Liberals party defence review

[Derek 2.0]

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?

.

Moot point, as the previous Government isn't conducting said defense "review", hasn't clawed back spending for various programs with this year's budget and isn't....well.....the Government.......

Does the Waldo have a timeline as to when choices made by this Government can't be blamed on the ones previous?

[Derek 2.0]

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.

In relation to the AOPS, are you suggesting Postmedia and the DND are incorrect in stating 10s of millions of dollars earmarked for the program have now been withheld? That is a cut.......

Likewise, how do you know the "totality of the money is not needed" until post 2021? Do you understand the concept of long lead items and economies of scale? What exactly was the money earmarked for?

And why did the Liberals cut the Cyclone program? The Halifax life extension? New body armor and load carrying devices for the army?

[Smallc]

None of the money has been cut, only (to use a Conservative phrase) reprofiled. You're twisting the words of DND. Components of each program will not take place until after 2021. The HCM/FELEX for example, is ongoing, and will have future components. The AOPS will have final acceptance and close out payments that will not take place until after 2021. The Cyclone is so far behind that the same is true.

This is your usual game. I'm not playing.

[Derek 2.0]

None of the money has been cut, only (to use a Conservative phrase) reprofiled. You're twisting the words of DND. Components of each program will not take place until after 2021. The HCM/FELEX for example, is ongoing, and will have future components. The AOPS will have final acceptance and close out payments that will not take place until after 2021. The Cyclone is so far behind that the same is true.

This is your usual game. I'm not playing.

This is no game, I cited the article that is confirmed by the DND......money that was once there and is now no longer there is a cut....

And no, I'm not twisting anything, that is you......in the article it clearly states that it is not clear what portions of said cut programs the money is from.....hence you either have another source that you can cite or you're making up your assertion.

So are you playing the smallc game of stating an unfounded opinion as fact?

[waldo]

Moot point, as the previous Government isn't conducting said defense "review", hasn't clawed back spending for various programs with this year's budget and isn't....well.....the Government.......

moot point? Shouldn't your expressed wonderment questioning/challenging, "the importance this Government sees in protecting our (Arctic) sovereignty" have a reference point relative to the prior Harper Conservative government? Surely, you must welcome the opportunity to highlight a delivery timeline on Arctic sovereignty protection intentions/promises made by the prior Harper Conservative government! Surely! Or... is there a problem.. for you in that regard?

.

[Smallc]

The article you cited says that the money was moved, and not cut. The Conservatives did the same things twice and I didn't hear you complain then.

[Derek 2.0]

The article you cited says that the money was moved, and not cut. The Conservatives did the same things twice and I didn't hear you complain then.

Nice deflection.........subtraction of budgeted funds is a cut.........that's simple math.

[Derek 2.0]

moot point? Shouldn't your expressed wonderment questioning/challenging, "the importance this Government sees in protecting our (Arctic) sovereignty" have a reference point relative to the prior Harper Conservative government? Surely, you must welcome the opportunity to highlight a delivery timeline on Arctic sovereignty protection intentions/promises made by the prior Harper Conservative government! Surely! Or... is there a problem.. for you in that regard?

.

There is no problem, other than its divorced from the present reality.......Trudeau already taking an axe to the military and hasn't even completed his faux defense review.........never saw that one coming

[waldo]

Nice deflection.........subtraction of budgeted funds is a cut.........that's simple math.

did you even read your own supplied/linked article?

Finance Minister Bill Morneau has insisted that moving the funding to a later date does not mean the defence budget is being cut.

Ashley Lemire, a DND spokeswoman, said in an email, “Some major projects experienced delays in their original timelines, which resulted in funds needing to be moved forward to future years.”

“The $3.7 billion in capital investment space represents only a shift in funding and there is no directed budget cut to the defence budget, as the funds will be left in the reserve to be requested in future years, when required,” she said.

[Derek 2.0]

did you even read your own supplied/linked article?

I read the entire thing numerous times..........does the Liberal promise of holding money in "reserve" for some future date carry as much weight as their $10 billion deficit promise?

[waldo]

There is no problem, other than its divorced from the present reality.......

don't be shy... be loud and proud of that Harper Conservative record on, as you say, 'protecting Arctic sovereignty'. Surely you must want to flaunt that and let the, as you say, "present reality" measure itself against that Harper Conservative record. Surely!

.

[waldo]

I read the entire thing numerous times..........does the Liberal promise of holding money in "reserve" for some future date carry as much weight as their $10 billion deficit promise?

you sir, you are a purposeful disingenuous poster. Just admit you didn't even read your own linked article... no need to fire up the D2.0 deflectors!

.

[Derek 2.0]

don't be shy... be loud and proud of that Harper Conservative record on, as you say, 'protecting Arctic sovereignty'. Surely you must want to flaunt that and let the, as you say, "present reality" measure itself against that Harper Conservative record. Surely!

.

What reason would I have to speak to a previous Government's policies in the context of a thread on the Liberal's defense review.............how is this, the previous Government planned to continue funding several ongoing programs, including several started by the previous Liberal Government, and earmarked over $3 billion for said programs.........the present Government, despite promises not to remove funding during the election, have now removed funding "to be held in reserve in the future" from several ongoing programs, including programs started by a previous Liberal Government.

This Government, as you quoted above, cites "delays" as the reason to remove funding...........my question, in what Liberal reality does the removal of funding address delays? That's akin to addressing head trauma to a person in a coma by removing life support.......No more life = no more coma......In Trudeau land, problems fix you

[Charles Anthony]

#StopThreadDrift

[Derek 2.0]

you sir, you are a purposeful disingenuous poster. Just admit you didn't even read your own linked article... no need to fire up the D2.0 deflectors!

.

I'm not deflecting anything, I was conversing with member smallc on the Trudeau Liberal's Newspeak on the previous page

[Derek 2.0]

#StopThreadDrift

Where is the thread drift? Is this topic not on this Government's defense spending? Would not reports of this Government cutting funds to the military be on topic?

[waldo]

Where is the thread drift?

what does you playing word games with "delay/withheld versus cut" have to do with the Defence Review?

.

[Derek 2.0]

what does you playing word games with "delay/withheld versus cut" have to do with the Defence Review?

.

I'm not the one playing word games..........as cited, and quoted by you, that is this Government......removing funding from the military prior to the the findings of their own defense review............such predetermined outcomes give little credence to the merits of said review........a one year freeze, until the review was completed, might have made sense..........but punting into early next decade......that is clearly a cut.

[Argus]

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.

That's not leadership.

[Argus]

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.

That's nice. But the slushbreakers can't go up north.

[waldo]

......that is clearly a cut.

you're still playing word games! Please sir, a MLW board moderator has requested to stop drifting this thread.

.

[Smallc]

That's nice. But the slushbreakers can't go up north.

They actually are as ice capable as many ice breakers. They're simply not able to operate in the winter and early spring.

[Argus]

The article you cited says that the money was moved, and not cut. The Conservatives did the same things twice and I didn't hear you complain then.

Did you hear me complain?

[Argus]

They actually are as ice capable as many ice breakers. They're simply not able to operate in the winter and early spring.

LOL

[Derek 2.0]

you're still playing word games! Please sir, a MLW board moderator has requested to stop drifting this thread.

.

Are you suggesting said defense review doesn't encompass conversations on funding levels for the military? Ergo, if said review includes funding, Liberal cuts to the the department of defense, even prior to the completion of said review, are on topic.........