Argus Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, turningrite said: Hmmm... let's see, according to the 2017 poll I cited earlier, 64 percent of Canadians opposed selling arms to the Saudis. My guess that number has since risen, possibly by about a dozen points or more, due to the Khashoggi murder. Trudeau's crew can do electoral if not budgetary math. They're experts at slicing and dicing the electorate into voting blocs. You can't go strictly by numbers. Sure the majority is against arms sales to the Saudis, but do they actually care? I mean, they told a poll they're against it, but I doubt it's going to impact many votes among them. Then there's London - where Liberal seats are located. THEY'RE going to care a LOT, which could put those seats in place for the Tories. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
montgomery Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 43 minutes ago, Argus said: You can't go strictly by numbers. Sure the majority is against arms sales to the Saudis, but do they actually care? I mean, they told a poll they're against it, but I doubt it's going to impact many votes among them. Then there's London - where Liberal seats are located. THEY'RE going to care a LOT, which could put those seats in place for the Tories. You mean, they said they were against it but they lied and they're really for it? The Conservatives got Canada into a deal with the Saudis and you think Justin can get us out overnight. I would suggest that Justin wouldn't have got into it in the first place. Promotion of US led wars in a Conservative game, not Trudeau's game. And we all know very well that the troube being caused by the Saudis is a stepping stone to the US invasion and destruction of Iran, do'n't we Argus.
Dougie93 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) In fairness to the Harper government, this is not just any old military contract, this is the largest military contract in the history of Canada by orders of magnitude, and General Dynamics Land Systems Canada is not just any old company, it is actually one of Canada's very few domestic strategic assets, in that it is the go to shop to build armoured vehicles for the Canadian military, not just now, but in the future as well, which it cannot do, if it does not have any contracts, and as Canada only buys armoured vehicles once in a generation or two, cannot be kept open by Canadian contracts alone, so what the Saudi contract is actually doing is allowing us to keep our strategic asset without having to buy anything from them in the meantime. Ergo why I suggested that Canada buy the vehicles instead, knowing full well we ain't gonna do that, which brings me back to "if not us, than who?" Bearing in mind that if you let these assets go away, if you ever want to buy anything in the future, you're either going to have to buy from other countries, or go through an absurdly expensive process of rebuilding them from scratch which will likely fail under the weight of said expense, see; National Shipbuilding Procurement Boondoggle. Edited January 7, 2019 by Dougie93
turningrite Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 24 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Ergo why I suggested that Canada buy the vehicles instead, knowing full well we ain't gonna do that, which brings me back to "if not us, than who?" If the Saudi export permit is cancelled, production of these vehicles will most likely stop. The sale was probably a bad idea from the outset. The issue of whether Canada has the capacity to maintain strategic military production capacity is another matter. Given our small military and military budget, it is difficult to sustain the position that it's worthwhile to do so on a cost-benefit basis. Some smaller countries, like Sweden, do. But it is neutral.
Dougie93 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, turningrite said: If the Saudi export permit is cancelled, production of these vehicles will most likely stop. The sale was probably a bad idea from the outset. The issue of whether Canada has the capacity to maintain strategic military production capacity is another matter. Given our small military and military budget, it is difficult to sustain the position that it's worthwhile to do so on a cost-benefit basis. Some smaller countries, like Sweden, do. But it is neutral. Well Canada doesn't have the capacity to do what Sweden does, but not because Sweden is neutral, rather because Sweden replaces its military hardware on a regular basis whereas the absurdly corrupt and dysfunctional Canadian government cannot run a defense department as almost every other country on earth does, resulting in not replacing military hardware on multi generational time scales, leading to a inherent boom and bust cycle, inciting the slow motion collapse of Canada's capacity to employ armed forces above the constabulary level at all.
turningrite Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: Well Canada doesn't have the capacity to do what Sweden does, but not because Sweden is neutral, rather because Sweden replaces its military hardware on a regular basis whereas the absurdly corrupt and dysfunctional Canadian government cannot run a defense department as almost every other country on earth does, resulting in not replacing military hardware on multi generational time scales, leading to a inherent boom and bust cycle, inciting the slow motion collapse of Canada's capacity to employ armed forces above the constabulary level at all. We choose not to maintain a military capacity similar to Sweden's and our military production decisions are often highly political. We could choose to have no defense at all as the Americans would never allow a foreign power to establish itself on Canadian territory. Our strategic interests are in reality quite limited. In practical terms, Sweden is very close to Russia, an often hostile power, a fact that impacts its willingness to support large-scale military spending. We are very close to the U.S., a militarily powerful ally, a fact that impacts our unwillingness to spend a lot of money on military hardware. We can choose to be inefficient because, well, we have the luxury of a lack of urgency.
