Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[segnosaur]

There's two ways to approach this really,

Errr... no, not really.

try to conquer the world through military means (pretty silly and just a cash cow for the war profiteers) or work with the world to alleviate its problems such as starvation and famine

Or you could, you know, actually try to apply the solution that best fits the problem.

You know, give food aid when people are hungry, give military aid when people are getting killed by their own governments.

(anathema to the same profiteers). The latter can be done successfully through on the ground actions, which include full auditing, as opposed to just sending cash into the abyss (of course nothing approaching the military budget).

Which of course won't help if the governments in the poor regions, for whatever reason, won't let us micromanage our aid.

You seem to be under the misconception that every leader of every country is wise and willing to help their people.

The truth is, and its obvious. Canada has no real enemies.

Bin Laden had named around a decade ago as a valid 'target' for terrorist attacks. Given that fact, military action which disrupts his ability to carry out those plans (by, for example, eliminating Afghanistan as an allied state for Al Quaeda) is a valid use of our military.

And by the way, the fact that we have no significant enemy now doesn't mean that we won't have to worry about enemies in the future.

Oh, and by the way... even if Canada didn't have enemies, even if not one Canadian was ever under threat, that doesn't mean that there isn't value in using the forces we have to prevent the killing of innocents in foreign conflicts.

NATO is a front for neoliberal/neocolonialist policies.

Please point to all of the cases where Canada has A: Militarily invaded another country, and B: established a colony there, or otherwise "ran" the country in a way that wasn't representative of its citizens wishes.

Or are you, as I suspect, just tossing out all the standard dogmatic buzzwords?

It had a legitimate role during the Cold War, but with the collapse of the Soviet Block, its merely become a tool for the neoconservatives to unilaterally and through military force advance their worldwide agenda.

No, its become an organization that is a bit more willing to deal with situations where innocent people are threatened and the U.N. is deadlocked because of politics.

Its doing what the security council SHOULD be doing.

NATO acts on the agendas of the big oil companies and not on humanitarianism.

Please point to all of the benefits to "big oil" by its intervention in the Balkans. Or in Afganistan. (Neither country, to my knowledge, is a huge oil producer with significant western oil company involvement.

That's why it did nothing over Rwanda and Darfur...

They did nothing in Rwanda because the Americans had just lost men in Somalia and didn't want to end up with a similar situation.

Oh and by the way... there was some assistance by Nato countries... both Canada and the Netherlands both attempted to prevent the slaughter, but there were restrictions by the U.N. (who was supposedly in charge).

and did everything over oil rich Libya, Iraq/Afghanistan (with some abstaining members) and Uranium rich Mali.

Iraq wasn't a "Nato Mission".

Afghanistan was, but it has no real oil reserves.

And Mali? You now have switched from "big oil" to "big uranium"?

[segnosaur]

Regarding the planes, there are unknowns and possibly the F35 will end up at the same cost or possible it will be three or four times the cost - all we know is that most likely it will cost double.

Actually, no, its not "most likely" that the cost of the F35 will be double.

As I pointed out before, the super hornet may only be in use for another decade or so. Australia only got it as a temporary measure. And the U.S. marine corps doesn't want to touch it because they want the F35.

When you're the only country flying a particular plane, and that plane was already a decade old design, you will run into problems in the future.

No, I am not happy about it but I am not upset enough to spend billions of dollars on it either.

So you're argument is not "lets spend less and do the same", its just "lets do less".

You do realize that pretty much every national party actually feels that we should at least defend our own territory (including the north)?

So if (for example) the Americans or chinese decided to use the North West passage for shipping without our permission, what would you do? Send a strongly worded letter? Clench your little fist in range?

Going back to the original premise, these billions would be better spent on effective foreign aid. I would rather donate the money to the Bill and Mellinda Gates foundation.

Good for you. All of the people who might have died in Kosovo had we (meaning Canada and other Nato countries), or the Canadians who might have been the victims of al Qaeda terror attacks had they been allowed to continue in Afghanistan will sleep better knowing that.

[carepov]

segnosaur, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:14, said:

Actually, no, its not "most likely" that the cost of the F35 will be double.

As I pointed out before, the super hornet may only be in use for another decade or so. Australia only got it as a temporary measure. And the U.S. marine corps doesn't want to touch it because they want the F35.

