eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 You don't want F-35s but you want to build up a nuclear arsenal? Are you insane? No but I am faced with an insane situation - the unreasoning uncompromising right-wing fear of pacifism vs. the unreasoning uncompromising left-wing fear of militarism. I am determined that if we must build up any kind of arsenal that it be strictly for the physical defence of our borders from a military invasion and not bankrupt us in the process. A small discreet nuclear arsenal seems to fit the bill. A classic Canadian compromise should challenge everyone's comfort zone. As for Canadians who will never feel comfortable without the capacity to attack other countries around the world I suggest they take drugs. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wild Bill Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 No but I am faced with an insane situation - the unreasoning uncompromising right-wing fear of pacifism vs. the unreasoning uncompromising left-wing fear of militarism. I am determined that if we must build up any kind of arsenal that it be strictly for the physical defence of our borders from a military invasion and not bankrupt us in the process. A small discreet nuclear arsenal seems to fit the bill. A classic Canadian compromise should challenge everyone's comfort zone. As for Canadians who will never feel comfortable without the capacity to attack other countries around the world I suggest they take drugs. It takes money to make nukes, eyeball. A LOT of money! We can't agree on the F-35. What makes you think we could ever agree to fund a make-nukes program? By the time the usual bunch got through nit-picking everyone else would have left to colonize space, leaving us here all alone! 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 April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Does the military pay for your home and does it become their property? The military does not pay for anyones home, they do however provide PMQ's and single quaters, as time progresses they will be providing less and less, as the trend is to tear the down due to costs. Or do you pay for your home, Again a soldier pays for the home and any taxes, maintence, just like anyone else. As far as I know, the military only pays the closing costs and legal fees for you. This is true there is a move allowance which does pay for these costs, because we have no chioce in where and when we move.\ The only LCC that they would have to do for homes would be the PMQs that remain the property of their respective bases and generate income from rent. Income from rent is returned back into the coffers of the government as with any return of funds from any dept . and is not returned to DND. up keep for any infra structure is out of DND's O&M budget. Any new construction would come out of Captital budget. However, they also must be maintained by the military (CFHA) yes they are looked after by a civilian component called CFHA, If the government decided to build new PMQs, they would need to make that decision based on what it would not only cost for the materials to do the job, but the labour. As with any new home you purchase labour is costed into the price, however, you won't find wages, food , clothing, over time, shitter rentals, other equipment rentals, you also will not find 25 years of electrical bills, sewage and water bills, putting on 2 or 3 roofs, added into that as you would not if you were shopping for a home, they already know what it takes to budget for x PMQ's they would add 2 more to that total. within DND we don't use the LCC model for costing, it is only required when the opposition screams for it... Yes those costs would be considered but when getting approval for these builds you would not say i need 1 million dollars to build 2 PMQ's here is my best guess at what it costs over the 60 years we plan to own them....you would submit material costs labour costs unless using DND labour which is free. They would also have to consider how much it would cost for the maintenance and upkeep of these properties. When they don't account for these things you end up with the problems like you know they've had with PMQs. They have a bunch of properties that are falling apart because they not maintaining them properly. It's not because they have failed to account for upkeep, that funding was diverted for other things like to fund the Afghan operation, purchase some new equipment, this should not surprise you So go ahead, fellas, and joke all you want about the "new" accounting principles. At the end of the day its to ensure that there's enough money in the government bank account to make sure your equipment (including buildings) is maintained and running properly. LCC funding pratices will give you a rough figure, but they are not detailed enough to provide accuate info for 25 years out. most of our funding request come from historical data from the year before, plus what's on the calendar, up coming events etc etc. and by using some math ie a major exericise is broken down by x amount of troops is allot x amount for food, every day, water is free , but x amount is for bottle water, each veh is broken down by x amount of miles is equal to x amount of fuel, same for A/C , and ships. each portion of the ex is maped out in detail, and everything is account for. those costs are then added to last years budget and sent for approval. the only way to have any surplus is to cancel something for the airforce they stop flying for awhile for the navy they stay in port, check the media there is alot of that...the army virtally stoped major ex's usless training for Afghan or artic sov exs'....these funds are diverted what little there is to pay for small things like smaller equiopment items like night vision goggles things like that. I'm sure you would prefer to know that they considered how much it was going to cost to keep the equipment safe and running properly before they buy it, rather than ignoring those costs and finding out later they don't have enough money to keep your stuff in working order. those LCC costing princles have nothing to do with the amount of funding we get every year, the key driving factor is is the government in a spending mood or is the purse shut...if it's shut equipment does not move unless it's important...DND submits detailed budget request every year and some times you score and get what you want, other years we don't DND has to juggle they funding it gets and spread it thin, adjusts the calendar and waits for next year... If your under the impression that because a piece of equipment has had an LCC done on it the government has to lock in that perdicted funded your wrong...once the purchase is over DND has to ask for O&M funding each year...because each that LCC changes...and the same people who made the rules don't want 25 years out nor do they care, they want to know what is it going to cost this year... 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.
