Harper's Tough Talk on Defense and Russia is just empty words

[Bob Macadoo]

Centrist…..mainstream…incrementalism…….same song different verses I suppose, none the less, Canada is largely all of the above.

I'm sure Egypt sees their political landscape as mainstream too. I prefer MB's adjectives.....more precise.

[Derek 2.0]

Along with backwards, stagnant and overly cautious. Obviously you can't say those things in the news, however.

Yes, but then of course (as mentioned) politics within a democracy is merely a reflection of the electorate………If Canadians actually wanted “drastic changes”, then the large parties would incorporate them into their campaigning......cause and effect.

[Big Guy]

Did they actually see the war for what it was……..or were they just yellow? Could the same be said of Canadians that fled to the United States at the onset of the First World War? What of Canadians that dodged the Second World War? Smart Canadians or just cowards?

Well, "yellow" and "coward" are very subjective terms. I would think that different people do the same things for different reasons. What one person considers as cowardice may well be considered as courageous and brave by another.

For the Vietnam war, we now know it was a waste of people and money. Times change and we are supposed to learn through our mistakes (although I would prefer to learn from others mistakes). In those two big wars we shot deserters and those yellow cowards - to-day we call it PTSD, treat them with compassion, hospitalize them and compensate them.

"Did they actually see the war for what it was ........" Don't know but they lived to tell us "we told you so."

[Derek 2.0]

I'm sure Egypt sees their political landscape as mainstream too. I prefer MB's adjectives.....more precise.

Perhaps through the lens of an Egyptian……clearly it’s a matter of perspective and context.

[Argus]

Yes, but then of course (as mentioned) politics within a democracy is merely a reflection of the electorate………If Canadians actually wanted “drastic changes”, then the large parties would incorporate them into their campaigning......cause and effect.

When the Reform party hit the national stage it took up positions no mainstream party would hold, even though massive number of Canadians did.

It advocated the death penalty, for example. More than half of all Canadians supported it, but all three major political parties were opposed. It wanted laws on abortion, which the majority of Canadians supported, but none of the three major parties would touch. It argued that bilingualism and immigration had huge issues which caused unfairness, and were bad for Canada. The majority of Canadians agreed, but none of the three political 'mainstream' parties would touch those subjects. Political cowardice, perceived self-interest, and political correctness ruled the main parties as they do today.

[Derek 2.0]

Well, "yellow" and "coward" are very subjective terms. I would think that different people do the same things for different reasons. What one person considers as cowardice may well be considered as courageous and brave by another.

Without a doubt…….A draft dodger from Pasadena or Montreal could clearly be seen as a coward by some or a hero by others.

[Derek 2.0]

The majority of Canadians agreed, but none of the three political 'mainstream' parties would touch those subjects. Political cowardice, perceived self-interest, and political correctness ruled the main parties as they do today.

If those examples came with the potential for votes (leading to victory), I've no doubt a party would run on it....Reform once favoured capital punishment, but as they moved to the centre, dropped it.........they dropped it not because it was popular.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[eyeball]

The attitude that the 'system' is the problem is just an impotent excuse and a way to shift responsibility away from ourselves.

The notion that voters are too stupid to understand our system of governance is an apparently potent antidote to suggestions for change. I think most Canadians shrug, say meh, and simply ignore it in hopes it'll just collapse under the weight of it's own crap.

[Bob Macadoo]

The notion that voters are too stupid to understand our system of governance is an apparently potent antidote to suggestions for change. I think most Canadians shrug, say meh, and simply ignore it in hopes it'll just collapse under the weight of it's own crap.

That is the attitude of most things/most times. If I ignore it, it has to eventually go away. In some cases it works.....most other times not so much but we keep defaulting to it. Curious.

[eyeball]

If I was running for office I think I'd play the fear card with young people. Simply tell them the greatest fear the old fogies that are screwing up their world have is that young people start voting.

[Derek 2.0]

If I was running for office I think I'd play the fear card with young people. Simply tell them the greatest fear the old fogies that are screwing up their world have is that young people start voting.

Perhaps that’s why the Liberals, from what I’ve heard, are flirting with mandatory voting as policy.

[Moonbox]

Yes, but then of course (as mentioned) politics within a democracy is merely a reflection of the electorate………If Canadians actually wanted “drastic changes”, then the large parties would incorporate them into their campaigning......cause and effect.