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Well Canada doesn't have the capacity to do what Sweden does, but not because Sweden is neutral, rather because Sweden replaces its military hardware on a regular basis whereas the absurdly corrupt and dysfunctional Canadian government cannot run a defense department as almost every other country on earth does, resulting in not replacing military hardware on multi generational time scales, leading to a inherent boom and bust cycle, inciting the slow motion collapse of Canada's capacity to employ armed forces above the constabulary level at all. Have you served in the Canadian Forces? Certain aspects of it are state of the art. It’s a small but effective force. Also, what corruption? You need to provide evidence. The procurement process is strict and transparent. Provide examples please.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2019 Author Report Posted January 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Well Canada doesn't have the capacity to do what Sweden does, but not because Sweden is neutral, rather because Sweden replaces its military hardware on a regular basis whereas the absurdly corrupt and dysfunctional Canadian government cannot run a defense department as almost every other country on earth does, resulting in not replacing military hardware on multi generational time scales, leading to a inherent boom and bust cycle, inciting the slow motion collapse of Canada's capacity to employ armed forces above the constabulary level at all. To be fair, the Swiss plant also operates as a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corporation > GDELS-Mowag for production of APCs, having been purchased in 2004. GDLS Canada is the current evolution of failures and buyouts of Canadian and American defense contractors over the past 50 years or so, with General Dynamics having actually purchased Canadair from the Canadian government after WW2. It is not clear that Canada has ever had a viable, independent military industrial base absent British or American investment. Economics trumps Virtue.
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: To be fair, the Swiss plant also operates as a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corporation > GDELS-Mowag for production of APCs, having been purchased in 2004. GDLS Canada is the current evolution of failures and buyouts of Canadian and American defense contractors over the past 50 years or so, with General Dynamics having actually purchased Canadair from the Canadian government after WW2. It is not clear that Canada has ever had a viable, independent military industrial base absent British or American investment. We’ve had this conversation. Canada produced thousands of planes and ships in WW2. We had invasion capacity divisions and all types of fighting forces for decades, including aircraft carriers. Small Canada had the third largest navy at the end of WW2, and played a significant role in both great wars plus numerous missions since. The downsizing of our military was a policy choice. Other priorities won out. A small country like Canada can’t be all things. With reliable allies to share the load, we shouldn’t have to be. Go to France and visit places like Juno Beach or Vimy Ridge. Find out how the Dutch feel about Canada’s WW2 contributions. They’re very significant and not to be compared to neutral countries. Edited January 7, 2019 by Zeitgeist
Dougie93 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: To be fair, the Swiss plant also operates as a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corporation > GDELS-Mowag for production of APCs, having been purchased in 2004. GDLS Canada is the current evolution of failures and buyouts of Canadian and American defense contractors over the past 50 years or so, with General Dynamics having actually purchased Canadair from the Canadian government after WW2. It is not clear that Canada has ever had a viable, independent military industrial base absent British or American investment. No argument here, but since the broad consensus of Canadians insist on only buying hardware made in Canada, as really all they care about is pork barreling, while other Gendyne subsidiary countries like Switzerland and the UK are open to buying offshore as it were, GDLS-C is far more significant to the Canadian defence industrial base. Not that I'm arguing that Canada should have a defence industrial base, at this juncture I actually advocate for the complete disbandment of DND and the CAF and simply turning it all over to DPS as constabulary "Giant Iceland" option, en route to eventual devolution of Confederation writ large.
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: No argument here, but since the broad consensus of Canadians insist on only buying hardware made in Canada, as really all they care about is pork barreling, while other Gendyne subsidiary countries like Switzerland and the UK are open to buying offshore as it were, GDLS-C is far more significant to the Canadian defence industrial base. Not that I'm arguing that Canada should have a defence industrial base, at this juncture I actually advocate for the complete disbandment of DND and the CAF and simply turning it all over to DPS as constabulary "Giant Iceland" option, en route to eventual devolution of Confederation writ large. Fuck that. 1
Dougie93 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Fuck that. It's going to happen regardless, I'm merely advocating a formalization of a process already and in fact long in progress. /shrugs
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: It's going to happen regardless, I'm merely advocating a formalization of a process already and in fact long in progress. /shrugs No, you’re seeking to undermine Canadian sovereignty. If you’re Canadian, that’s traitorous.
