Liberals party defence review

[Army Guy]

Oh absolutly. There is no need for the Liberal party - or any other party - to come up with an actual rational defense policy. The last 40 years have shown that. We can have ridiculous defense policies and it doesn't matter one whit.

Edit to add: I should add that it doesnt matter one whit until such time as the public starts to give a hoot. Then the government of the day will pander to that and announce some new acquisition or other. Its all domestic politics and has been since the end of the Korean war. Canada has no crucial foriegn interests. We have no need of a military that can go anywhere in the world and no allies who's soveriegnty depends upon Canada having that ability.

So we can and have kept Centurion tanks around until they were falling apart - then bought Leopards and kept them around until they were pretty much useless - then bought second hand Leopard II's that were on thier way to the scrap heap.

We kept Restigouche class and St. Laurent class ships around until they were good for nothing at all. Built new Halifax's to replace some of them and we are going to keep them around until they are good for nothing but diving wrecks. Oberons the same - when they were no good for nuthin we bought 2nd hand subs destined for the scrap yards.. F18's same thing. We'll keep flying them until the politicians see an opportunity for a fine Speach from the Throne.

The fact is There is no need for this country to do anything different.

I agree with you 100 % that it is up to the serving government to make any policy it wishes while in office. Over the last 40 years Canada has had a reasonable Defense policy, be it a standing white paper, or Defensive agreements. Where the Danger lies is while they may have had those policies in place on paper.....Most serving governments have chosen to do little or nothing to ensure they live up to them.

Where I disagree is your point on Canada having no foreign interests, Freedom of movement is one, such as protection from pirates or other nations on Canadian shipping, or aircraft traveling the globe. or part of an alliance that depends on Canada to move troops and equipment to protect others sovereignty IE NATO defensive agreements for example.

By keeping outdated equipment past it shelf date, does not make sense for several reasons, It actually cost more to keep running, and to maintain. there is a high chance that it will be easily out class by our enemies, It puts our nations soldiers at greater risk...If Afghanistan showed us anything, it was this point how many soldiers would be alive if they had the proper equipment.

And in knowing all that our government still decides to take on more and more missions. Missions that involve combat or placing soldiers lives at risk.... The fact that they are not equipped to do the job means squat to them, and to be frank, it means squat to way to many Canadians....

Now I would agree with downsizing the military if there was some control measures put in place to keep our government from sending them on missions beyond our capabilities...but there are now...

What we do know already from previous surveys is 65 % of Canadians believe our forces are under funded, and only 35 % of them believe they are under equipped....This info has been presented to the current government....

But what the public does not know is the true state of our military, where vast fleets of older equipment sit rusted out and unusable, with no replacements in sight, the condition of it's logistical wheeled fleet is devastated, with perhaps 3 out of 10 vehs in operational condition, again no replacements in sight, LAV armoured vehs parked because there are to expensive to operate. Things only get worse as you look at the other elements.....

It is in my opinion that if the public knew of this today, I think your survey would show very different results....And for a government that claims transparency , one would think it would atleast educate the public so they can make informed decisions on the survey....But if the entire project is to just get an uneducated results it is a waste of time, money and effort....which brings up the question WHY would a government not want an uneducated opinion ? why ask a survey that gets deep into the weeds and not want the public to atleast have a working understanding and know the consequences good and bad of each of their own choices....What value would you claim to gleen from this....

[Army Guy]

Truly amazing... At first it just seemed like you had basic reading comprehension issues. But now youre putting your own honesty at question You know full well that is not how this data is used. Policy is not directly formulated based on this data alone, its just one small piece. And your comment about "your idea of good governance" is a blatant strawman which is also dishonest.

I am truly amazing , but let me ask you this would this info not be more valuable if the government educated the public on all the areas of the survey, describing what is the current condition of the forces, why we are in our current defensive agreements, and what are the consequences both good and bad, on each topic....

or do you believe right now that Canadians are prepared to give educated answers to those complex questions being asked...So the info being collected is some what useful....

[overthere]

Very very valuable. The goverment will then have an idea of what the voting public wants/expects. That in itself justifies the entire exercise.

From that information they will then know what they can/cannot/should/shouldnot do to keep voters voting for them. Cut back on Healthcare so's we can

get Amphibious support vessels? We'll be crucified by the voters next election. Pulic supports building new Supply ships for the Navy? Then we shall make it so and bask in the glory of doing what the voters want.

When you are both willing and eager to run a deficit of any size, there is no need to limit the shopping list to healthcare vs warships.

[Derek 2.0]

When you are both willing and eager to run a deficit of any size, there is no need to limit the shopping list to healthcare vs warships.