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 It takes money to make nukes, eyeball. A LOT of money! We can't agree on the F-35. What makes you think we could ever agree to fund a make-nukes program? Why make them when we just buy or better yet lease some from our friends? By the time the usual bunch got through nit-picking everyone else would have left to colonize space, leaving us here all alone! Do you realize just how good that sounds to someone who has a deep desire to be left alone? So good I'd be tempted to risk giving them a pat on the bum than wait for the door to slam them on the ass. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Why make them when we just buy or better yet lease some from our friends? You can not lease or rent an ICBM. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Combat is not counted because it's an unforeseeable circumstance. You don't fund a military expecting to go to war. I've been doing this for 31 years now, and we have yet to be at war, but i can't tell you how many times i've been in combat. Someone, I think maybe Argus, already mentioned that military funding is like house insurance. You don't buy it because you expect your house to burn down. And perhaps you can name one politicain that followed that rule...build it they will come...if they have it they will use it... Combat is an additional cost placed on the nation when we decide to go to war. operations is DND's cost, WAR is a governmental cost hence why we have not been to WAR, but rather military operations.... And yes LCC needs to track combat as it will drastically shorten the perdicted lives of equipment,instead of 25 years it's now onlyn has 18 or 20... equipment is lost and needs to be replaced, spares are eaten up trying to keep it all serviced, fuel is gobbled down at 10 times the rate....ammo is expended at tonnes per hour, an example during the first couple of days of op mudusa we chewed through every bullet we had, dthe next day, more bullets came from canada, it was expended in a few days, more arrived however there was a severe restriction put on all ammo in Canada has they did not have enough, over the next few days we were using US ammo....try and track that on your LCC accounting, and yet here is millions of unaccounted funds , that DND is screaming for...a couple of operations and your LCC est is garbage and needs to be looked at again, something to think about when they say the F-18 is almost 40 years old , but how many operations does it have you'd almost have to add 15 to 20 years to that number to account for true wear and tear, which is what the LCC is all about is it not. It's a hell of a lot better to start from a baseline of LCC, knowing that we can afford the asset for the duration of its life, then go from that point when we consider whether we have the finances needed to go to war. DND is buying this aircraft under the idea we are going to fly it in combat, we don't buy them because the look good on the tar mac...we buy all military kit to kill people with and break shit...so to have any sort of accurate LCC it to must be thrown into the LCC mix to give accuate accounting....or your best guess is just that someone pulling numbers out of their ass. 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.
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 AG: but i can't tell you how many times i've been in combat. Good thing. They'd wet their pants. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Look, there's no argument here. The standard accounting procedure is to determine as best as possible the whole-life cost of an asset prior to procurement. They need to estimate how much financing will be needed over the life of the equipment or building. End of story. You can argue all you want that they shouldn't do this and it doesn't matter because those are the regulations. Quote
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) You can not lease or rent an ICBM. I'm only talking about lobbying them over our border against an advancing invasion force not halfway around the world. Edited to add a rolleyes: Edited April 16, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 If the military wants to decide how to spend money unilaterally, it can raise its own funding unilaterally. Until then taxpayers elect representatives and those representatives decide how our money is spent. They'll take what the military says "under advisement." As they should. The last thing we need is unelected bureaucrats deciding unilaterally how much money they need and how much money they will spend without any oversight or accountability to the people that provide them with that money. Anyone can decide how much funding to give each dept, with out have much knowledge in what that dept does, or can be advised. however picking military equipment is a military mans job not some tax payer or some politician...at the end of the day they don't have to crawl into it and place their lives in danger....this is why we continue to have light Ilitis jeeps in war zones, LSVW in war zones, MLVWs in war zones, it was only after soldiers paid for these mistakes with their lifes that things changed...Very few military purchases have resulted in the military getting what it wanted...or even in the class of equipment we needed... Give us the number that we can spend and let us pick it the equipment out ...what is the problem with that, you still get control and maybe we don't get as many as we need , what we do get will be exactly what we wanted... unelected bureaucrats such as the ones on this board have influence on what is purchased politicains don't use the tiolet unless it is ok with the people...and yet those soldiers that use the equipment have no say...none you get what you get don't like it get a new job....nice way to treat the very people that will one day put their lifes on the line for the very same ungreatful people...besides we have enough problems tracting elected persons and how they spend funding without oversight or accountabilty... 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.
