Does Canada need a defence procurement agency?

[Oleg Bach]

To WILD BILL: Playing the devil's lawyer was all I was doing. I do understand that limitations of nuclear weaopons - If they were effective and containable the would have been used by now. The idea of corrupt purpose for the deployment of are marshall class originates in my mind from our mis-adventure in Afghanistan - whether corrupt by intent or accident is not the issue. As Canada with draws there will be mayhem - because anyone that is even thought to have collaberated with a western power will be hunted down and tormented or worse - killed.

What is left behind in Afhanistan is what was there to being with - Canadian intentions were not meant to be corrupt but what they did was facilitate tribal corruption which is tradtional in the area and something we can not change by force. You sound like a person that is very trusting in our system - and for that I do appreciate your view. Still - any manufacture - or trade in arms - or the general procurement of arms will always be ten times the cost expected. It's just the nature of the buisness...eg...200 dollars for a common hammer...the American system can attest to that kind of gouging of the public purse..and we are not immune from such activity.

Also you are making me look un-patriotic as if I am willing to deny our good soldiers their due equipment - that is not the case. If are going to have a force at all it must be well equipped - that is a given. A procurement agency will be similar to the long gun registry...it will cost far to much and will not be as effective as possible because of bureacratic waste. Why not just hire a trio of experenced people with no vested interest in war but an interest in creating a high quality force? From the little experience I had with an old man that was one of our locals---and we did not know his buisness at the time untill after his death - is he had a certain attitude that was slighly crazed and rationalized in the weakest manner.

Supposedly he was involved in the Iranian _ Iraqi conflict that saw thousands dead and maimed...I said to the old guy...You have some wealth but it exists as blood money - He took offence and stated that he had "saved lives" _ I asked him how so? He stated - "I armed both sides"...This was a bizarre rational but he believed in it. IF our government is going to have agents that procure arms they had better be honourable and good people - because the greed factor is intense in that buisness...so is the possiblity of interfering with governmentals decision making - Nothing more sinister than a lobbist that is a gun runner.

I just say be careful and don't over do it - we are NOT America nor are we a young Nazi Germany - We are traditionally peace keepers and are still respected as such - but not as much - To maitain peace and security you have to have the ablity to strike and strike hard - but also have the desire and ambtion to resolve conflict peacefully-- that is a skill yet to be developed and I believe Canada has that potential because of our ethnic deversity...go head arm yourself but don't turn in to a nation dependant on conflict - we have a society of lawyers that do this domestically - we don't need a society of soldiers - trouble makers and arms dealers having their way with our nation.

I guess in closing - The privledged and the not so street wise politicans such as Peter McKay and other might not be up for the job - it takes a certain serious and wise nature - along with being street wise on a global level to keep things manageable. I am not impressed with those that will call the shots.

[Wild Bill]

To WILD BILL: Playing the devil's lawyer was all I was doing. I do understand that limitations of nuclear weaopons - If they were effective and containable the would have been used by now. The idea of corrupt purpose for the deployment of are marshall class originates in my mind from our mis-adventure in Afghanistan - whether corrupt by intent or accident is not the issue. As Canada with draws there will be mayhem - because anyone that is even thought to have collaberated with a western power will be hunted down and tormented or worse - killed.

What is left behind in Afhanistan is what was there to being with - Canadian intentions were not meant to be corrupt but what they did was facilitate tribal corruption which is tradtional in the area and something we can not change by force. You sound like a person that is very trusting in our system - and for that I do appreciate your view. Still - any manufacture - or trade in arms - or the general procurement of arms will always be ten times the cost expected. It's just the nature of the buisness...eg...200 dollars for a common hammer...the American system can attest to that kind of gouging of the public purse..and we are not immune from such activity.

Also you are making me look un-patriotic as if I am willing to deny our good soldiers their due equipment - that is not the case. If are going to have a force at all it must be well equipped - that is a given. A procurement agency will be similar to the long gun registry...it will cost far to much and will not be as effective as possible because of bureacratic waste. Why not just hire a trio of experenced people with no vested interest in war but an interest in creating a high quality force?

Perhaps then we agree more than disagree, Oleg! I sold parts to the government in my career and I agree with you that there is no more screwed up and inefficient purchasing system than that of our government!

