10 Billion for military equipment

Argus · July 10, 2009

IMHO, Australia has executed on defense planning and procurements in a more effective and coherent way because it felt an imperative to do so, and because any assisting calvary was far away from its shores. For instance, they have a very effective collaborative civil-military effort to monitor the border for breaches by sea that costs far less than a full blown naval picket.
Does Australia do better than Canada with their limited defense dollars?

Absolutely. No question. The Australians are perched out there in bandit country. True, they have the ocean around them, which is a major help. But they're still a lot closer to a lot of unstable rogue nations than we are.

Canada feels no direct threat. Anyone big enough to be able to cross the ocean in any kind of force, we feel, is likely too big for us to deal with anyway, so the yanks will do so for us.

Because of this, Canada's main aim in defense spending has been political advantage. We don't buy the equipment which is generally best for the military and most cost effective. We buy the equipment whose builders promise the most jobs and money into the most government ridings. We have far, far too many bases, because they're used as local economic support, and we lack any kind of cohesive strategy paper for what the military is even for. Canada is one of the few nations on the planet which does not even have a military base in or close to its capital. The closest base with combat troops is a 2 hour drive away.

Average Joe · July 11, 2009

I would like to see the military we have equipped with the best possible equipment there is out there. Whether you agree with the war or not, parties from both sides of the fence have sent our troops into harms way. It is only fair that you give them all the best chance to do whatever job they are asked to do and be able to make it home when they are done. Living a stones throw away from the Highway of Heroes, I am reminded often that a motorcade represents the loss of life to a young person fighting on behalf of me, reguardless of the politics, right or wrong. I just hope that the equipment they are given is not the difference between life and death.

I wish I could find a story I read a while back. It was talking about the Defence budget. I believe it stated our military is very top heavy, the ratio of Generals to troops was very high and over half the budget went to administration in Ottawa. I believe we were the highest by far compared to other Western Nations. Typical Canadian, more paper pushers than people actually working. Maybe this is where we could get some extra money with in the existing budget.

Canada has gotten lazy over the years because we live right next to the biggest superpower. I think it has been policy from both sides to cut back on the military knowing that if anything were to happen the US would not just stand there and watch. I also think if they didn't scrap the Arrow all those years ago we would be leaders in the world developing airplanes and who knows what else and the jobs to go with it, both blue and white collar.

Smallc · July 11, 2009

and over half the budget went to administration in Ottawa.

That's not true. About half of the budget goes to personnel, including administration. That's actually lower than places like the Netherlands.

DogOnPorch · July 11, 2009

Canada has gotten lazy over the years because we live right next to the biggest superpower. I think it has been policy from both sides to cut back on the military knowing that if anything were to happen the US would not just stand there and watch. I also think if they didn't scrap the Arrow all those years ago we would be leaders in the world developing airplanes and who knows what else and the jobs to go with it, both blue and white collar.

While the death of the Arrow was indeed a blow for Canadian aviation, the resulting brain drain to the USA wasn't without its good points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Chamberlin

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2009

While the death of the Arrow was indeed a blow for Canadian aviation, the resulting brain drain to the USA wasn't without its good points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Chamberlin

That's right.....the Americans are headed for Mars next. All you really smart Canucks come on down....and don't forget your slide rules ! :lol:

eyeball · July 11, 2009

Afghanistan became the perfect storm for a Canada that would not shrink from the challenge as did many other NATO partners. Unfortunately, operations in landlocked Afghanistan exposed many of the missing elements and planning gaps. But we had hints of this from earlier NATO and UN missions. A-stan just forced it all to the surface in a way that could no longer be ignored because of the politics and body count.

A-stan has also underscored just how pointless and prohibitively expensive our getting militarily involved in other people's affairs is. Good timing I say.

To hell with military spending altogether, its a complete waste of time and effort.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2009

....To hell with military spending altogether, its a complete waste of time and effort.

So you would support the Spanish or Korean commercial operations taking fish from Canadian waters with impunity?

eyeball · July 11, 2009

No, but I'd call the Coast Guard to deal with that, not the military.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2009

No, but I'd call the Coast Guard to deal with that, not the military.

See 1995 Great Turbot War....coast guard was backed up by the navy.

eyeball · July 11, 2009

We've been down this route many a time around here.

To recap, I can support "military" spending to the extent needed to provide for the defence of our borders in the case of the odd silly little Turbot "War".