Which gets back to my original point, which is that Canadians consider ANY change drastic. The frothing protests of special interest groups (be they corporate, public or otherwise) and their ability to distort the facts usually manage to convince everyone that small changes would lead to calamity, even if those changes are good for virtually everyone. The Dairy Board, like I've mentioned before, is a perfect example. Rather than seeing how unfair the system is to almost everyone, Canadians instead buy into the ludicrous myth that dismantling the Dairy Board would throw poor Ma & Pa farmers onto the street, completely ignorant of the fact that they're paying ~$300 a year more on dairy so that mostly large and wealthy dairy farm operations can keep getting larger and wealthier.

[Derek 2.0]

To get somewhat back on topic:

More evidence on the “lack” of movement on the part of the Government is regards to defense procurement.

On September 3, 2014, the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding marked the installation of the final piece of steel frame for the Assembly and Ultra Hall Production facility that will produce the Navy’s newest combat fleet starting in September 2015. The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Honourable Peter MacKay, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Canada and Minister Responsible for Nova Scotia joined Irving Shipbuilding’s executive team and provincial and municipal leaders to celebrate this important National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) milestone.

[Moonbox]

The notion that voters are too stupid to understand our system of governance is an apparently potent antidote to suggestions for change. I think most Canadians shrug, say meh, and simply ignore it in hopes it'll just collapse under the weight of it's own crap.

Well sure, it's a lot easier to blame the 'system' and cry about how unfair it is than it is to actually, oh I don't know, watch 15 minutes less television every night and learn anything about what's going on. 40% of people not even voting is a really clear indication of how engaged, intelligent and informed these people are, right!? Oh wait, sorry, it's just the 'system'. Fat people are only fat because of their genes too....

[Argus]

To get somewhat back on topic:

More evidence on the “lack” of movement on the part of the Government is regards to defense procurement.

Is he going to put the billions back into the defense budget he took out, or is he going to use his 'surplus' for circuses and cakes in order to better his chances of re-election? Our NATO allies are badgering him on his lack of funding for the military. The Australians are doing 1.6% but we can't do more than 1%? How come?

[Argus]

If I was running for office I think I'd play the fear card with young people. Simply tell them the greatest fear the old fogies that are screwing up their world have is that young people start voting.

Given the massive ignorance all the young people I've spoken with display towards politics and economics I'd say that would indeed be a frightening thing.

[Derek 2.0]

Is he going to put the billions back into the defense budget he took out, or is he going to use his 'surplus' for circuses and cakes in order to better his chances of re-election?

I would assume so......I doubt Irving is starting construction next fall for free.

The Australians are doing 1.6% but we can't do more than 1%? How come?

Better yet, why can the Australians achieve a more capable (in some areas) military, with a similar financial output (in actual money spent) as Canada? An actual fiscal Conservative, would ask this question and conduct a review (as is currently ongoing within DND) prior to blindly shovelling more money into the black hole that is the DND.

[Argus]

I would assume so......I doubt Irving is starting construction next fall for free.

Why would you assume so? Wasn't it a central figure of Harper's policy to end the ups and downs of military funding (Ha!) that these ships would be purchased on an ongoing basis? These ships were supposed to be bought and paid for under a separate budget IN ADDITION to the ongoing military budget, not instead of it!

Better yet, why can the Australians achieve a more capable (in some areas) military, with a similar financial output (in actual money spent) as Canada? An actual fiscal Conservative, would ask this question and conduct a review (as is currently ongoing within DND) prior to blindly shovelling more money into the black hole that is the DND.[

You haven't demonstrated they don't, merely given your own opinion without facts or figures to back it up.

And in any event, how does that relate to my point? Why is Australia, a much smaller country, able to afford 1.6% but, according to you, only a Nazi would want to increase Canada's defense budget beyond 1%?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Why would you assume so? Wasn't it a central figure of Harper's policy to end the ups and downs of military funding (Ha!) that these ships would be purchased on an ongoing basis? These ships were supposed to be bought and paid for under a separate budget IN ADDITION to the ongoing military budget, not instead of it!

......yet the ships start construction next year.

You haven't demonstrated they don't, merely given your own opinion without facts or figures to back it up.

And in any event, how does that relate to my point? Why is Australia, a much smaller country, able to afford 1.6% but, according to you, only a Nazi would want to increase Canada's defense budget beyond 1%?