I would suggest that the Forces have their own procurement departments, staffed by soldiers and NOT by civil "serpents"! Governments could grant the Forces a budget and be involved on WHICH big ticket programs were approved to be gotten but the actual control of quotes and bidding should stay with our soldiers. Theoretically, they would be free to try to buy the most within the limits of their budgets. If the budgets were set too low that could be raised in Parliament. The priorities of what is bought should be set as much as possible by those who need it. If our real need is more trucks then soldiers would buy more trucks for supplies, instead of obsolete and rusting diesel submarines that we don't need and don't have enough crewmen anyways, bought to accomplish some handshake political deal between ourselves and some other country that had nothing to do with our military needs.

[dre]

Whenever I hear a suggestion like yours Molly I get this heartwrenching image of one of my daughters dead because someone made an aggressive move against Canada and we had no military capability to effectively protect ourselves.

As I look down in anguish at her body I hear someone say "Well, at least she got a good education!"

Right but wouldnt that heartwrenching image of your daughter justify just about ANYTHING? ANY level of spending to address virtually any potential threat?

That kind of emotionalism is poor way to determine public policy. The bottom line is that we have a certain ammount of revenue.

I have a daughter too, but in my honest opinion she faces a WAY bigger threat of being spent into poverty by her parents generation.

It would be one thing if these mandates were funded... then at least WE would be stuck with out own bad decisions. But the government proposing all this spending is also running a rather large defecit which we will pass onto our daughters along with all the rest of the stuff that GENERATION USELESS wanted to have without paying for. This isnt a very good way to protect your daughters interests or mine.

I would be looking for ways to CUT both military and social spending at this time in favor rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and retooling this country to be competitive in the future. Spending with a clear ROI.

[Smallc]

That kind of emotionalism is poor way to determine public policy.

The ironic thing is that it's coming from a guy who always claims that he speaks from a position formed only from reason, while everyone else speaks from emotion.

[dre]

The ironic thing is that it's coming from a guy who always claims that he speaks from a position formed only from reason, while everyone else speaks from emotion.

I dont claim that. I dont know what our spending profile would look like if it was based on real cost benefit analysis and risk analysis. I dont claim to know all the answers I just have a personal preference on the manner in which decisions should be made. So when I hear emotional imagery invoked as the justification to spend a whole lot of money we dont even have, I get a little worried.

And I reject the underlying assertion that huge defecit funded military purchases are in his daughters best interests. Her biggest risk is actually being left with the massive bar tab after this generation drinks itself to death.

[Smallc]

I dont claim that.

Not you, him. I personally think our spending is pretty reasonable now. $20B (with inflation adjustments going forward) is enough to have a force capable of responding to a variety of events while still not breaking the bank.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

And I reject the underlying assertion that huge defecit funded military purchases are in his daughters best interests. Her biggest risk is actually being left with the massive bar tab after this generation drinks itself to death.

It is not MY "underlying assertion", good Dr. Dre. It is YOUR underlying assumption!

I've never advocated a HUGE military or a gigantic debt! I agree that there should be a balance. It's just that historically I believe that Canada has been severely UNbalanced in favour of social programs!

I view our military as a small number of brave, well-trained people equipped with bows and arrows. Since Pearson's time it has really been just a token force totally inadequate to ever even try to defend our coasts. Rather, it has been something we can send to UN missions, earning glory to our politicians for their support, even if in real terms it amounted to a few F-18's with obsolete electronics and Friend or Foe ID technology, some "canteen" supply ships and some frigates that can't be sailed due to an exhausted budget for fuel and insufficient manpower to crew them anyways.

Toss in a few very good snipers and some northern Inuit reserves and that's about it for our military! I mean, when the balloon went up in Kosovo Serbia outgunned us enough that if the ocean was not a factor they could have conquered our entire country! We keep falling down the list as we rush to put our resources into more vote-grabbing welfare programs. Who's next to outgun us? Bangladesh?

