Argus Posted August 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2014 When you link to info showing that Harper gave away $200 million of our money to his pals at Montreal ad agencies, I'll be the first to agree with you. I never suggested he was as immoral and unethical as Chretien, only that his government is as 'do nothing' as Chretien's was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2014 The trucks haven't been cancelled, nor no amount of immediate funding will recreate Canada’s near defunct shipbuilding industry overnight. What would you propose a near doubling of the defense budget would achieve overnight? I don’t discount effects on training and maintenance, but procurement issues wouldn’t be resolved as currently envisioned, namely the Hornet replacement and the “made in Canada” replacements for our AORs and destroyers……. Funding isn't affecting procurement? Really? The federal government has slammed the brakes on a multimillion-dollar program to replace the military's aging trucks. "Economic, marketplace and budgetary circumstances have changed since this solicitation process began," the notice said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/military-truck-purchase-cancelled-due-to-cost-concerns-1.1273570 An armoured-vehicle program, once deemed essential to protect soldiers from roadside bombs, is being ditched by the Harper government, say defence and government sources. The plan to buy 108, 36-tonne vehicles, meant to carry troops but also to fight like a light tank, has been on tenuous ground for months, as the army expressed doubts it could afford the new fleet under the current budget restraints. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/19/canada-military-armoured-vehicles_n_4475410.html A project to provide Canada’s special forces with new armoured vehicles for the Arctic has been cancelled. Industry sources say funding issues are behind the decision to cancel the project. A similar project for the Canadian Army had been sidelined earlier. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canadian-special-forces-ice-plan-to-purchase-vehicle-for-arctic And don't pretend the drastic cut in funding hasn't affected the military from top to bottom quite aside from procurement. And speaking of procurement, what's with those super expensive arctic patrol ships anyway? Two days before signing a contract to begin work on a $3-billion shipbuilding project, the federal government was warned by its own advisers that the contract was overpriced — but signed it anyway. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-was-warned-about-arctic-patrol-ships-high-price-1.1859387 This government has screwed up every single military file since the war ended, and the resulting bad publicity has turned Harper off things military. That's why they're now in 'don't rock the boat' mode, acting on nothing, and using the military budget as a piggy bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 30, 2014 Report Share Posted August 30, 2014 Funding isn't affecting procurement? Really? The federal government has slammed the brakes on a multimillion-dollar program to replace the military's aging trucks. "Economic, marketplace and budgetary circumstances have changed since this solicitation process began," the notice said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/military-truck-purchase-cancelled-due-to-cost-concerns-1.1273570 Get newer sources.......The MSVS portion was completed several years ago.....As I said earlier, the remaining portion (SMP armoured trucks) was rebooted with additional requirements added. An armoured-vehicle program, once deemed essential to protect soldiers from roadside bombs, is being ditched by the Harper government, say defence and government sources. The plan to buy 108, 36-tonne vehicles, meant to carry troops but also to fight like a light tank, has been on tenuous ground for months, as the army expressed doubts it could afford the new fleet under the current budget restraints. http://www.huffingto..._n_4475410.html And instead, went forward with the LAV III upgrade. A project to provide Canada’s special forces with new armoured vehicles for the Arctic has been cancelled. Industry sources say funding issues are behind the decision to cancel the project. A similar project for the Canadian Army had been sidelined earlier. http://ottawacitizen...icle-for-arctic Industry sources said funding, yet the official response: Dan Blouin, a Department of National Defence spokesman, said in an email that “after a thorough examination of the MTV’s capabilities and limitations, training requirements, acquisition and sustainment costs, it was determined that it is not an essential requirement for CANSOFCOM.” “As a result, it was decided to no longer pursue this procurement,” he said. Meaning our current fleet of BV-206s meet requirements and new (small fleet) ones aren't worth the added cost And speaking of procurement, what's with those super expensive arctic patrol ships anyway? Two days before signing a contract to begin work on a $3-billion shipbuilding project, the federal government was warned by its own advisers that the contract was overpriced — but signed it anyway. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...price-1.1859387 Of course they're overpriced, they're to be built in Canada...........yet no Canadian government would ever purchase new surface ships for the Canadian navy built overseas....... This government has screwed up every single military file since the war ended, and the resulting bad publicity has turned Harper off things military. That's why they're now in 'don't rock the boat' mode, acting on nothing, and using the military budget as a piggy bank. In terms or procurement, what would a mythical near doubling of our defense budget achieve? Would we have F-35s and new Canadian built destroyers in a faster timeframe? What would you suggest they do different with a doubling of the budget……..and of course, how would you pay for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 oh really! Have you ever... ever... "criticized" your boy, your favoured party, without throwing equal/greater negative emphasis on/toward past Liberal leaders/governments? Can you ask yourself the reverse waldo? Let's be fair here. It's not like you don't have an angle yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 Can you ask yourself the reverse waldo? Let's be fair here. It's not like you don't have an angle yourself. what I don't do is pump the tires of the past Liberal party governing accomplishments while at the same time showcasing like related failures of Harper Conservatives. Amazingly, Harper Conservative supporters conveniently ignore their party has almost been in government for a decade now... at some point they and their favoured party have accountability for today... for their actions (or lack thereof) while governing - ya think!!!. This perpetual game played out here by MLW Harper Conservative supporters is a charade... it's always, "but the Libs, but the Libs" (drawing back some 10, 20... 