Should Canada give up on its failing Forces....

[Stoker]

Military can't handle new troops, vice-admiral says

Now with all the problems associated with our underfunded, mismanged and poorly supported military, it beg the question, should we get out of the miltary game?

Now in this above post, the Globe's poll question suggest that we "sub-contract" our armed forces out to the Americans, but for the sake of argument, let's that allow any other countries as possable "defenders" of Canada.

So should we?

[Newfie Canadian]

No.

We should make the politicians and bureaucrats stop wasting money, which alone should be able to pay for a well manned and well equipped, modestly sized armed forces.

How to make them stop wasting money is the problem.

I'm all for interoperability and cooperation on mutual defence, but I'd feel a lot better knowing that if something happened here, my armed forces were there trying to deal with it instead of the armed forces of the American Commander-in-Chief.

[acheo]

I'll try to translate an article I read when I did my military law course: Any armed forces that does not carry the same social values becomes a threat for its own country and citizens".

Using the US for defending our territory would eventually turn against us as we are definitely not sharing the same values.

To your question I answer NO!

[caesar]

Of course we should not and would not sub contract our defense to the USA. Get real. Who would want to be defended by a bunch of trigger happy kids from a country that doesn't abide by international laws.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear stoker,

Canada faces no real threat internationally, so 'defending us' isn't a real worry. We use our troops mainly for international 'peacekeeping' and even that is with dubious results.However, that is not a result of 'inadequate equipment or manpower' as much as it is a failure of the UN and it's members to commit to aggressive enforcement of international law.

Canada may do better with a militia, rather than an 'Armed Forces' if it is just a question of self-defence.

[acheo]

Well put Caesar!

[Stoker]

So those that answered No, are all in favour of the Senate's recommendations (to save our armed forces), an immediate increase of four billion dollars to the annual budget of DND?

[Newfie Canadian]

I haven't seen the report, but if you're asking do I believe that the Forces deserve that kind of increase, no doubt in my mind, and the sooner the better.

Funny part is it should be easy enough to do with the projections of multi-billion dollar surpluses and stopping the continual waste of money in Ottawa.

It is doable.

[Boondoggle]

So those that answered No, are all in favour of the Senate's recommendations (to save our armed forces), an immediate increase of four billion dollars to the annual budget of DND?

absolutely

From what I've read, there's already an increase of $7 billion over several years for more troops and new equipment, and they're going to gradually increase the budget each year until it's doubled. You can read about it on the Canadian defence web site. However, if more is needed, I'd support it.

I'd much rather Canada spend more money on its own military than get involved in the missile defence crap. That's just another Bomarcs plan that the US has tried several times. By spending the money on Canadian defence, it's under full control of Canada. Paul Martin talks about how Canada should have a seat at the table for missile defence, but if the US wants to do something, are they going to change their mind for Canada? The US wants Canada to increase defence spending and join the missile program. I say Martin should make a deal to increase spending, but skip the missile program.

[Stoker]

The Americans have not asked us for a financial (or to put it on Canadian soil) contribution to go towards NMD, the only capital required is one of a political nature. Thus the affect on our defence budget is next to nil.

As for the 7 billion dollar increase, thats incorrect, in that it won't be a 7 billion dollar increase to the budget but a one time spending on new supply ships, the Sea King replacements, the mobile gun system (which the army does not look favorable on) and new SAR aircraft. It still falls short on replacing our aging air defence destroyers, transport aircraft, 5 ton army trucks, upgrades and evetual replacements for our CF-18 fighters etc. To say nothing about a need for a dramtic increase in personal and overall funding. (ie spare parts, training, operations etc)

And it doesn't even address areas that the Senate defence commttie (and the miltary itself) thinks Canada should invest in to further our own defence and forgein policy. (ala heavy airlift)

The only party that campaigned on a progressive increase to almost double our defence budget, thus bring us closer to the NATO average was the Conservaties.......and they were deemed war mongers.

[PocketRocket]

Two good questions.

No, we should not sub-contract our defense to the USA. They want us weak. Why? I'm not sure.