As I said in my previous post, we have ALWAYS done this! The problem is that today wars are a "come as you are" type thing. The shooting starts and is fought with whatever you have on hand TODAY! It will be over in a few days, weeks or possibly some months. No time to build a Commonwealth Training School for Allied pilots. No time to change your factories over from tractors and cars to tanks. You either win, repel an assault or you just lose. There are no other options.

Our entire military, not just combat soldiers but every cook and bottle washer, would not quite fill Skydome in Toronto.

So basically, you're defending a position where we've been spending mice nuts on defense by making accusations that what people like me would like would bankrupt us!

That's balanced spending? That's reasonable protection for my kids and those of others? The only thing that has saved our asses is that Uncle Sam is forced to defend us. For this we often spit on him and complain that he doesn't agree with our foreign policy, calling him a warmonger while we hide behind him. Not you personally, Dr. Dre, but we both know that it IS a popular view!

[Wild Bill]

The ironic thing is that it's coming from a guy who always claims that he speaks from a position formed only from reason, while everyone else speaks from emotion.

As I've addressed in another post, my position IS based on reason! MY reasoning! We are both entitled to our own opinions. Your opinions are not necessarily MY facts!

My emotionalism is a reaction to what I consider faulty logic and essentially leftwing greed for social resources causing a danger to myself and those I care for. I consider it one of the primary duties of any government to protect the lives of its citizens. Using poorly equipped soldiers for UN photo-op missions and letting new recruits die for a few years while our defenses are built up, as in the World Wars to me cannot help but provoke an emotional reaction. To me, those deaths at the start of the World Wars were an inevitable result of government policy. Therefore, such policies must take the blame! When the results are so blatantly logical and obvious, the only conclusion possible is that governments and those who support such policies must have a very low value on the lives of those pledged to our defense. They cannot be so stupid as to not see the inevitable results, therefore they must at least tacitly condone them.

[Oleg Bach]

I joke that he often borders the edges of sanity, but i think he just comes across as he does because he's an immigrant and his English and way of speaking is just different. At least i think lol.

Oleg you are good people.

My mum and dad were Russians - I was born in England...been in Canada since I was a baby. The reason I sound nuts is because I have a lot of time on my hands and I maximize the time on Mapleleaf by tossing caution to the wind - plus I took typing in school and am rapid----------------zooooom no time to think - Just a stream of conscoiusness - and yes I am good people.

[eyeball]

Does Canada need a defence procurement agency?

Not as much as we need a reason for one in the first place. There's so little out there that poses any real tangible military threat that 3 oceans and a bit of due diligence won't defend us from. An even bigger impediment is the economic cost of invading us. Given these glaringly obvious realities I strongly suspect most of this proposed 240 billion dollars is slated for offensive military equipment that will be used in foreign countries.

What we need above all else is a thorough public review of all our military treaties and alliances with a view to exactly what I said above. We need to have crystal clear and I mean utterly transparent reasons for arming ourselves in the first place. Just simply saying defense is not enough. Defense against who or what exactly? Terms like enemy, ally, threat and especially defense can mean just about anything given how politically, ideologically and above all else financially loaded all these things are.

[Oleg Bach]

Not as much as we need a reason for one in the first place. There's so little out there that poses any real tangible military threat that 3 oceans and a bit of due diligence won't defend us from. An even bigger impediment is the economic cost of invading us. Given these glaringly obvious realities I strongly suspect most of this proposed 240 billion dollars is slated for offensive military equipment that will be used in foreign countries.

What we need above all else is a thorough public review of all our military treaties and alliances with a view to exactly what I said above. We need to have crystal clear and I mean utterly transparent reasons for arming ourselves in the first place. Just simply saying defense is not enough. Defense against who or what exactly? Terms like enemy, ally, threat and especially defense can mean just about anything given how politically, ideologically and above all else financially loaded all these things are.

Concise! Look and behold a pragmatic realist..to bad this writer was not in public office.

[Wild Bill]

Not as much as we need a reason for one in the first place. There's so little out there that poses any real tangible military threat that 3 oceans and a bit of due diligence won't defend us from. An even bigger impediment is the economic cost of invading us. Given these glaringly obvious realities I strongly suspect most of this proposed 240 billion dollars is slated for offensive military equipment that will be used in foreign countries.

