Big Guy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Posted November 17, 2015 So if a country decides that it does not want to spend 2% of GDP on the military then what happens? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smallc Posted November 17, 2015 Report Posted November 17, 2015 So if a country decides that it does not want to spend 2% of GDP on the military then what happens? Nothing, but we're not meeting our obligations. Quote
Big Guy Posted November 17, 2015 Report Posted November 17, 2015 Nothing, but we're not meeting our obligations. Perhaps our governments obligations to its citizens should be prioritized over its obligations to foreign powers. Which obligation is the more important? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Smallc Posted November 17, 2015 Report Posted November 17, 2015 Perhaps our governments obligations to its citizens should be prioritized over its obligations to foreign powers. Which obligation is the more important? The obligation to our mutual defence that arguably saves us money. Without NATO, it's arguable the world would be a far worse place. Quote
Army Guy Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 What about out governments obligations to ensure our security ? 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.
Big Guy Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 What about out governments obligations to ensure our security ? The mere fact of our close proximity to a warrior nation with the most powerful armed force in the world, a history of war and a proud readiness to give up the lives of her young to maintain world dominance ensures our security. Let them pay for it. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Wilber Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) The mere fact of our close proximity to a warrior nation with the most powerful armed force in the world, a history of war and a proud readiness to give up the lives of her young to maintain world dominance ensures our security. Let them pay for it. So nice to have such a convenient excuse not to provide for your own security. Whatever would you do if you didn't have the US for a neighbour to dump on and defend you at the same time? Edited November 18, 2015 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) The obligation to our mutual defence that arguably saves us money. Without NATO, it's arguable the world would be a far worse place. No argument about it. Without NATO or an American big daddy to look after its defence for it, Australia spends 1.8% GDP compared to our 1%. Their defence budget is over 50% higher than ours and they only have 2/3 our population. Australia's defence budget for 2015 is 26.1B USD compared to Canada's 15.7B USD. They must be war mongers to. Edited November 18, 2015 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 No argument about it. Without NATO or an American big daddy to look after its defence for it, Australia spends 1.8% GDP compared to our 1%. Their defence budget is over 50% higher than ours and they only have 2/3 our population. Australia's defence budget for 2015 is 26.1B USD compared to Canada's 15.7B USD. They must be war mongers to. And the worst part is, according to the original CFDS, we're supposed to be spending $24B by now. Not only did Harper severely curtail spending after a very short increase, but he let money lapse from the budget to the tune of about $2B per year. All of this, while leaving in place his original ambitious plans. That's why I'm willing to let the Liberals prove themselves of their word on this file. Quote
segnosaur Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 I may be but what difference does that make. Majority view is not necessarily the right view. As a Canadian taxpayer, my view is that we cannot afford to spend more on anything. What we can do is redirect military spending towards domestic issues to enhance the quality of life for Canadians. What makes you think military spending doesn't enhance the quality of life of Canadians? I (for example) feel much better knowing that we have basic air capability to handle a repeat of (for example) the Payne Stewart or Mathias Rust incidents. Or knowing that should I or someone I know get lost in a remote area, we have a military that would assist in the search and rescue. It certainly makes me feel better for Canada to spend money on that than on (for example) the CBC. The mere fact of our close proximity to a warrior nation with the most powerful armed force in the world, a history of war and a proud readiness to give up the lives of her young to maintain world dominance ensures our security. Let them pay for it.You are assuming that the Americans would be willing to provide such protection to Canada free of charge, in a timely fashion, and under Canada's direction. I can think of many situations where that might not be the case: - Patrolling our northern waterways. The U.S. has, in the past, disputed some of Canada's claims regarding the Arctic ocean. If we do not maintain Canada's military and defer to the Americans, we loose some of our ability to assert our claims - Localized search and rescue. In a time when the U.S. government can become gridlocked, do you really think they will eagerly expend the resources to conduct search and rescue within Canada's territory on a regular basis? Quote
