It just doesn't get any more calous than to let soldiers die for lack of equipment in order to appease quebec nationalists who want more money for blonde joke books and sonnets on the beauty of the lilly. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 You have simply been informed that GDP is a more accurate way to measure military spending among nations. People have said so, but it certainly hasn't been proven. NATO itself has many metrics to compare countries, and the actual monetary contribution is the first that they list. Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 People have said so, but it certainly hasn't been proven. NATO itself has many metrics to compare countries, and the actual monetary contribution is the first that they list. I wouldn't assume that by simply being listed first it is the primary metric. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Argus Posted May 7, 2009 Author Report Posted May 7, 2009 People have said so, but it certainly hasn't been proven. NATO itself has many metrics to compare countries, and the actual monetary contribution is the first that they list. Not for anyone with more than half a brain. You can't simply use straight dollars given the disparity of size and economic abilities involved. If a man making a million dollars a year gives $100 a year to charity while a man making $20k a year gives $50 do you laud the rich man for his extraordinary generosity? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Army Guy Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 My view is that if they are Conservatives or potential Conservatives, I think their opinions should be regarded for potential partisanship. I think some would hold the same view on anything Dallaire says. We have already seen that MacKenzie has no professional respect for Dallaire Thats a little unfair is it not, we are now judged completely on the party we voted for...I personally am not a liberal,n or NDP but i do like some of thier policies....what does that mean, my professional abilites are clouded or i'm just confused polictically.... As for the rife between Mackenize and Dallaire, i chaulk it up to 2 strong alpha males having a personal disagreement....Both where good gen's... I don't think I've read that is all on our soldiers and now from the role the government has played. Question: With our international capability at stake, are we pulling our weight and will the money change that? Gen Hillier: The money will change that is and give us better tools for the international stage and do what the government said give the world more of Canada and Canadian leadership. You cannot have it on the military side without a footprint in the places where you decide to go. I don't think the credibility is at question. I speak from my past experience of my time in Afghanistan, and the Canadian Forces, men and women, not just the Army on the ground in Afghanistan supporting the mission had credibility. That reflected right back to this country. hillier In this country, we could probably not give enough resources to the men and women to do all the things that we ask them to do. But we can give them too little, and that is what we are now doing. Remember them in your budgets." -- Hillier in his first speech as CDS on Feb. 4, 2005 Hillier? "Those actions, dollar deprived, have now led to some deep wounds in ... the Canadian Forces over this past, what I would call, a decade of darkness." -- Hillier in a Feb. 16, 2007 speech to a defence group, referring to budget cuts made in the 1990s. "I'm not ashamed to say we need money." -- Hillier in an April 12, 2006 speech to a Toronto business audience about the Forces' budgetary needs "In this country, we could probably not give enough resources to the men and women to do all the things that we ask them to do. But we can give them too little, and that is what we are now doing. Remember them in your budgets." -- Hillier in his first speech as CDS on Feb. 4, 2005 As others around the world see it and tell us soldiers frequently, we should have more capacity to help others in all of those things as befits, perhaps, a G-8 nation, a founding member of the UN, a founding member of NATO and a nation that has always been a beacon of light and aid to those around the world who need our help. Hillier NORAD is an alliance. The U.S. is ten times our population. There has been times when we let the U.S. put more of the money into it since their concerns as a superpower dictated a large surveillance and intervention component. If we can not base our military budget on GDP, which is somewhat based on the size of our population , how can we now base what we pay into a shared defence agreement on population levels....the US government pays out more than 3 Bil while Canada pays out just 320 mil.... NORAD provides both countries the same amount of surveillance , regardless if one is a super power or not ...and which soon will encompass a martime surveillance componet as well. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Thats a little unfair is it not, we are now judged completely on the party we voted for...I personally am not a liberal,n or NDP but i do like some of thier policies....what does that mean, my professional abilites are clouded or i'm just confused polictically.... I am talking about the partisan jabs for the sake of promoting one political party over another. It makes people wonder if it is just partisanship or a professional assessment of things. As for the rife between Mackenize and Dallaire, i chaulk it up to 2 strong alpha males having a personal disagreement....Both where good gen's... It has gotten a little more heated and partisan than that. Gen Hillier: The money will change that is and give us better tools for the international stage and do what the government said give the world more of Canada and Canadian leadership. You cannot have it on the military side without a footprint in the places where you decide to go. I don't think the credibility is at question. I speak from my past experience of my time in Afghanistan, and the Canadian Forces, men and women, not just the Army on the ground in Afghanistan supporting the mission had credibility. That reflected right back to this country. I have seen this discussion. It was in 2005 and Hillier was responding to the increases in money that the Liberals had put in the budget. "Those actions, dollar deprived, have now led to some deep wounds in ... the Canadian Forces over this past, what I would call, a decade of darkness." -- Hillier in a Feb. 16, 2007 speech to a defence group, referring to budget cuts made in the 1990s. "I'm not ashamed to say we need money." -- Hillier in an April 12, 2006 speech to a Toronto business audience about the Forces' budgetary needs It was dark days in every government department. There was not an area that wasn't cut in the 1990s to end the deficit. If we can not base our military budget on GDP, which is somewhat based on the size of our population , how can we now base what we pay into a shared defence agreement on population levels....the US government pays out more than 3 Bil while Canada pays out just 320 mil.... NORAD provides both countries the same amount of surveillance , regardless if one is a super power or not ...and which soon will encompass a martime surveillance componet as well. GDP is not based on population. It is based on economic output. The U.S. pays out more because they have a bigger population and a bigger GDP than Canada to draw resources from. Quote
jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 You think a report on military spending from people from Project Ploughshares is going to be unbiased? Granatstein is biased as well. The Rideau Institute is not Project Ploughshares no matter how many times you say it. Nice red herring. But the conversation isn't about tying military spending to GDP. You have simply been informed that GDP is a more accurate way to measure military spending among nations. Not according to NATO. They use a few different metrics to measure how much money is being spent. GDP is one of the ways. And that the report from project ploughares was nonsense. I have not shown any report from them. Again, straw man argument since no one here has even introduced the argument. All we're saying is we need to have enough people to fulfil their duties, and enough equipment to outfit them. And I asked how much more money is that. Defence has been getting increases every year since 2000. When Mccallum was speaking of cutting the military's budget he was also speaking of spending more money on arts. It just doesn't get any more calous than to let soldiers die for lack of equipment in order to appease quebec nationalists who want more money for blonde joke books and sonnets on the beauty of the lilly. Now, you are just being hysterical. And the Tories want increases in military spending so that people die in the streets for lack of healthcare? Quote
Army Guy Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 GDP is not based on population. It is based on economic output. The U.S. pays out more because they have a bigger population and a bigger GDP than Canada to draw resources from Then it is based on population....you just stated so, The US pays out more because they have a bigger population, and there fore a bigger GDP.... and if that is true why not base everything on GDP, including our military budget.... The piont here is not the size of ones population, but it is a resource that is shared....for the security of both nations....with New NORAD agreements being signed they will be expanded to include a maritime componet as well....it would be in Canada's best interest to balance this cost sharing , and demand more of a role in our common defence....since NORAD and NATO seem to have a major influence not only in the equipment we buy, but also our foreign policies or lack off, which have a major role to play in our Sovereignty....thats is why we are not pulling our wieght.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Then it is based on population....you just stated so, The US pays out more because they have a bigger population, and there fore a bigger GDP....and if that is true why not base everything on GDP, including our military budget.... GDP is not based on population size. A very small country could have a huge GDP but a small population base. The U.S. has both a higher GDP and a higher population. Their ability to pay more is greater than Canada's. The piont here is not the size of ones population, but it is a resource that is shared....for the security of both nations....with New NORAD agreements being signed they will be expanded to include a maritime componet as well....it would be in Canada's best interest to balance this cost sharing , and demand more of a role in our common defence....since NORAD and NATO seem to have a major influence not only in the equipment we buy, but also our foreign policies or lack off, which have a major role to play in our Sovereignty....thats is why we are not pulling our wieght.... Is there anyone else that shares your goal of Canada paying 50% of NORAD's costs? Quote
Army Guy Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 And I asked how much more money is that. Defence has been getting increases every year since 2000. Canada's Defence Budget: 1993-2007 Budget - National Defence ($ Fiscal Year Main Estimates Actual Expenditures Canada's Defence Budget: 1993-2007 Budget - National Defence ($ Fiscal Year Main Estimates Actual Expenditures 2006-07 14.80 15.70 2005-06 13.40 14.70 2004-05 13.30 13.90 2003-04 12.26 13.19 2002-03 11.83 12.42 2001-02 11.39 12.24 2000-01 11.20 11.47 1999-00 10.30 11.52 According to this site DND has recieved a 4.5 bil raise over the last 7 years....note actual expenditures alwasy in the red... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 According to this site DND has recieved a 4.5 bil raise over the last 7 years....note actual expenditures alwasy in the red... As I said, the government has been giving increases every year and have been covering actual expenditures for the year. The money continues to go up each year. This year it is 7% higher. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 .....since NORAD and NATO seem to have a major influence not only in the equipment we buy, but also our foreign policies or lack off, which have a major role to play in our Sovereignty....thats is why we are not pulling our wieght.... This is the key policy point....does Canada want to sit at the grown-ups or kiddie table when such decisions are made? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Army Guy Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 GDP is not based on population size. A very small country could have a huge GDP but a small population base.The U.S. has both a higher GDP and a higher population. Their ability to pay more is greater than Canada's. Your countering your argument, it was you that brought in the fact that the us has a larger GDP and population.... it is a service that we pay for....did your cable company come over and ask you how much do you make....last time i checked everyone is billed equally.... it is because we are not paying for half....a whooping 1.8 bil that we do not have an equal share or equal say in the NORAD defence systems....a defence agreement that wieghs heavily on alot of policies.