A good point........call it grey/camo infrastructure

[G Huxley]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saudi-arms-deal-documents-1.3533082

Yeah real change in Ottawa.

[Army Guy]

Yes real change indeed , it is OK to allow another nation to purchase war materials because to keeps employees employed....at yet we can not invest in our own nations military to do the same...

[waldo]

Yes real change indeed , it is OK to allow another nation to purchase war materials because to keeps employees employed....at yet we can not invest in our own nations military to do the same...

notwithstanding the most significant cancellation penalties, of course, your comment is directed at more than just the current government, right? For what it's worth, a few symbolic aspects: the contract is signed by Foreign Affairs Minister Dion... and very pointed written commentary on Canada's concerns over Saudi human-rights abuses appears within related 'secret' documents just released by Dion:

.

[dre]

Yes real change indeed , it is OK to allow another nation to purchase war materials because to keeps employees employed....at yet we can not invest in our own nations military to do the same...

Its a good business decision, just not very ethical. That's not surprising though... foreign policy has nothing to do with ethics. The government is basically agreeing that SA is a murderous autocratic regime, but its allowing the deal to go ahead because we have "aligned interests in the middle east".

Its shameful really. We should have nothing to do with that dump what-so-ever.

Edited April 13, 2016 by dre

[eyeball]

I've long said our defence policy should be mostly aimed towards stopping the flow of weapons and military aid into the hands of dictatorships and warlords and getting between these and the people they're oppressing. In addition to diverting domestic contributions away from this we should be in the face of other countries who continue theirs and especially our trading partners and allies.

The way Mulcair is getting in the face of the Liberals over the Saudi armoured car deal is how I think Canada should have been getting in the face of our allies 25 years ago or more. AFAIC Mulcair is being too polite to Trudeau and the Liberals on this file and our relationship with our allies could stand to be considerably less cordial on this issue as well.

I recall the days when Stephen Harper used to question our dealing with China's dictatorship. So WTF happened, who stuck the stupid Goa'uld in his head?

[eyeball]

Its a good business decision, just not very ethical.

What about the unaccounted cost of militarizing the ME in the name of energy security, this doesn't contribute to that?

[dre]

What about the unaccounted cost of militarizing the ME in the name of energy security, this doesn't contribute to that?

Yup. Unfortunately that's actually a good thing for us now. If we can turn the place into a real mess and conflict zone the price of oil may just go back up the point where its worth mining sludge in northern Alberia.

[eyeball]

It seems we'd get there a lot faster if we just carpet bombed Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure.

We can use the armoured cars to suppress environmentalists opposed to Alberta's sludge pipes.

[Army Guy]

notwithstanding the most significant cancellation penalties, of course, your comment is directed at more than just the current government, right? For what it's worth, a few symbolic aspects: the contract is signed by Foreign Affairs Minister Dion... and very pointed written commentary on Canada's concerns over Saudi human-rights abuses appears within related 'secret' documents just released by Dion:

.

So it is alright to pay cancellation penalties because of a campaign promise such as EH101, but not because of some moral obligation. My comments was directed at current and previous governments.

[Argus]

That feedback just goes into the universe of data being considered. There's no simple formula for how the government uses or "weights" public opinion.

Public opinion tells them what to do to win votes. That's the only importance it places on it. "I must find out what the people want so I can run out in front and 'lead' them!"

[eyeball]

and very pointed written commentary on Canada's concerns over Saudi human-rights abuses appears within related 'secret' documents just released by Dion:

I suppose if you don't mind where these documents completely undermine the case they make.

...the Canadian assessment concludes that there is “no indication that equipment of Canadian origin, including LAVs” were in use there.

The document addresses reports that Canadian-made sniper rifles have surfaced in Yemen showing them in the possession of Houthi rebels. It says 1,300 of the weapons were exported to Saudi Arabia under valid permits, but says the Canadian embassy in Riyadh has concluded they were captured from Saudi forces by Houthi fighters in fighting along the border.

“This type of battlefield loss of equipment is to be expected as a result of military operations,” the document states.

Doesn't this "type of battlefield loss of equipment" indicate that the weapons we're selling to these bloodthirsty savages are in fact "in use there" in "military operations"? How the hell else did they manage to fall into the Houthi's hands?

If Liberals are trying to present the flimsy justifications for this deal in the sloppiest manner possible they've succeeded admirably. This source says everything I need to know about how disgustingly familiar Liberal defence policy will be. Thanks.

[dre]

Public opinion tells them what to do to win votes. That's the only importance it places on it. "I must find out what the people want so I can run out in front and 'lead' them!"

No it lets them know that the things they do more or less reflect the will of the people. If you are doing a job for people it would be kinda retarded not to ask them what they want.