The last time we started going along with America's missile defence strategies, it cost us a lot of coin for missiles that never flew, and it cost us the Avro Arrow. They simply did not want us having superior weapons technology, and so pushed us into scrapping the Arrow project, and going along with a half-baked missile scheme.

If we had completed developement and production of the Arrow, it would have made Canada the undisputed world leader in aerospace technology, and consequently we would have been a far richer nation when you consider all of the spin-offs of the technology that was being developed.

If you doubt this, then consider that the performance of the Arrow was not matched for over twenty years, a lifetime in the aerospace industry.

Second, yes, we should put a lot more money into our military. Where to get it???

Well, for a start, some of the coin that we're pouring into that bottomless hole called the "Gun Registry".

Stop people like Shiela Copps from spending millions of $$$ on little paper flags to distribute across the country. (BTW, I never got mine. I seem to remember paying taxes like everyone else, so where's MY flag???)

Divert a little of the "Cultural" spending. It's one thing to help promote culture. It's another thing entirely to provide tens of millions of dollars to a fund that will finance recording and promotional costs for a rock band simply because their lyrics are not in English. Stop, or at least dramatically reduce, funding for the arts. If an artist can't make a living doing his/her art full time, then they can bloody well get a job, and do their art on the side. I do. So do my musician friends.

Lots of places where money is being thrown, money that could be better used in beefing up our military.

Think about it. Australia, a country with less than half our land area, and approximately the same population, could probably invade us and take over with little resistance.

Canada used to be a power. Perhaps not one of the biggies, but we were,from a military standpoint, respectable.

While our troops are still among the best in the world, they are simply too few, and too ill-equipped.

[Guest eureka]

When you play the Spartan and want to stop patronising the Arts and Culture, then I think that you should remember that, in the long run, it was the Art and Ideas of Athens that triumphed. Even in the short term.thenian culture proved more decisive than Spartan preparedness for repelling the common enemy.

No society survives that follows your principle. The Arts are infinitely more important than the Army. Without them, there is nothing to fight for.

[PocketRocket]

EUREKA: Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. I do not mean to stop patronizing the arts entirely, what I am talking about is selective "cultural" patronization.

The example I spoke of where two bands, writing similar music, in the same style. One writes it's lyrics in a language other than English, and is suddenly eligible for grants because it's a "cultural" phenomenon.

Many of the arts can be made to pay for themselves through proper marketing.

But I tend to agree with Robert A Heinlein that if an artist needs public support, then he's not an artist, but a prostitute.

Something like a symphony orchestra would obviously not be a self-funding project, but funding stay-at-home songwriters, or painters, for example......

Who was it that said "hardship creates good art"???

Well, where is the hardship if you're having your life subsidized by some federal program so that you can sit at home and never have to worry about where your next rent payment is coming from???

Yeah, SOME of the arts need SOME support.

But we need to re-assess what these are.

[Guest eureka]

Without getting into "bad art, good art," I don't entirely agree. I am with you on singer/songwriter's, though. To call most of what is around in those fields today, artists, is a travesty.

Throughout civilized history, artists, writers, and musicians have been unable to support themselves from their work. Private or Public patrons have always been a necessity. That applies to some of the greatest. The first novelist to support himself from his writings was Charles Dickens. Few painters or musicians have ever done so.

In this uncultured age, many great talents are lost due to the impossibility of earning a living through art. There are few possibilities of earning in related fields to subsidize creativity. Even then, do we put such a poor value on creativity as to make it incapable of self support?

I do, BTW, support the modernization of our military: increased funding and professionalization. I do think that we have to consider carefully what should be a niche for our Services in a world where the kind of "labour intensive" wars of the twentieth century are unlikely in the future.

[KrustyKidd]

Even then, do we put such a poor value on creativity as to make it incapable of self support?

I've written a book. A tripe piece but have another which I have about five hundred pages so far. I am supporting people with my slave job and can't concentrate on bringing the rather complicated plot together. It drives me like nothing else. I bought a second truck, I started other things to increase income so I can concentrate on that book. I took risks and still am in order to be free to write it. I need at least a year to do it free and clean. i don't care if it sells or makes print, I just have to get it out of my soul.