When you're the only country flying a particular plane, and that plane was already a decade old design, you will run into problems in the future.

Ok whatever, my sources say that the total costs will be double of a comparable plane. Also, I'm not so sure that we need 65 of them.

segnosaur, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:14, said:

So you're argument is not "lets spend less and do the same", its just "lets do less".

Well if you call playing war games while drinking glacier martinis in Hudson's Bay "doing something" then yes I do think we should do less. I am saying we should do less, spend less but get the same or even better results.

segnosaur, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:14, said:

So if (for example) the Americans or chinese decided to use the North West passage for shipping without our permission, what would you do? Send a strongly worded letter? Clench your little fist in range?

I would do the same as you - unless you plan on deploying a scary fleet of 10 armed ice breakers thinking that it would actually change anything. Would you put up a blockade? Should we also have nuclear subs just in case?

This is a low-risk (small probability of occurrence with very little consequence) potential problem that requires large resources. I would rather spend money on high-risk real problems.

segnosaur, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:14, said:

Good for you. All of the people who might have died in Kosovo had we (meaning Canada and other Nato countries), or the Canadians who might have been the victims of al Qaeda terror attacks had they been allowed to continue in Afghanistan will sleep better knowing that.

Again, my plan (spend less on the north, work more closely with allies allowing for a reduction in overlapping capabilities) would get better results. The resources used wisely in foreign aid could also prevent future issues and certainly better help protect human rights than your idea of "protecting" the north

By the way I would not be so sure about Kosovo - it seems to me that the atrocities increased upon NATO bombing. (I'm not saying it was a bad move but it was not a glowing humanitarian success as you are suggesting.)

Edited April 25, 2013 by carepov

[Charon]

In the end buying a F-35 or the new F-18, they will cost about the same in the long run. And lets say in the future and china is hungry for what we have up north and make a move. Well the chinese are building their own 5-gen fighter and if sucessfull, our super hornets would all be destroyed going up against them. And that is the threat I would bet the goverment is planning for.

Makes 0 sense. China isn't going to lose its biggest market, which is North America over fighting over some icebergs.

And the last thing China needs to do is fight for our resources. All they need to do is to buy them up from the Conservatives on the 'free market,' like they did the tar sands.

Paranoia is one thing, but it shouldn't be the basis for national policy.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Charon

[Army Guy]

Paranoia is one thing, but it shouldn't be the basis for national policy.

Just because you don't understand it does not make it false, how do excplain the Chinese massive build up in thier military....is it because military stuff is a cool to own, you've just said military equipment is a waste of money, could be used to feed the hungry masses....and yet they are the second largest spender when it comes down to military hardware, for what use i ask....i can tell you its not for feeding anyone...

And if they could just buy a nation, then why are they spending all of this funds on military shit....but when i add it up, it means they plan to use it one day....

[Army Guy]

Ok whatever, my sources say that the total costs will be double of a comparable plane. Also, I'm not so sure that we need 65 of them.

And what experience do you base that outcome on, are you a retired airforce general, are you the current serving CDS. have you or are you privy to any military studies done on this ....if no....then back up this claim, and how you came across it.

Well if you call playing war games while drinking glacier martinis in Hudson's Bay "doing something" then yes I do think we should do less. I am saying we should do less, spend less but get the same or even better results.

Once again if this is all you think our military does then sir, i'm afraid you know jack shit on what the military does, nor are you qualifified to suggest how that dept spends it's money....kind of left your panties blowing in the breeze....

[Charon]

Just because you don't understand it does not make it false, how do excplain the Chinese massive build up in thier military....is it because military stuff is a cool to own, you've just said military equipment is a waste of money, could be used to feed the hungry masses....and yet they are the second largest spender when it comes down to military hardware, for what use i ask....i can tell you its not for feeding anyone...

The massive Chinese buildup of their military certainly isn't to fight over some stupid icebergs and have their entire economy collapse over it. Its there to defend themselves. That isn't to say they too aren't wasting too much money on military spending as led to the collapse of the Soviet economy.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Charon

[carepov]

carepov: Ok whatever, my sources say that the total costs will be double of a comparable plane. Also, I'm not so sure that we need 65 of them.