30 years+ years)... while refusing to accept that Harper Conservatives have responsibility, have accountability, for today... for the relative today that they've been governing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) In terms or procurement, what would a mythical near doubling of our defense budget achieve? Would we have F-35s and new Canadian built destroyers in a faster timeframe? What would you suggest they do different with a doubling of the budget……..and of course, how would you pay for it? It would only be a 'mythical near doubling' because the Tories have already slashed the defense budget down from 1.4% to 1% (and still falling). Can your excuse making suggest how that helped the military? Can your excuse making explain why countries like Norway and Sweden can afford to spend nearly 50% more of their gdp on their military than Canada? Can your excuse making suggest why Harper goes north every year, and has for a decade, bragging about how important the north is, but still won't commit to ice breakers to travel up there? Your cavalier acceptance of government statements that we don't need gear because the old, creaky gear is fine, that we don't need new armored vehicles because we can 'upgrade' the crappy old LAVs is pathetic. In point of fact that very term 'upgrade' has become synonymous with the Canadian Forces over the past forty years. It's where we take a piece of gear older than the soldiers, sailors and airmen using it, and try to graft on a few new electronic parts to make it less laughingly obsolete so we don't have to pay for new gear. How would we pay for it? Maybe if they hadn't cut taxes while we still owed a ton of money that would be less of an issue. But hey, we're soon going to have surpluses again, just in time for election. You think that's gonna go to the military, or to shiny, sparkly programs to help them get re-elected? He plain and simple truth is that Stephen Harper doesn't care any more for the military than Jean Chretien did. Edited August 31, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) what I don't do is pump the tires of the past Liberal party governing accomplishments while at the same time showcasing like related failures of Harper Conservatives. No, you do the precise opposite. You ignore the failings, incompetence, corruption and failures of the Liberals while screaming in horror at every similar thing the Tories do. You ignore the failings of present day Liberals as much as you ignore those of the past. You don't care what Liberals do or say. As long as they're Liberals you'll support it. Edited August 31, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 The measure of a military can be measured with the question; if Canada told Russia or the U.S. to stop what they were doing, and they did, then you have a sufficiently strong military. If they ignore us, then every penny we are spending is wasted. This is a democracy. If Canadians wanted a DND, they would be willing to pay for it and embrace conscription...like that is going to happen. The most powerful military in western Europe is Switzerland. They have the ability to take on the Russians. If they can do it, so can we. The Canadian people don't want to. All we want is a few reservists to parade in fancy costumes. Lets spend that $20 billion on something we need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 No, you do the precise opposite. You ignore the failings, incompetence, corruption and failures of the Liberals while screaming in horror at every similar thing the Tories do. You ignore the failings of present day Liberals as much as you ignore those of the past. You don't care what Liberals do or say. As long as they're Liberals you'll support it. present day Liberals??? They are not the governing party - duh! Like I said, your act is a charade... you bend over backwards to dredge up 20-30+ year old references... anything to give your boy/your party cover. Your ridiculous post a short while back said it all. You made a grand gesture... suggesting Harper Conservatives have only ever done ONE thing wrong! Yes, in your "magnanimous" way, just ONE thing wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 present day Liberals??? They are not the governing party - duh! Like I said, your act is a charade... you bend over backwards to dredge up 20-30+ year old references... anything to give your boy/your party cover. Your ridiculous post a short while back said it all. You made a grand gesture... suggesting Harper Conservatives have only ever done ONE thing wrong! Yes, in your "magnanimous" way, just ONE thing wrong! Have only ever done one thing wrong? I can think of lots of things they've done wrong over the years, and which I've had no hesitation in attacking here. As for your complaint that the present day Liberals aren't the governing party, that's simply silly. You are proposing they replace the current governing party. Given that, their weaknesses are every bit as noteworthy as their strengths. That you don't seem to understand this simply shows how partisan you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 Have only ever done one thing wrong? I can think of lots of things they've done wrong over the years, and which I've had no hesitation in attacking here. As for your complaint that the present day Liberals aren't the governing party, that's simply silly. You are proposing they replace the current governing party. Given that, their weaknesses are every bit as noteworthy as their strengths. That you don't seem to understand this simply shows how partisan you are. oh... wait, that's right... you were so all about JTs hair a few posts back! That's the level of your superficial collective summation. But again, you're deflecting from the Harper Conservative party governing today - go figure. Imagine