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Your countering your argument, it was you that brought in the fact that the us has a larger GDP and population.... Those are two different things. GDP is different from population. it is a service that we pay for....did your cable company come over and ask you how much do you make....last time i checked everyone is billed equally.... Everyone is not billed equally for something like that. Cable bills vary according to what you order, where you are in the country and competition from other providers. it is because we are not paying for half....a whooping 1.8 bil that we do not have an equal share or equal say in the NORAD defence systems....a defence agreement that wieghs heavily on alot of policies.... Can you cite anyone else that wants Canada to provide half of all funding for NORAD? I haven't heard anything in regards to that. There are two ways to provide more money for the military you want: Cut service elsewhere. Increase taxes. Which is it that you want? If cutting service? Where? And by how much? If increasing taxes, where and how much? Quote
Wild Bill Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 It was dark days in every government department. There was not an area that wasn't cut in the 1990s to end the deficit. Actually, there was an area that wasn't cut in the 1990's. How about the missions that Chretien sent our boys to cover? That was perhaps the most distressing thing. It's one thing to cut budgets in the name of slaying the deficit. However, fewer people die for lack of a canoe museum or a golf course than soldiers for lack of modern arms. You cannot equate the two so blissfully. Even so, if the decision was made to cut the military budget they should also have refused to send them on so many missions. If you can't afford to equip them properly then a government has no business sending them in the first place. Have you forgotten all the talk about how Chretien might retire to a Nobel Peace Prize or a UN position? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) ...Even so, if the decision was made to cut the military budget they should also have refused to send them on so many missions. If you can't afford to equip them properly then a government has no business sending them in the first place..... Spot on...Canada's mouth should not write checks that it cannot cash. Edited May 7, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Actually, there was an area that wasn't cut in the 1990's. How about the missions that Chretien sent our boys to cover? Canada did end a number of missions during that time or have you forgotten? That was perhaps the most distressing thing. It's one thing to cut budgets in the name of slaying the deficit. However, fewer people die for lack of a canoe museum or a golf course than soldiers for lack of modern arms. You cannot equate the two so blissfully. And now Harper gives us UFO museums and flagpoles. Even so, if the decision was made to cut the military budget they should also have refused to send them on so many missions. If you can't afford to equip them properly then a government has no business sending them in the first place. As I said, missions were ended during Chretien's time. Quote
Army Guy Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Can you cite anyone else that wants Canada to provide half of all funding for NORAD? Anyone that understands just how much sovereignty we give up not only to the US but to NATO as well. why is it we are so damn cheap when it comes to our defence....why is it defence does not even come up on the top 5 things on the pri list.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Anyone that understands just how much sovereignty we give up not only to the US but to NATO as well. why is it we are so damn cheap when it comes to our defence....why is it defence does not even come up on the top 5 things on the pri list.... So what taxes do you want to increase or what services do you want to cut to make the military as big and as strong as you want? It really comes down to that. Edited May 7, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Wild Bill Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Canada did end a number of missions during that time or have you forgotten?And now Harper gives us UFO museums and flagpoles. As I said, missions were ended during Chretien's time. We didn't end as many missions as we should have! As for Harper's flagpoles, you do have a propensity to use "two wrongs make a right" as some sort of excuse. I used the same tactic on my mother when I was a boy, "My brother did it too!". Didn't work for me then if I recall and I don't see how it works for you. As I said, Chretien didn't end as many missions as he should have for all the photo-ops he strove for! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Army Guy Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Does it real come to that, why not just improve the way we do bussiness, little things like spend your budget or loose it....what if we provided incentives for depts to under spend...way back the MND once had a painting with 3 strips of different colors hanging in the entrance, painted by a local artist, at the tune of 25,000....wastage is rampant not just within DND but the entire government...i'd say it would be easy to collect more than 20 bil .... What we really need is a good dose of common sense....and i don't mean Ice breakers with guns mounted on them....experts making good bussiness decisions...giving the leadership this country so desparatly needs.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 We didn't end as many missions as we should have! We ended our large missions in Cyprus, Kosovo and Haiti. The only other major mission was Afghanistan. You want that one finished as well? As for Harper's flagpoles, you do have a propensity to use "two wrongs make a right" as some sort of excuse. I used the same tactic on my mother when I was a boy, "My brother did it too!". Didn't work for me then if I recall and I don't see how it works for you. However, you keep saying that the Liberals are worse and that you hold your nose to vote Tory? I suppose that means the flagpoles are better. As I said, Chretien didn't end as many missions as he should have for all the photo-ops he strove for! Can't remember any photo ops for Cyprus. In Haiti and Kosovo we set a timetable and stuck to it since our troops were needed elsewhere. Quote
Smallc Posted May 7, 2009 Report Posted May 7, 2009 Not for anyone with more than half a brain.You can't simply use straight dollars given the disparity of size and economic abilities involved. And yet, NATO uses straight dollars as one of their metrics and Canada is the top second tier spender. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.