And what experience do you base that outcome on, are you a retired airforce general, are you the current serving CDS. have you or are you privy to any military studies done on this ....if no....then back up this claim, and how you came across it.

carepov: Well if you call playing war games while drinking glacier martinis in Hudson's Bay "doing something" then yes I do think we should do less. I am saying we should do less, spend less but get the same or even better results.

Once again if this is all you think our military does then sir, i'm afraid you know jack shit on what the military does, nor are you qualifified to suggest how that dept spends it's money....kind of left your panties blowing in the breeze....

Read again: I said: "I am not so sure we need 65 planes..." I am not making a claim I am just being sceptical - after all the BS coming from the government (all parties) and DOD how can anyone not be sceptical?

By the way, it is not "the dept"'s money it is Canadian taxpayer money.

And speaking of panties, yours seem to be tied up in a knot.

Edited April 26, 2013 by carepov

[Bonam]

Its there to defend themselves. That isn't to say they too aren't wasting too much money on military spending as led to the collapse of the Soviet economy.

No, that's not what killed the soviet economy. The US far outspent the USSR on military, and yet its economy did not collapse. No, the reason the soviet economy collapsed was its utterly will-sapping mind-crushing bureaucracy and repressiveness.

[Army Guy]

The massive Chinese buildup of their military certainly isn't to fight over some stupid icebergs and have their entire economy collapse over it. Its there to defend themselves. That isn't to say they too aren't wasting too much money on military spending as led to the collapse of the Soviet economy.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

The massive Chinese buildup of their military certainly isn't to fight over some stupid icebergs and have their entire economy collapse over it. Its there to defend themselves. That isn't to say they too aren't wasting too much money on military spending as led to the collapse of the Soviet economy.

2010

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/24/pentagon-china-closer-matching-modern-militaries/?

2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/world/25military.html

2013

http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/08/unveiling_china_s_defense_budget

According to the experts above, the "defense only" comment is debunked, they have far exceeded that. in fact they have exceeded every military in the world in growth, avg up to 10 % every year since 2010, while western nations have clearly shown a steady decrease. And as the experts have claimed, the Chinese have exceeded what they claim they have spent, each and every year.

And while the whole topic does not require us to start digging bunkers, it is a topic that should be carefully studied, and taken into consideration to our own military future, and how this is going to effect us as a nation and as a member of NATO,NORAD, any other defensive pact we have signed ....

Most of the experts have also claimed cause for concern , while China lacks the military punch to carry out deployments far from there own coast, it does have the punch to heavily influence it's region. including taiwan which has backing from the US, meaning it is a highly likely sitution Canada may become involved in.

would they risk lossing all the marbles to expand, only china could answer that, but lets not forget history, and how far we let the Nazi's expand before we acted...and when we did it was to late for alot of nations...

As for leading to the collaspe of the Chinese economy i highly doubt that, considering how fast that is growing as well...

[Army Guy]

Read again: I said: "I am not so sure we need 65 planes..." I am not making a claim I am just being sceptical - after all the BS coming from the government (all parties) and DOD how can anyone not be sceptical?

By the way, it is not "the dept"'s money it is Canadian taxpayer money.

And speaking of panties, yours seem to be tied up in a knot.

You did make a claim, "I am not so sure we need 65 planes..." sounds like a claim to me, i'm asking you how you came to such a claim, what research have you done to back this claim? i mean DND has a few experts and they have already said 65 is the bare minimum...

Yes, it is Canadian tax payers money, gather up by a government to which recieved a majority in votes, and it has given the Dept that funding to spend as it is needed....

A while it is your right to be concerned on how that money is being spent, here is something you should be concern with.

We continuly ask our members of our armed forces to risk thier lives to carry out our nations policies. And while they "the members of the Canadian forces"have gladly voluteered to do these taskings knowing what consquences could be. All they have asked in return is that the Citizens of Canada have our backs, that they to should gladly see that our men and women have the best training, and equipment to give them an edge on the battlefield. We are not asking you to fund a military capable of world domination, but rather one that can defend our nation,and her interests abroad, and carry out those very policies created by our government. Canada has never had a taste for world domination, it is just not in our DNA.