[Wilber]

No it lets them know that the things they do more or less reflect the will of the people. If you are doing a job for people it would be kinda retarded not to ask them what they want.

Except what they want may have no relationship to this country's defence needs. A government's job is to govern, not pander. If the people don't like how they do it, they get turfed at the next election.

[nerve]

You don't know what you're talking about.......right now, as we speak, a Canadian is the second in command of NORAD, and RCAF Hornets are tasked to respond to NORAD alerts.......NORAD isn't moving back into Cheyenne Mountain because they aren't "planning for war".

Ok Derek 2.0, how is Canada planning for war?

The US never moved out of Cheyenne Mountain. You don't know what you are talking about.

Edited April 14, 2016 by nerve

[nerve]

So it is alright to pay cancellation penalties because of a campaign promise such as EH101, but not because of some moral obligation. My comments was directed at current and previous governments.

Am I missing something or are people considering Saudi Arabia a non-friendly state?

First off the more the Saudi's spend the more oil goes up in price faster. Second you are assuming Saudi Arabia is actually going to do something with them that they can't do with arms acquired somewhere else. Chances are the only notable thing Saudi Arabia will ever do with them is defend against an Iranian invasion or somehow be involved in regional conflicts such as Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, that I am guessing Canada in general ain't opposed to because they are fighting Iranian influences which Canada has lined up against Iran time and time again.

Saudi Arabia has done next to nothing with its military for years and years, and is now just starting to bomb Syria/ISIS.

They are more than capable enforcing legal standards that are lower than Canada without these arms shipments.

It is a totally irrelevant point.

Canada's businesses can use the money.

Saudi Arabia isn't under sanctions so this is a non debate.

I am guessing Canada wouldn't export to any country because I'm sure they all engage in human rights abuses. And it wouldn't sell to itself because it engages in human rights abuses.

Who cares.

[Army Guy]

Am I missing something or are people considering Saudi Arabia a non-friendly state?

I personally see the sale as a good thing for Canada, I do however find it ironic that the governments present and past would welcome with open arms the sale because it provides jobs and employment for Canadians....And yet we can not arm our own military from the same company and do the same thing, with the added bonus of equiping our own military.

[eyeball]

That would cost money not make money.

Have you given any thought to selling war bonds?

Edited April 14, 2016 by eyeball

[overthere]

A good point........call it grey/camo infrastructure

I think Liberal Red camo is more appropriate

[Derek 2.0]

Here's something interesting, which has been spoken to a year+ ago (Chinese polar icebreakers, forget which topic):

The Chinese government has published a lengthy Northwest Passage shipping guidebook that lays the foundation for cargo vessels to sail across the top of Canada.

Spanning 365 pages of charts and detailed information on sea ice and weather, the Chinese-language Arctic Navigation Guide (Northwest Passage)was compiled by ocean and shipping experts as a way to help the country’s mariners plan voyages through a waterway seen as a valuable shortcut between China and North America.

I wonder if the Chinese Government has been in talks with the Trudeau Government?

Furthermore:

China’s encouragement of Northwest Passage shipping could pose “the biggest direct challenge to Canadian sovereignty in the Northwest Passage” if Chinese ships are dispatched without Canadian consent, warned Rob Huebert, a University of Calgary professor Canada claims the interlocking routes of the Northwest Passage as “internal waters” that it alone governs.

The United States disputes the Canadian position, calling the passage an international strait that should offer rights of “transit passage.” The legal distinction is important: The U.S. believes Ottawa should not hold the right to block any ship from entering the Northwest Passage, although under international law it can pass regulations meant to protect the environment.

China has so far declined to take sides. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying on Wednesday said China had noted the positions of both sides, including Canada’s demand that vessels ask permission before sailing through, and would “make appropriate decisions by taking into account various factors.”

I read that as the Chinese approach to shipping in the South China Sea..........we'll do whatever said country wants, as long as it aligns with our own foreign policy........

I wonder the importance this Government sees in protecting our (Arctic) sovereignty.........based on it already making cuts to the Arctic patrol ship program, among many others, not very much......

Good thing Trudeau admires Communist China's ability to get things done

[waldo]

I wonder the importance this Government sees in protecting our (Arctic) sovereignty.........based on it already making cuts to the Arctic patrol ship program, among many others, not very much......

don't hesitate to provide a summary timeline accounting of Harper Conservative promises vs. deliveries, vis-a-vis, as you say, "protecting our (Arctic) sovereignty" - yes?

.

[Smallc]

Cuts have not been made the AOPS. As the last ship will not be be delivered until post 2021, the totality of the money is not needed within the 2017-2021 spending plan, and so has been moved beyond that.