Understand? If you do then you have the soul of an artist as well. A girlfriend whom I explained this to one night observed that there must be thousands of Motzarts stacking wood in mills continent wide, unable to reach true potencial. I counter observed that it is the passion to achieve their goal which makes for the true artist. as if driven hard enough by passion, they would give up everything to accomplish that goal.

Give me a hundred grand and I'll write that book. I am good, and the plot is human, fantastic, romantic and lots and lots of action and horror. It has an epic length and you really don't know who the story is about until the end where you go 'Wow, I thought it was about ...."

Now, if I was more impassioned, I would starve, let friends bring me leftovers to my cold damp tent in the woods while I wrote this. My daughter would face ridicule and my ex would wonder if the court can force a pauper to work against his will. However, the drive is not strong enough for me to give up everything. Close, I am working like a madman to do it but won't give up responsibility. And you think that somehow, I am supposed to provide for somebody who will not work like a madman such as I first? Somebody who waits for a handout before he begins? Not a chance. If anybody deserves a handout to do an art project, I do as I have invested money, time, relationships and a good part of my life to complete this. Dammed if I will allow somebody to work fifty hours a week on their 'art' while I work over a hundred so that I can take a few hours to putter with it in the hopes that someday I can devote an entire year to it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Well done and well said. Many artists, with untold passion, lived and died poor, or at least lived modestly, and their work wasn't worth a lot until years after their death. They painted, or wrote, based on that passion, and as Adolf Hitler, worked menial jobs on the side for their daily bread.

I believe that, in the end, art (and culture, such as the French language in Canada) must stand on it's own merit, rather than on subsidy.

[Black Dog]

Now in this above post, the Globe's poll question suggest that we "sub-contract" our armed forces out to the Americans, but for the sake of argument, let's that allow any other countries as possable "defenders" of Canada.

So should we?

Sure: we'll pay on a per-threat basis. I have a toonie here that should about cover it.

[Guest eureka]

KK!

Apply for a Canada Council grant! Your desire becomes you but you don't represent the reality of the artistic world. I obviously have no idea how big your talent is but those starving greats of the past were all those who could not get patronage. The world would be a richer place had they been supported.

I have written a childrenss' novel; a novelette, and some short stories. I have no intention of trying to get them published. I wrote them because I had to but I am not interested in being a second rate writer.

I have had political things in print. They were effective for their purpose but not art.

Black Dog, I think you overestimate the threat.

[PocketRocket]

  Throughout civilized history, artists, writers, and musicians have been unable to support themselves from their work. Private or Public patrons have always been a necessity. That applies to some of the greatest. The first novelist to support himself from his writings was Charles Dickens. Few painters or musicians have ever done so.

Throughout history, except for the very rich elite, no one was able to afford the smallest of luxuries, let alone patronizing the arts.

Not until the past 100 years or so has the average westerner been able to afford such luxuries. And, if you look around the world, in this regard we are still in the minority.

Nonetheless, art goes on. All over the world.

In this uncultured age, many great talents are lost due to the impossibility of earning a living through art. There are few possibilities of earning in related fields to subsidize creativity. Even then, do we put such a poor value on creativity as to make it incapable of self support?

There's a couple different ways to look at this question.

The first is to simply answer "Free enterprise system, supply and demand, etc etc". In other words, something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If no one is willing to pay to hear me play guitar, then whay should the government pay me to play it???

Another angle is this; We all recognize the fact that there may be DaVincis in the raw out there, who will never know it because they never pick up a paintbrush. But does that mean we fund ALL fledgeling artists on the hope that one of them may turn out to be a VanGogh???

If not, then who decides which priveledged few receive the funding??? Who is qualified to make the choice but another artist???

But my major beef is with "cultural" art. It seems that if it makes allusions to a language or culture other that English-Canadian, it'll get a grant.

As a musician for some 30 years now, who has supported himself in that field for about 20 of those years, it makes me very angry to see some Francophones "musicians" in my area living fat off government grants, and quite literally laughing about it. They think it's a great joke.