segnosaur Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 Australia's defence budget for 2015 is 26.1B USD compared to Canada's 15.7B USD. They must be war mongers to. Given the number of dangerous animals (deadly spiders, crocodiles, and the like), I rather suspect Australia needs its military to protect it from its own wildlife. Quote
segnosaur Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 And the worst part is, according to the original CFDS, we're supposed to be spending $24B by now. Not only did Harper severely curtail spending after a very short increase, but he let money lapse from the budget to the tune of about $2B per year. All of this, while leaving in place his original ambitious plans. That's why I'm willing to let the Liberals prove themselves of their word on this file. What makes many of us nervous is the fact that not only did the Liberals not promise additional military spending, but some of the promises they did make seemed to be an enormous shell game... things like rebuilding the navy through buying "cheaper" planes than the F35, or the promise of a "leaner" military seem like they think they can rebuild the military without spending any more. Quote
Big Guy Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 So nice to have such a convenient excuse not to provide for your own security. Whatever would you do if you didn't have the US for a neighbour to dump on and defend you at the same time? I would set up my own security and be free to have my own foreign policy - but that is a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer. I guess if I lived in a small room in a very large house, a large house protected by the latest technologies and deadly security devices I could spend money on security systems for just my room - but I have better use for that money. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 What makes you think military spending doesn't enhance the quality of life of Canadians? ... - Patrolling our northern waterways. The U.S. has, in the past, disputed some of Canada's claims regarding the Arctic ocean. If we do not maintain Canada's military and defer to the Americans, we loose some of our ability to assert our claims - Localized search and rescue. In a time when the U.S. government can become gridlocked, do you really think they will eagerly expend the resources to conduct search and rescue within Canada's territory on a regular basis? I think those $billions spent on a few assault airplanes can be used far more effectively to enhance the quality of life for Canadians. As for guarding the homeland of Canada, certainly we should have equipment for search and rescue. That does not have to be military equipment. The Americans will get what the Americans want as regarding the Arctic Ocean. Our military (short of a nuclear capacity) would have no effect on Americans end up with. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Derek 2.0 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 No argument about it. Without NATO or an American big daddy to look after its defence for it, Australia spends 1.8% GDP compared to our 1%. Their defence budget is over 50% higher than ours and they only have 2/3 our population. Australia's defence budget for 2015 is 26.1B USD compared to Canada's 15.7B USD. They must be war mongers to. Several points to differ Canada and Australia. First Australia has been, in its history, subject to bombings and invasions of it's territory, and knows that with it's location, despite assurances from the British, then the Americans, they are on their own. Second, it has had frosty relations, including proxy conflicts, throughout its mini Cold War with its Northern neighbor, Indonesia (a country of over 250 million Muslims) since the 1960s, and nearly resulted in Australia becoming a nuclear power in its own right....... Canada and Australia are apples and mangoes........and each others defense needs and spending reflect that. Quote
Wilber Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 I think those $billions spent on a few assault airplanes can be used far more effectively to enhance the quality of life for Canadians. As for guarding the homeland of Canada, certainly we should have equipment for search and rescue. That does not have to be military equipment. The Americans will get what the Americans want as regarding the Arctic Ocean. Our military (short of a nuclear capacity) would have no effect on Americans end up with. Without an effective military we wouldn't even know what other countries were doing in the Arctic or off our shores, let alone be able to do anything about it. We couldn't even intercept a bunch of boat people before they landed. The Americans will only look out for our interests if it is in their interest to do so, otherwise we will be on our own, short of us being attacked by a non NATO country. But as you want us to withdraw from NATO, that wouldn't even apply. Do you really think the US cares two hoots about our disputes with Denmark in the Arctic or Spain in the Atlantic. Why would they care whether they have to deal with us, the Danes or Spanish over such matters? Or deal with them at all. We are all NATO members. Of course, if you had your way. Denmark and Spain would be the US's allies because they would still be NATO members. We wouldn't. You would turn us into an isolationist country with no means of defending itself. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 Several points to differ Canada and Australia. First Australia has been, in its history, subject to bombings and invasions of it's territory, and knows that with it's location, despite assurances from the British, then the Americans, they are on their own. Second, it has had frosty relations, including proxy conflicts, throughout its mini Cold War with its Northern neighbor, Indonesia (a country of over 250 million Muslims) since the 1960s, and nearly resulted in Australia becoming a nuclear power in its own right....... Canada and Australia are apples and mangoes........and each others defense needs and spending reflect that. That's my point, they are on their own. They can't sponge off someone else to defend them. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 What makes many of us nervous is the fact that not only did the Liberals not promise additional military spending, but some of the promises they did make seemed to be an enormous shell game... things like rebuilding the navy through buying "cheaper" planes than the F35, or the promise of a "leaner" military seem like they think they can rebuild the military without spending any more. Exactly, when people bleat and moan about the previous government, but point to the Liberals as saviors, who have clearly stated they will continue with current funding, well curtailing the F-35 program and transform the military into a "leaner" force, it's utterly laughable. Quote
Smallc Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 I'm not convinced that the Conservatives wouldn't, with the new structural deficit reality, have cut military spending further. Quote
Wilber Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 I'm not convinced that the Conservatives wouldn't, with the new structural deficit reality, have cut military spending further. Well if as you maintain, the structural deficit is due to the Conservatives cutting taxes, the obvious solution is to raise them. Please don't tell me the proposed changes in income tax rates will cover it. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 That's my point, they are on their own. They can't sponge off someone else to defend them. No argument here, we are far more like New Zealand (or Ireland) in that regard, sponging off the guys next door........as such, in my opinion, I don't totally disagree with Big Guy. As a nation, I don't think we should slash the military and become totally reliant upon someone else (see the United States), but if the majority of Canadians share this current Government's views on our place in the World, and are not willing to fight someone like ISIS, why spend billions on a military? We could slash the budget by 2/3rds, retiring the combat capable portions of our military, retaining a small army for Peacekeeping and aide to civil power/disaster response, reduce the air force to supporting such a force and fisheries patrols, and transform the navy into a lightly armed coast guard. Spending billions to retain a second or third rate combat force, that we're not going to use, is a huge waste of money. Quote
segnosaur Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 What makes many of us nervous is the fact that not only did the Liberals not promise additional military spending, but some of the promises they did make seemed to be an enormous shell game... things like rebuilding the navy through buying "cheaper" planes than the F35, or the promise of a "leaner" military seem like they think they can rebuild the military without spending any more. Exactly, when people bleat and moan about the previous government, but point to the Liberals as saviors, who have clearly stated they will continue with current funding, well curtailing the F-35 program and transform the military into a "leaner" force, it's utterly laughable. I wonder what it says about the state of political discourse in this country when the best hopes for the government involve election lies and broken promises? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 Well if as you maintain, the structural deficit is due to the Conservatives cutting taxes, the obvious solution is to raise them. Please don't tell me the proposed changes in income tax rates will cover it. Per the Liberals' fiscal plan, there is no new money promised, other than the funding elevator implemented by the Harper Government.....combined with cutting programs and making the force "leaner" there is zero evidence to suggest that they will do better by this new Government then the one previous, and it is likely, after the "review", they will do worse off. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 I wonder what it says about the state of political discourse in this country when the best hopes for the government involve election lies and broken promises? Exactly, I (we) could be wrong, and the Trudeau Government could have hidden plans, budgeted outside their own "fiscal plan" to invest in the forces........but, when one looks at the direction of the World economy, the larger than expected deficits and declining dollar etc, the Government will have to go far more into debt for the things it promised and budgeted for........so I doubt there will be "hidden" new money for the Forces either. Quote
Smallc Posted November 18, 2015 Report Posted November 18, 2015 Well if as you maintain, the structural deficit is due to the Conservatives cutting taxes, the obvious solution is to raise them. Please don't tell me the proposed changes in income tax rates will cover it. A ) It's because of the decrease in oil. B ) The Liberals haven't proposed raising taxes in any large measure - I would expect we'll need to find an extra $5B in revenue. 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.