that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 oh... wait, that's right... you were so all about JTs hair a few posts back! That's the level of your superficial collective summation. But again, you're deflecting from the Harper Conservative party governing today - go figure. Imagine that! Why shouldn't I be on about a superficial man's superficial claims to fame? If you were to list the reasons why Justin Trudeau was made the leader of the Liberal Party, and why he's so popular with the media, you would come out with something like this: Son of Pierre Trudeau. Handsome, youthful, nice hair. Easygoing manner, charm. And that would be IT. Now perhaps you can explain to me how this constitutes material which will make him a good prime minister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 oh to see you highlight and elevate your superficial ways! But hey now... let me take a page from your act: there was this unknown guy in a former Reform/Alliance world... as you said, "perhaps you can explain to me........" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 It would only be a 'mythical near doubling' because the Tories have already slashed the defense budget down from 1.4% to 1% (and still falling). Can your excuse making suggest how that helped the military? Can your excuse making explain why countries like Norway and Sweden can afford to spend nearly 50% more of their gdp on their military than Canada? What does it matter what Sweden or Norway spend, per their GDPs? We spend more actual dollars then Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark combined………….. Can your excuse making suggest why Harper goes north every year, and has for a decade, bragging about how important the north is, but still won't commit to ice breakers to travel up there? Has the current Government cancelled either/or the AOPS or CCG Icebreaker? Your cavalier acceptance of government statements that we don't need gear because the old, creaky gear is fine, that we don't need new armored vehicles because we can 'upgrade' the crappy old LAVs is pathetic. In point of fact that very term 'upgrade' has become synonymous with the Canadian Forces over the past forty years. It's where we take a piece of gear older than the soldiers, sailors and airmen using it, and try to graft on a few new electronic parts to make it less laughingly obsolete so we don't have to pay for new gear. "Crappy old LAVs?" Our armies LAV III fleet, on average is 15-20 years newer then the US Army's M2 Bradley fleet, likewise the Marines LAV 25 fleet.........and of course the new TAPV will replace the remaining LAVs in our inventory from the 70s and 80s.........If the Americans can upgrade and continue to operate the Bradley for another decade+, what is wrong with our Army doing likewise? How would we pay for it? Maybe if they hadn't cut taxes while we still owed a ton of money that would be less of an issue. But hey, we're soon going to have surpluses again, just in time for election. You think that's gonna go to the military, or to shiny, sparkly programs to help them get re-elected?He plain and simple truth is that Stephen Harper doesn't care any more for the military than Jean Chretien did. We live in a democracy, not a military Junta…………Would the average Canadian agree to either tax increases or cuts to other programs, so as to nearly double the funding for the military? Also, do you think the Liberals or NDP would nearly double funding to the Forces, so as to reach 2% of GDP? All Federal Government departments faced cuts, and as a percentage, DND and Veterans Affairs were cut the least………With DND, they were given the choice on were the cuts would come from, they chose to cut funding to the operational and training portions of their budget, as opposed to cutting their own bureaucracy in Ottawa and numerous faux commands………. Frankly I think DND was lucky, ultimately the real question that should be asked to DND is where is the money going? The Australians receive a similar amount as a dollar figure, have a smaller military in terms of overall personal, yet a similar size deployable force as us, and in some areas, more capable and modern equipment………….Well also not benefiting from the World’s only Super Power being it’s next door neighbour…. The Question in need of asking is what are our Armed Forces doing wrong, and what are the Australians doing right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 31, 2014 Report Share Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) what I don't do is pump the tires of the past Liberal party governing accomplishments while at the same time showcasing like related failures of Harper Conservatives. What you also don't do is show anything even resembling a balanced point of view. While you might fault Argus for flavoring his criticism of Harper with even stronger criticism for the Liberals, he's at least acknowledging that they're not perfect. Is that any worse than the determined efforts of certain posters here to denounce literally everything the Harper government has done as the workings of the Anti-Christ? This perpetual game played out here by MLW Harper Conservative supporters is a charade... it's always, "but the Libs, but the Libs" (drawing back some 10, 20... 30 years+ years) "but the Libs" is just a tool of comparison, and politics are all about comparison. While the Conservatives certainly formed the government now for the better part of a decade, most of that was a minority government with, you might be reminded, the Liberals helping to pass all of their legislation. While that certainly doesn't give Harper a free pass, it IS something to consider. Additionally, "but the Libs" can often refer to the frequent hypocrisy of the debate. A perfect example was the Ignatieff Liberals and their supporters slamming Harper for not doing 'enough' to boost the ailing economy during the recession, but then later attacking his deficits over that period. That sort of thing is ridiculous. ... while refusing to accept that Harper Conservatives have responsibility, have accountability, for today... for the relative today that they've been governing! They'll be held accountable next election. Don't you worry. Enough small C's are tired of Harper and his crew, and enough young people and women will flock to Justin for everyone to feel confident that the end of Harper's federal political career is imminent. Edited August 31, 2014 