The real funny thing is none of them made an HONEST musician's dollar, ie; getting out there and actually WORKING as a musician, rather than sitting at home thinking up new ideas for getting bigger grants. One of these "artists" made $96,000 after taxes last year. Never played a gig. Hasn't played one in almost 15 years. But he sure knows how to play the system.

That is simply a waste of money.

I do, BTW, support the modernization of our military: increased funding and professionalization. I do think that we have to consider carefully what should be a niche for our Services in a world where the kind of "labour intensive" wars of the twentieth century are unlikely in the future. 

Agreed. War, like everything else, is getting to be all about technology.

We need some original, Canadian, ingenuity and insight to develop some new, uniquely Canadian, battlefield technology.

Don't ask me what.

Perhaps stealth beer??? Heat-seeking hockey stick???

Ah, I know, the Attack Beaver.

Joking aside, we should be looking into technology. We have the brains, we need to put them to work.

[Stoker]

QUOTE (eureka @ Dec 13 2004, 11:36 AM)

I do, BTW, support the modernization of our military: increased funding and professionalization. I do think that we have to consider carefully what should be a niche for our Services in a world where the kind of "labour intensive" wars of the twentieth century are unlikely in the future. 

Agreed. War, like everything else, is getting to be all about technology.

We need some original, Canadian, ingenuity and insight to develop some new, uniquely Canadian, battlefield technology.

Don't ask me what.

Perhaps stealth beer??? Heat-seeking hockey stick???

Ah, I know, the Attack Beaver. 

Joking aside, we should be looking into technology. We have the brains, we need to put them to work.

What makes you beleive that current/future wars won't be"labour intensive"? I'll cite Iraq to prove otherwise........

As for a "niche role" for our armed forces, that dichotomy of our armed forces translates into a reliance in the areas our "niche forces" don't fill.

IOW, you by proxy, support outsourcing our national defence and sovernity to others.

[Guest eureka]

P.R., I think you are letting your justified annoyance at a particular abuse overpower your reasoning. Art is impossibe without patronage and support. As a musician, you would understand the difficulties of ballet to name one form that would collapse otherwise - at least in this country.

The Free Market does not factor into the demand for Art for the reason you talk about in s different context. That is, that Art is often not rewarded until much later nor even recognized for its value.

I have also a personal connection - not myself. My wife is probably one of the best water colourists in Canada: one who has not done very much with her talents. In her Art School days long ago, she was the recipient of an award as the most promising young artist in Toronto. After a number of disappoinments in starting her career - one of which would have had her working alongside the remaining Group of Seven members had she not been a woman, she virtually gave up except for a few paintings we have hanging at home.

This is one talent that was lost. Through her, I knew of others. The days of the starving artist in the garrett are not with us any more and never will be. The opportunities for employment that allows for the continuation of adequate spare time following of the muse are not always there. Few people are really as driven as KK and have more things that are important to them than to devote that single minded passion to their art.

Obviously we cannot fund all fledgling artists and I do not presume to know the answers. However, music schools and art schools could provide part of the answers and, perhaps, literary competitions perhaps another part. There will still be many talents that will "blush unseen" but that unfainess will be with the human race as long as it remains human.

[Newfie Canadian]

$207 million for Canadian arts groups, including $25 million for the Canada Council of the Arts.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...b=Entertainment

As for a "niche role" for our armed forces, that dichotomy of our armed forces translates into a reliance in the areas our "niche forces" don't fill.

Good point Stoker.

The only way for a niche force to work is for that niche to be totally self defence in nature, that is eliminate overseas deployments and operations, and limit the Armed Forces to a domestic role.

[shackwacky]

The Canada Council for the Arts will get $25 million from the program that helps promote budding and established talent, culture on the Internet and Canadian artists overseas.

Does anyone know what promoting culture on the internet might be?

[Guest eureka]

It might be for remedial reading and comprehension for courses some of our posters so that they can participate in the political culture.

[shackwacky]

It might be for remedial reading and comprehension for courses some of our posters so that they can participate in the political culture.

It was a serious question eureka. I was wondering how they intend to promote culture on the internet, where users have all sorts of choices as to which sites they visit.

No need to be nasty.