Army Guy Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Look, there's no argument here. The standard accounting procedure is to determine as best as possible the whole-life cost of an asset prior to procurement. They need to estimate how much financing will be needed over the life of the equipment or building. End of story. You can argue all you want that they shouldn't do this and it doesn't matter because those are the regulations. your right it is law a retarded one but a law, so thousands of hours will be put into getting a LCC estamte , when i could have pulled pretty much the same number out of my ass over the phone....because it will have the same impact at the end of the day, the opposition will be happey 25 billion dollars...they will run with it, the government has lied to us the purchase will cost 25 bil not 9 bil, we want heads, but will fail in explaining what the 25 bil represents.... But here is what we have to look forward to if the cons maintain it's majority then we will have these planes regardless of cost, the cost will remain the same ....and that is what pisses off the oposition, and if they are ousted the entire project will be canceled just out of principal....why because that is the way we role... 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.
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Anyone can decide how much funding to give each dept, with out have much knowledge in what that dept does, or can be advised. however picking military equipment is a military mans job not some tax payer or some politician... I think when you propose that politicians should have no say in how much taxpayers spend on you and that taxpayers in turn should have no say in what missions the politicians send you on deeply undermines whatever case you're trying to make. ...besides we have enough problems tracting elected persons and how they spend funding without oversight or accountabilty... We're definitely on the same page here but we're in a whole different book in separate libraries on what we regard as more important in the scheme of things and what to do about it. If we only could subject elected persons to real oversight and accountability...I'm convinced that virtually all need for wars and departments of national offence/defence would evaporate. Edited April 16, 2012 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wilber Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I'm only talking about lobbying them over our border against an advancing invasion force not halfway around the world. Edited to add a rolleyes: As we only share one border, it's pretty clear where your focus is. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 As we only share one border, it's pretty clear where your focus is. I think I've made it pretty clear the idea of being invaded by the US is as silly an idea as being invaded by some Islamo-fascist empire - that said, notice how often the latter threat is taken seriously by the warhawks. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I'm only talking about lobbying them over our border against an advancing invasion force not halfway around the world. Edited to add a rolleyes: ...and rockets are usually big things with fire coming out the end. The threat to Canada is other nations going: You don't mind if we drill here...do yah? Howz about fish here? This small settlement is for research only...we're not really staying. Nickles and dimes. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 The threat to Canada is other nations going: You don't mind if we drill here...do yah? Howz about fish here? This small settlement is for research only...we're not really staying. ... ...bwahahahahahahaha! Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Ok...give me your H.G. Wells vision of the future where we can expect Canadian resources that go unused/unguarded don't get pilfered by stronger nations. Either from the inside (woo...jobs) or the outside (day 1034 of the Chinese Baffin Island claim debate in Parliament). Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
punked Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Ok...give me your H.G. Wells vision of the future where we can expect Canadian resources that go unused/unguarded don't get pilfered by stronger nations. Either from the inside (woo...jobs) or the outside (day 1034 of the Chinese Baffin Island claim debate in Parliament). They are already being taken. No one needs to the steal them, our government is giving them away for a song and dance. Why would anyone go to the trouble stealing them when they can have them for the same price as drilling a well? When has our government ever asked anything more then Hire some Canadians and pay your historically low tax rate to take our resources? You don't make any sense why do we have to protect what we give away for basically free? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 You'll see...or your kids will. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
punked Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 You'll see...or your kids will. Thats what my grandparents said in the 50s and my parents in the 70s. I never saw anything it was a bunch of BS. Quote
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Ok...give me your H.G. Wells vision of the future where we can expect Canadian resources that go unused/unguarded don't get pilfered by stronger nations. Either from the inside (woo...jobs) or the outside (day 1034 of the Chinese Baffin Island claim debate in Parliament). No, you're the one making the ridiculous claims. The onus is on you to back them up. Mine is to laugh at them. In the meantime why is it the very same champions for the planes we need to defend ourselves from China can't sell resources to these future invaders fast enough? I say again, bwaha effing ha. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
dre Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 No, you're the one making the ridiculous claims. The onus is on you to back them up. Mine is to laugh at them. In the meantime why is it the very same champions for the planes we need to defend ourselves from China can't sell resources to these future invaders fast enough? I say again, bwaha effing ha. Not to mention they expect China to loan us the money for the planes Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GostHacked Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 I've been doing this for 31 years now, and we have yet to be at war, but i can't tell you how many times i've been in combat. .... operations is DND's cost, WAR is a governmental cost hence why we have not been to WAR, but rather military operations .... Canada has been/is involved in wars, regardless of how the current government terms them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada Vietnam Korea Bosnia Somalia Afghanistan Iraq First Gulf War and the second invasion of Iraq *(*according to some people here) Libya Quote
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 You'll see...or your kids will. You're weeping for the little one's now? Bwa....etc etc... Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
eyeball Posted April 16, 2012 Report Posted April 16, 2012 Not to mention they expect China to loan us the money for the planes I guess its always possible China will justify our invasion on unpaid loans. That would probably be more legal a pretext than the wars we've been waging lately. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
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.