Let's face it the main thrust of the military spending being proposed here and elsewhere throughout this forum is to outfit Canada so it can be a big player on the world's stage. This very sort of thinking that has lead so many countries to ruin and discredit and lead to so much war in the world in the first place.

As for defending ourselves against any "big player" who decides to militarily interfere in our affairs...there's only one direction we've ever had to worry about being invaded from up here. We kicked your ass last time you tried it.

Beyond spending a few dollars for the odd new Coast Guard boat I can see building a small deterent stockpile of nuclear weapons. They're the only things you big players seem to respect anymore.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2009

We've been down this route many a time around here.

It's a slow day....

To recap, I can support "military" spending to the extent needed to provide for the defence of our borders in the case of the odd silly little Turbot "War".

That would mean some level of military spending...please make up your mind.

Let's face it the main thrust of the military spending being proposed here and elsewhere throughout this forum is to outfit Canada so it can be a big player on the world's stage. This very sort of thinking that has lead so many countries to ruin and discredit and lead to so much war in the world in the first place.

Then stop crowing about the "Responsibility to Protect", "human rights", and "Arctic Sovereignty".

As for defending ourselves against any "big player" who decides to militarily interfere in our affairs...there's only one direction we've ever had to worry about being invaded from up here. We kicked your ass last time you tried it.

British when you want to be....Canadian when not.....how convenient.

Beyond spending a few dollars for the odd new Coast Guard boat I can see building a small deterent stockpile of nuclear weapons. They're the only things you big players seem to respect anymore.

Guess where the uranium came from.....LOL! :lol:

tango · July 11, 2009

QUOTE (Topaz @ Jul 7 2009, 07:54 PM) *We all know the US has a membership to NATO but I also know that the US tells NATO what to do and will not take a backseat to any nation whose military is smaller than theirs! The whole `war on Terror` is just a scam, for the elite to gain power in the Middle-East. Why are military personnel REALLY dying for?? Perhaps, oil, revenge, military power in the region and its NOT to help those civilians of Afg. and Iraq as all western leaders keeping telling us!

How do you know you know that? Given that you spout off on all kinds of things like Roseanne Roseannadanna barely getting one thing right out of ten.

EVERYBODY knows that, MDancer!

Sadam Hussein was going to nationalize the oil fields.

Bush attacked to keep the oil fields safe for the private sector megacorps (the old money families, Bush's backers).

The plan is to build a pipeline to India through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to corner that market for oil before China does.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan protect and promote this corporate greed plan.

This way the taxpayers pay for the protection of the private infrastructure, not the megacorps ... They have to watch their 'bottom line', you know. :angry:

Hillier was asked whether Canadian troops would be used to protect the construction of the pipeline. He said "If there's infrastructure there, we'll protect it."

So Canadian taxpayers are paying for clearing the path for Bush's pipeline. :rolleyes:

Edited July 11, 2009 by tango

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2009

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan protect and promote this corporate greed plan.
This way the taxpayers pay for the protection of the private infrastructure, not the megacorps ... They have to watch their 'bottom line', you know. :angry:

Nothing wrong with that.....

Hillier was asked whether Canadian troops would be used to protect the construction of the pipeline. He said "If there's infrastructure there, we'll protect it."
So Canadian taxpayers are paying for clearing the path for Bush's pipeline.

Who paid for your pipelines?

eyeball · July 11, 2009

It's a slow day....

Its even worse...I woke up with the flu or something.

That would mean some level of military spending...please make up your mind.

I quantified what I meant when I said said "military" spending. Actually we probably wouldn't need to spend a dime for new equipment and soldiers within our borders if we'd only bring eveything back from overseas duty.

Then stop crowing about the "Responsibility to Protect", "human rights", and "Arctic Sovereignty".

You don't hear me crowing about these. I think we can come up with far more effective ways of helping achieving these that don't involve blowing wads of cash on more war-making capacity.

Just minding our own business would be a wonderful place to start. You should take a clue.

eyeball · July 11, 2009

Nothing wrong with that.....

Actually there really is something very heniously wrong with that.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2009

Its even worse...I woke up with the flu or something.

Hmmm...good news...you'll probably live.

I quantified what I meant when I said said "military" spending. Actually we probably wouldn't need to spend a dime for new equipment and soldiers within our borders if we'd only bring eveything back from overseas duty.

But "overseas" and "beyond your borders" won't go away. Your economy is very dependent on that.