What we need above all else is a thorough public review of all our military treaties and alliances with a view to exactly what I said above. We need to have crystal clear and I mean utterly transparent reasons for arming ourselves in the first place. Just simply saying defense is not enough. Defense against who or what exactly? Terms like enemy, ally, threat and especially defense can mean just about anything given how politically, ideologically and above all else financially loaded all these things are.

Agreed, Eyeball! However, also included in such a study should be our alliances. Who would we aid and who would we ignore or abandon?

We have strong ties with Britain and surely if she were attacked we would be of the first to fight beside her. What about France? or Poland, if someday Russia decided to re-assert control? We saw what happened in WWII when countries pursued a "Neville Chamberlain" policy, allowing Germany to eventually seize all of Europe and start a most bloody world war. Still, is the situation similar today?

Would anybody WANT to invade a country that's bankrupt, like Greece?

We do have allies now and allies expect support, not "fair weather" friends. They would also expect support to be real and worthwhile. Is Canada capable of rendering effective military support right now? Could we have defended the Falklands? Could we defend ourselves in a real fire fight? We were careful not to challenge either side too strongly during the Kosovo conflict, because we would have been wiped out! We were so badly overmanned and outgunned! Our UN blue helmets just made us easier targets. Stupid rules of engagement from fatass rear echelon political types didn't help either. Serb and Croat soldiers were quite a cut above the typical Taliban.

Or would we just sit here behind our ocean moat and dither around while the rest of the world went up in flames? Watching while our historical allies and our business and commerce markets are blown away? Giving more money to better schools while we were at it, I suppose.

I think the use of schools as a factor has got me upset. What use is a school to a young Afghanistan girl if there are no soldiers or police to see she can go to one safely, without getting acid thrown in her face?

Protection is always primary. Without it you can't have anything else!

Edited July 5, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Topaz]

Not as much as we need a reason for one in the first place. There's so little out there that poses any real tangible military threat that 3 oceans and a bit of due diligence won't defend us from. An even bigger impediment is the economic cost of invading us. Given these glaringly obvious realities I strongly suspect most of this proposed 240 billion dollars is slated for offensive military equipment that will be used in foreign countries.

What we need above all else is a thorough public review of all our military treaties and alliances with a view to exactly what I said above. We need to have crystal clear and I mean utterly transparent reasons for arming ourselves in the first place. Just simply saying defense is not enough. Defense against who or what exactly? Terms like enemy, ally, threat and especially defense can mean just about anything given how politically, ideologically and above all else financially loaded all these things are.

My first thought after I read this ok, so were are we going to use this equipment? It seems the government of Canada has changed from "peacekeeping" to "seek and capture/kill" agenda. Build up the military no matter the cost and I do wonder if they will get the personnel to add to it. That`s why the Tories want the F-35. It`s more for duty outside of Canada than in and I wonder how the next gerneration are going to pay for all this when the tax revenues will drop and and the national debt climbs because the Tories like to spend. The UN and NATO will probably be in Iran, Syria before too long but Iran is NOT going to be easy, they have huge army and the military here in the West are exhausted.

[Smallc]

As I've addressed in another post, my position IS based on reason! MY reasoning! We are both entitled to our own opinions. Your opinions are not necessarily MY facts!

Facts are facts, and in this case, neither of us have produced any. We don't have our own sets of facts. Your position is based on your opinions, nothing more, and nothing less, but don't pretend it comes from a place of cold hard facts.

[Oleg Bach]

Before we go out and buy a lot of fancey camping gear we had better consider that we might be able to make due with a knife - some matches and a blanket. A full review of our foreign policy might be a smart thing to do before we equip our selves for some potential adventure in the future..to prepare for something that does not exist in the present. Some how I sense that our politicans are like woman of a bygone era who have snatched up the husband credit card and are chomping at the bit to go on a shopping spree.

To set up an orgainized group of people who's sole purpose would be to act as professional purchasers is letting the fox have full rule of the hen house. The tax payer comes first - not the privledged adventurer - or the do gooder that can not keep his nose out of another nations buisness even if it does not effect their existance.

I keep thinking of the American Military Industiral Complex. Let us study that for a moment and see if that nation benefited from a procurement agency that apparently turned into an uncontrolable monster.