And god forbid, our nation enters a conflict that consumes those very same men and women, it will be up to the Citizens of Canada to take up the cause....pick up our flag off the battle field and raise it in pride like they have always done...would it not be some piece of mind that those that have gone before them, had atleast preped , did all the research and developement to ensure we had chosen the right equipment for the job.....history has shown in very clear detail that this has rarely been the case...we have in most cases picked the cheapest bider, the cheapest equipment the cheapest everything. Is this the legacy we want to leave our brothers, sisters ,sons, daughters....as these people will be climbing into these very machines we purchase , these will be the machines we will be pinning our hopes on to return them safely and in one peice after everything returns to normal....

And that cause is what has as you say my panties in a knot....when we place money above a Canadian life. To that note we also know there is a line that is drawn in the sand , when we simply can niot afford it.....in my opinion have we crossed it yet....i don't think so....we spend well under 2 % of our GDP on defence, whats the other 98 % being spent on, and why have we not focused on that...

[Charon]

Again paranoia is not acceptable for foreign policy. To really expect China to fight over some icebergs far away from their supply lines is ludicrous. China can spend up to 50% of the world's military spending and still it would be self-defense, since that's how much the U.S. is spending.

The Soviets crashed, because of their overly mliitaristic economy. The British Empire crashed because of their overly militaristic economy. The American Empire is crashing from their overly militaristic economy. The Chinese economy may end up crashing over its overly militaristic economy. Its a pattern.

Canada should be beyond the idiocy. Fear and paranoia mongering so that the war profiteers stay rich is unacceptable in the 1st century.

The China threat like the red menace before it is simply a way to justify what can't be justified. The real enemy are the war profiteers and the politicians they back who maintain their positions of power and affluence by convincing the populace of some vague yellow or red menace far away while robbing them point blank.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Charon

[Charon]

[PIK]

The massive Chinese buildup of their military certainly isn't to fight over some stupid icebergs and have their entire economy collapse over it. Its there to defend themselves. That isn't to say they too aren't wasting too much money on military spending as led to the collapse of the Soviet economy.

And armed icebreakers??

[PIK]

Unfortunitly 134 of that would be stolen before it got to the people.

[Charon]

They are wasting their time with the armed icebreakers. That doesn't mean we should follow suit:

Unfortunitly 134 of that would be stolen before it got to the people.

Well that's better than 1735 stolen before it got to the people isn't it?

[PIK]

I bet people said that about the japanese in the late 30's.

Makes 0 sense. China isn't going to lose its biggest market, which is North America over fighting over some icebergs.

And the last thing China needs to do is fight for our resources. All they need to do is to buy them up from the Conservatives on the 'free market,' like they did the tar sands.

Paranoia is one thing, but it shouldn't be the basis for national policy.

[Charon]

I bet people said that about the japanese in the late 30's.

And where are the Japanese now? They spend some of the least per capita on their military in the world and have one of the strongest economies, despite having very few natural resources.

The Imperial Japanese in the 30s is a perfect example of how dangerous it is to allow government be taken over by the militarists and war profiteers. They utterly decimated their society based on their paranoia, hubris, and arrogance.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

And where are the Japanese now? They spend some of the least per capita on their military in the world and have one of the strongest economies, despite having very few natural resources.

The Imperial Japanese in the 30s is a perfect example of how dangerous it is to allow government be taken over by the militarists and war profiteers. They utterly decimated their society based on their paranoia, hubris, and arrogance.

They spend “some of the least per capita” due to the final terms of the Second World War……It also helps when they have a large US military commitment, a commitment larger and more potent then most other nations entire militaries, based within their nation. The same can be said of South Korea and Germany, and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom and Italy. Even Canada benefits greatly from American defence “largess”.

[Charon]

And you seriously think Korea would try to invade Japan?

The Conservative mentality is much the same as the Imperial Japanese uber militaristic paranoia.

Japan despite being a militaristic monster in world war 2 still got swatted down in only a few years by the States, while the States had barely built up their military at all in the 1930s. So that example right there shows how futile an ultra paranoid militaristic society arming itself to the teeth based on fantastic scenarios of cross Pacific conflict really is.

[Guest Derek L]

And you seriously think Korea would try to invade Japan?

The Conservative mentality is much the same as the Imperial Japanese uber militaristic paranoia.