You don't hear me crowing about these. I think we can come up with far more effective ways of helping achieving these that don't involve blowing wads of cash on more war-making capacity.

There you go again....why do you want to "achieve" such things at all. Can't have it both weays.

Just minding our own business would be a wonderful place to start. You should take a clue.

That wouldn't be any fun.

eyeball · July 11, 2009

Hmmm...good news...you'll probably live.

Thanks.

But "overseas" and "beyond your borders" won't go away. Your economy is very dependent on that.

Too dependant I'd say, desperately and dangerously so if we have to resort to force to get what we need out of it.

There you go again....why do you want to "achieve" such things at all. Can't have it both weays.

Because they're good things to achieve. What you can't do very effectively is achieve these things by installing or aiding dictatorships whenever its convenient.

That wouldn't be any fun.

That comment positively reeks of psychopathy.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2009

Too dependant I'd say, desperately and dangerously so if we have to resort to force to get what we need out of it.

Well, to be frank....how do you think Canada came to be at all?

Because they're good things to achieve. What you can't do very effectively is achieve these things by installing or aiding dictatorships whenever its convenient.

But you still want to "achieve these things" outside of your borders.....this presents a problem if one hides in the basement.

That comment positively reeks of psychopathy.

Is that a bad thing?

ironstone · July 11, 2009

One, Afg, wasn't our war, BUT Harper could have taken us out of it and saved ALL those lives since he`s been PM! What kind of a leader of a country send soldiers to war when they aren`t equipped to do so? When the countries deficit goes to 400-500 Billion, make sure YOU are not one who is doing to*itch about it when your taxes go up or the service are cut!

Remember,it WASN'T Harper that sent Canadian soldiers there in the first place,so perhaps you can direct some of your anger to that other guy....the guy leading the Liberals at the time.What's-his-name?

eyeball · July 11, 2009

Well, to be frank....how do you think Canada came to be at all?

Force obviously. Why, does this make it automatically right?

But you still want to "achieve these things" outside of your borders.....this presents a problem if one hides in the basement.

Yes I merely want to achieve these things. I'm not pathologically attached to some need to achieve these things at any cost though.

Is that a bad thing?

Its more sick than anything.

eyeball · July 11, 2009

Remember,it WASN'T Harper that sent Canadian soldiers there in the first place,so perhaps you can direct some of your anger to that other guy....the guy leading the Liberals at the time.What's-his-name?

Chretien, the guy the Conservatives were yapping at like rabid dogs to involve us in Iraq. Its bad enough he got us into Afghanistan.

Argus · July 11, 2009

Chretien, the guy the Conservatives were yapping at like rabid dogs to involve us in Iraq. Its bad enough he got us into Afghanistan.

If we had gone to Iraq, like the Australians did, we would have earned a lot of good will from the Americans, and would in all likelihood have taken far fewer casualties. The Aussies, I think, lost a couple of people in Iraq compared to our 124 to date in Afghanistan.

Argus · July 11, 2009

A-stan has also underscored just how pointless and prohibitively expensive our getting militarily involved in other people's affairs is. Good timing I say.

If we're going to rely on the Americans for protection from anything substantial, we have to follow through on the commitments we make in defense treaties. To do anything else would be dishonourable.

To hell with military spending altogether, its a complete waste of time and effort.

A nice sentiment, unfortunately not very realistic given the number of thuggish governments in the world all-too ready to use power to get what they want. You imagine they are no threat to us, and you're largely correct, but only because we're armed and the Americans are armed. Let people like you take over and dissolve both militaries and our position of safety would disappear overnight.

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2009

Force obviously. Why, does this make it automatically right?

That's your moral hangup, not mine.

Yes I merely want to achieve these things. I'm not pathologically attached to some need to achieve these things at any cost though.

Worse still, you want to achieve these things without the means to do so. May I suggest enlisting the services of The Seeker"

Its more sick than anything.

Tell it to the fishes...you are sick today...I am well.

eyeball · July 11, 2009

If we're going to rely on the Americans for protection from anything substantial, we have to follow through on the commitments we make in defense treaties. To do anything else would be dishonourable.

What's really dishonourable is keeping treaties with interfering super-powers that preach democracy and liberty with one hand while aiding and abbetting dictatorships with the other. We should be ashamed of ourselves. The fact is we should be in America's face and telling it to stand down and behave itself.