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 The party in power is irrelevant. Until the people of Canada decide they want a military force, there is nothing the government can or should do, and token efforts are a waste of twenty billion dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) ....explain why countries like Norway and Sweden can afford to spend nearly 50% more of their gdp on their military than Canada? In the case of Norway at least I'll bet nationalizing their oil resource had a lot to do with it. Heck they're probably even using some of the profits from their investments in our Alberta's oil resources to pay for their defence. Smart people those Norwegians, personally I think we should be contracting out our governance to them and sacking the loafs currently driving our's into the ground. Edited September 1, 2014 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 you continue to improperly emphasis the recession as an outlet to attempt to provide cover for Harper Conservatives... again, as shown several times over, the recession had a mild impact on Canada, it arrived later than it did with other countries and it lasted a very short time in Canada. of course Harper Conservatives are tightening 'the purse-strings' - simply to be able to showcase a supposed balance/presumed surplus... just in time for the election. Nothing more, nothing less! Nothing will sway that (false) "fiscally competent" drumbeat! He promised to pay it, and he will. Lets talk about the red book if you want to see unfilled promises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) Oh look, a column in today's Post I could have written myself. According to the latest NATO figures, the Harper government spends one per cent of GDP on defence, just slightly ahead of financially-troubled Spain, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Lithuania, and Latvia. To put it more bluntly NO other medium to large NATO country spends less than Canada does on defense except 'financially troubled' Spain, where the unemployment rate reaches 25% So much for Harper's determination to properly fund the military eh? http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/01/harper-government-talks-tough-against-russian-invasion-but-cuts-2-7-billion-from-defence-budget/ And came across this the other day from The Economist, titled Darkness Falls Again. Says it all, doesn't it? http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/03/canadas-defence-spending Edited September 2, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Oh look, a column in today's Post I could have written myself. According to the latest NATO figures, the Harper government spends one per cent of GDP on defence, just slightly ahead of financially-troubled Spain, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Lithuania, and Latvia. To put it more bluntly NO other medium to large NATO country spends less than Canada does on defense except 'financially troubled' Spain, where the unemployment rate reaches 25% So much for Harper's determination to properly fund the military eh? http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/01/harper-government-talks-tough-against-russian-invasion-but-cuts-2-7-billion-from-defence-budget/ And came across this the other day from The Economist, titled Darkness Falls Again. Says it all, doesn't it? http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/03/canadas-defence-spending Does the National Post and/or the Economist suggest where the Government of Canada is to find the additional 40 billion dollars in funding to achieve 2% defense spending per our GDP? Also, do either the Liberals or NDP agree with such a dramatic increase to defense spending, an increase that will indirectly subsidise European Defense? Of course, nearly every other European NATO member has cut their own militaries to the bone, coupled with the numerous caveats placed on their forces in Afghanistan, which restricted their capacity in a combat role…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Gross incompetence is the most FLATTERING term I can use for the Tories military file. When you add in to the fact they keep cutting money from the military it just goes to show that Harper, despite all his braying and bravado, cares as much for the military as Jean Chretien did. As with almost everything else this government has done, if they spent less time saying and more time doing it could have been one of the best governments in history. This government spends all of its time on PR and none of its time on actual work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 As with almost everything else this government has done, if they spent less time saying and more time doing it could have been one of the best governments in history. This government spends all of its time on PR and none of its time on actual work. One slight correction if I may: This government spends a lot of our money on PR and none of it's time on actual work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 Just so. Millions of dollars to tell us what they're going to do and how great they are. Eventually people will wake up and ask when they're going to deliver on their promises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 What is everyone else doing? Harper at least kept the talking going while it seemed Europe and America just wanted to ignore it and hope it would go away. We have a ship over there, 6 war planes, 130 men and women running the air show over the Baltics and probably a 1000 men to go soon. Mean while PM Trudeau would be looking for a root cause to all this while enjoying the company of his dictator/ communist friends. And the we have france ,still going thru with the sale of assault vessels for the Russians. So I know the MSM is on him ,but at least he is trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 2, 2014 Report Share Posted September 2, 2014 And the we have france ,still going thru with the sale of assault vessels for the Russians. Very ironic that the French are selling two large amphibious assault vessels to the Russians, and the French navy is currently training Russian sailors at one of their fleet bases……….I’m sure they’ll prove handy to the Russians once they’ve had their war with the Ukraine, and start “liberating” ethnic Russian populations in Estonia and Lativa…..What did Lenn say about rope dealers again???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.