Back what up? That the Australians had a similar sized deployable force to contribute to Afghanistan and Iraq as us, all the while, having a significantly smaller overall military in terms of people? Or that they have a much more fluid procurement system, that transcends changes in Government? All of course with a similar outlay in actual dollars spent.

Or that DND is conducting an internal review?

[Argus]

......yet the ships start construction next year.

Which is utterly irrelevant to the issue under discussion. The shipbuilding program was given a $33 billion budget which was unrelated to the ongoing DND budget Harper promised to continue to increase.

Back what up?

That Australia gets less bang for the buck than we do. And that this should somehow matter to the point under discussion, which is that Australia manages to pay 1.6% of its gpd on defense without, so far as i know, becoming a militarist dictatorship.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Which is utterly irrelevant to the issue under discussion. The shipbuilding program was given a $33 billion budget which was unrelated to the ongoing DND budget Harper promised to continue to increase.

Did you not state in this thread that there has been no movement on new ships?

That Australia gets less bang for the buck than we do. And that this should somehow matter to the point under discussion, which is that Australia manages to pay 1.6% of its gpd on defense without, so far as i know, becoming a militarist dictatorship.

I never suggested Australia gets less bang for their buck......quite the opposite in terms of actual money spent.

[Argus]

Did you not state in this thread that there has been no movement on new ships?

No, actually. I said there'd been no movement on the supply ships or the icebreakers.

I never suggested Australia gets less bang for their buck......quite the opposite in terms of actual money spent.

Then I have no idea what your point is about Australia. My point is clearly that if Australia can do it we certainly can.

[Derek 2.0]

No, actually. I said there'd been no movement on the supply ships or the icebreakers.

There hasn't? Seaspan, like Irving, also required upgrading their own yards before taking on the actual production.....Likewise, the ongoing Canadianization of the parent TKMS design for the Canadian shipbuilder….

Or do you suggest it's Harper's fault that the ship builder has yet to finish upgrading their yard, likewise being unable to produce a ship without blueprints?

Then I have no idea what your point is about Australia. My point is clearly that if Australia can do it we certainly can.

You purchase a car for 25k and I purchase a car for 25k………your car comes fully loaded, my car is missing a tire and a door……..You advocate that if I had more money, I could be trusted with purchasing a car similar to yours. I advocate figuring out why I can’t purchase a car like yours, for the same amount of money I blew on my lemon.

Likewise, the fact that your household income is 75K and mine is 100k, and we choose to both allocate the same amount of funds to purchasing our new cars plays little into the equation…….That you choose to spend a greater percent of your income on a new car and I spend less a percent, doesn’t impact my ability to purchase an incomplete car for the same actual dollar total spent by you……

Prior to giving me more money to purchase additional cars, perhaps we should examine why I can’t purchase a similar car to yours for the same amount of money spent…….or risk my spending 50K on two broken cars.

[Bob Macadoo]

You purchase a car for 25k and I purchase a car for 25kyour car comes fully loaded, my car is missing a tire and a door..You advocate that if I had more money, I could be trusted with purchasing a car similar to yours. I advocate figuring out why I cant purchase a car like yours, for the same amount of money I blew on my lemon.

Likewise, the fact that your household income is 75K and mine is 100k, and we choose to both allocate the same amount of funds to purchasing our new cars plays little into the equation.That you choose to spend a greater percent of your income on a new car and I spend less a percent, doesnt impact my ability to purchase an incomplete car for the same actual dollar total spent by you

That logic holds if you presuppose that money is being held due to foresight of incompetance, rather than tightwaddedness or apathy or malice. Are you sure of this assumption, and if so should not upper management shake up supply chain to effect the correct result? Edited September 7, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[Derek 2.0]

That logic holds if you presuppose that money is being held due to foresight of incompetance, rather than tightwaddedness or apathy or malice.

In regards to procurement, it certainly is incompetence born out of managerial failings bestowed upon the department in the late 1960s, coupled with partisan politics, to complete the logic and efficiency sink.

Are you sure of this assumption, and if so should not upper management shake up supply chain to effect the correct result? broken cars.

Not really……..there are clearly viable solutions presented by industry……the failings stem from upper management selecting the wrong cars, granted this is often corrupted by the elected government and civil servants determining the wrong cars are produced in a adventitious ridings/regions found within Canada.