Japan despite being a militaristic monster in world war 2 still got swatted down in only a few years by the States, while the States had barely built up their military at all in the 1930s. So that example right there shows how futile an ultra paranoid militaristic society arming itself to the teeth based on fantastic scenarios of cross Pacific conflict really is.

The United States, alongside the British, at the onset of the Second World War had the World’s largest naval force due in part to the Washington Naval Treaty. Obviously though, both nations defence spending wasn’t enough, coupled with self imposed arms reduction treaties that signalled to the Germans, Japanese and Italians that the United States and United Kingdom were not prepared to fight another war.

As such, it can be reasoned that had both nations not agreed to arms limitations and spent more on actual defence and defence research, the Axis powers would have chosen not to go to war, or at the very least, if they had of, the United Kingdom and United States would have been better equipped to end the war sooner.

[Charon]

Most of that big fleet you're talking about were relics from the first world war and for all intents and purposes were practically obsolete by the 2nd.

And the rest my friend is called Monday morning quarter backing.

Since its not the 1930s, but the 21st century, the reality now is more than a little different than it was in 1934.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Charon

[Guest Derek L]

Most of that big fleet you're talking about were relics from the first world war and for all intents and purposes were practically obsolete by the 2nd.

And the rest my friend is called Monday morning quarter backing.

Since its not the 1930s, but the 21st century, the reality now is more than a little different than it was in 1934.

You have no idea what you’re talking about, the average ages of said “relics” was no more or no less than that of the other navies of the day and with the USN in particular, their fleet’s average age on entry into the war was less then what their fleet is today.

As to today’s “realities” you purport to having first hand knowledge of the decades ahead……hmmmm……almost a gamble I should think, and as they say, those that forget history are doomed to repeat it…….

[Army Guy]

Again paranoia is not acceptable for foreign policy. To really expect China to fight over some icebergs far away from their supply lines is ludicrous. China can spend up to 50% of the world's military spending and still it would be self-defense, since that's how much the U.S. is spending.

The Soviets crashed, because of their overly mliitaristic economy. The British Empire crashed because of their overly militaristic economy. The American Empire is crashing from their overly militaristic economy. The Chinese economy may end up crashing over its overly militaristic economy. Its a pattern.

Canada should be beyond the idiocy. Fear and paranoia mongering so that the war profiteers stay rich is unacceptable in the 1st century.

The China threat like the red menace before it is simply a way to justify what can't be justified. The real enemy are the war profiteers and the politicians they back who maintain their positions of power and affluence by convincing the populace of some vague yellow or red menace far away while robbing them point blank.

neither is sticking your head in the sand and hoping that it is going to go away. like i said the problem must be studied and looked at carefully, hence why we have all these other depts including CSIS and other intel gathering agencies...and if the threat is there or a possiability then action must be taken to mitigate that threat....Sticking your head in the sand is exactly what the Allieds did before the out break of WWII, and what did that cost them in lifes and equipment.

Uour the one suggesting the Chinese are coming for our ice bergs....I've already stated china does not yet have a large capacity to project power into another region. but they do have the resources to heavily influence thier region. enough so, to make the US military blink and think about tangling with them. That being said the US does have defense pacts with countries in the region, and would act if they were threaten, this is a conflict that more in likely our own nation would be drawn into....

I'd like to know just what your basing this comment on, China can spend up to 50% of the world's military spending and still it would be self-defense, since that's how much the U.S. is spending. As you just quoted that 1735 bil was spent on militaries around the world....even the US does not spend more than half of that. My piont is china already posses more than enough military power and equipment to deal with all her enemies at the same time...in your mind how much more does she need to spend before an alarm bell goes off and you Start to think that perhaps it's more than defensive but offensive....

Out of more than 160 nations and thats all you can up with 3 nations that "may" have (crashed, because of their overly mliitaristic economy) I think if we took the USSR economy apart you'll find that mismangement played a larger roll in it's down fall...

Preparing for War is an insurance policy that the nation requires, like it or not it is the times we live in, below is a list of conflicts that are ongoing today. you can call it what ever you like , but it is better to be be prepared , than it is to have someone slap my ass becuase i had my head up my ass....and if that presence of mind cost 2 % of our GDP so be it....

http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223