ARE we to become international police? As we know law on paper is useless unless there is law enforcement through force when necessary....who will we in the future get our marching orders from....the UN? From the Americans? Which nation is the best equipped and most experienced in the sale and manufacture of arms? That is an easy question to answer. It might be that our government's appeasement of the USA via our envolvement in Afghanistan is now kicking into a secondary phase - profits from war when there is no war - and eventually a hope for war ---then comes a war...big time procurement of arms always leads to the use of them.

[RNG]

big time procurement of arms always leads to the use of them.

Interesting. I have often heard and read that all arms races led to war. But the cold war sticks out as an exception.

[Oleg Bach]

It might be cheaper and more wise if we stopped feeding China and making them into a potential threat...If we had not opened up this bizarre trade with them they would not be building air craft carriers to wage war in the future - and probably on us...kind of like the dog chasing it's own tail - we create and enemy through our greed and then scramble to defend ourselves from our own monster...It's kind of weird don't yah think?

[Oleg Bach]

Interesting. I have often heard and read that all arms races led to war. But the cold war sticks out as an exception.

The cold war was a war - a war on their own citizens through inflicting poverty through military spending - we both lost that one.

[cybercoma]

I joke that he often borders the edges of sanity, but i think he just comes across as he does because he's an immigrant and his English and way of speaking is just different. At least i think lol.

Oleg you are good people.

See. This is what I'm talking about. The first reply carries a tone of defensiveness for Oleg and an implication that people with mental illnesses are not good people. Poor Oleg.

[RNG]

The cold war was a war - a war on their own citizens through inflicting poverty through military spending - we both lost that one.

I'm not sure. I got to work in Russia in 2002. What an experience. I was in a relatively small city about 500 km due north of Moscow, called Uhkta. And it was great. About 75% of the people were really happy. And that was because with the freeing of the economy, they were much richer this year than last, and last year they were much richer than the year before and so on. Still way less bling than the worst of us have, but overall, it was good for them.

The other 255 were destroyed, waiting for the state to resume carrying them.

[Jack Weber]

Interesting. I have often heard and read that all arms races led to war. But the cold war sticks out as an exception.

You do realize the two "super power" empires staged indirect proxy wars all over the globe against each other,right?

[bloodyminded]

You do realize the two "super power" empires staged indirect proxy wars all over the globe against each other,right?

I was thinking the same thing. There was plenty of military aggression and terrible violence, all over the Grand Chessboard. Hence the popular El Salvadoran refrain, simple but quite rational: "Fuck Russia, Fuck America!"

[Molly]

Wild Bill... if we are to be entirely rational about domestic defense, how very foolish of us to have effectively disarmed ourselves through gun-owner harrassment laws.

Truth is that anyone inclined to kick sand in our national face is unlikely to be deterred by even the most deadly military force our pocketbooks can muster... so the function of our warmaking capacity is not defensive in nature.

[Oleg Bach]

See. This is what I'm talking about. The first reply carries a tone of defensiveness for Oleg and an implication that people with mental illnesses are not good people. Poor Oleg.

I know a guy with a plate in his head who is - how shall we say - "slow" > He is always flattering who ever he meets - He was once accused of killing a child and found "not guilty" ---- My X-wife allows the guy to come in and wash her floors - walk her dog and generally be some sort of low grade replacement of me! I am told that he is a wonderful man...from what I see just because he has a few screws missing...and is classed as having some sort of mental disablity - that some how he is an angel...I believe that the jerk is a deviate and a con man...and only GOD and he know what really happened regarding the child murder.

Now that is a case of the mentally ill NOT being good people ....From my observations this little creep is a chronic and shifty liar. Having vented that - no way in hell am I going to respect anyone that is dishonest or has a possible horrific past...By the way for anyone of our members who assume because of my abstract writing style that I am crazy - let me assure you I am as sane and centred as you can get!

[Oleg Bach]

I was thinking the same thing. There was plenty of military aggression and terrible violence, all over the Grand Chessboard. Hence the popular El Salvadoran refrain, simple but quite rational: "Fuck Russia, Fuck America!"

Avoid the word F**k - It makes you look like a kid.