Dougie93 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said: No, you’re seeking to undermine Canadian sovereignty. If you’re Canadian, that’s traitorous. "Treasonous" would infer that I am in violation of my oath to the sovereign, which is not the case vis a vis De-Confederation, because each province in Canada has a direct relationship to the Crown, nothing in my oath to Her Majesty binds me to defend and uphold Confederation per se, I'm perfectly within my rights to advocate for an Independent Upper Canada as much as the Pequistes are to advocate for an Independent Quebec. Again, as Canada is a monarchy, my fealty is only to the Crown, person not a place, to wit, Liz Windsor is the boss of me, and no other.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2019 Author Report Posted January 7, 2019 28 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: We’ve had this conversation. Canada produced thousands of planes and ships in WW2. We had invasion capacity divisions and all types of fighting forces for decades, including aircraft carriers. Small Canada had the third largest navy at the end of WW2, and played a significant role in both great wars plus numerous missions since. The downsizing of our military was a policy choice. Other priorities won out. A small country like Canada can’t be all things. With reliable allies to share the load, we shouldn’t have to be. Different topic altogether, as the impetus for building those things were often foreign (e.g. Vickers, Avro Canada, Victory, etc.) Economics trumps Virtue.
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Different topic altogether, as the impetus for building those things were often foreign (e.g. Vickers, Avro Canada, Victory, etc.) Stop making it sound as though Canadians don’t have anything to say about what gets done in Canada by Canadians. Yes we support our allies and are a small country. That hasn’t prevented Canada from having its own foreign policy and military, and from committing blood and treasure to causes deemed important to Canadians. You see the Canadian commitment in the refugee crisis, the tsunami donations and infrastructure support, Haiti rebuilding, and in important wars. The Canadian contribution in Afghanistan was significant. In combat and peacekeeping, Canada was there. We need to contribute more to the military, not dismantle it, but the expenditures should be targeted to Canada’s priorities and NATO role. We can’t be all things. Edited January 7, 2019 by Zeitgeist
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: "Treasonous" would infer that I am in violation of my oath to the sovereign, which is not the case vis a vis De-Confederation, because each province in Canada has a direct relationship to the Crown, nothing in my oath to Her Majesty binds me to defend and uphold Confederation per se, I'm perfectly within my rights to advocate for an Independent Upper Canada as much as the Pequistes are to advocate for an Independent Quebec. Again, as Canada is a monarchy, my fealty is only to the Crown, person not a place, to wit, Liz Windsor is the boss of me, and no other. You are wrong. Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada, the country.
Dougie93 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 Not that I am saying that Canadian pers were not valiant in their execution of their duties in Afghanistan, in what was a no win situation in the end, but to say that Canada's contribution was significant to the overall operation above the tactical level, I would have to disagree, basically sent a single battalion into action, ill equipped, vastly outnumbered and surrounded, and then just left them there to take a beating, with only one significant and very limited win at the White School House on Operation Medusa, after concentrating all their forces to seize a small compound, other than that, easily replaceable by the Americans, to wit, a token force, as all Canadian deployments are since the end of the Cold War.
Dougie93 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: You are wrong. Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada, the country. Indeed, but she is also Queen of Ontario, see; office of the Lieutenant Governor, and upon De-Confederation as per my plan, would remain Queen of the Dominion of Ontario, although I would actually free Northern Ontario from Queen's Park and just go back to pre 1867 and be the Dominion of Upper Canada. Edited January 7, 2019 by Dougie93
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2019 Author Report Posted January 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: Stop making it sound as though Canadians don’t have anything to say about what gets done in Canada by Canadians. Yes we support our allies and are a small country. That hasn’t prevented Canada from having its own foreign policy and military, and from committing blood and treasure to causes deemed important to Canadians. You see the Canadian commitment in the refugee crisis, the tsunami donations and infrastructure support, Haiti rebuilding, and in important wars. The Canadian contribution in Afghanistan was significant. In combat and peacekeeping, Canada was there. We need to contribute more to the military, not dismantle it, but the expenditures should be targeted to Canada’s priorities and NATO role. We can’t be all things. Easy there....that's a whole different kettle of fish. I though we were specifically discussing the current and historical commitment to an organic, Canadian military industrial base. In other words, would a plant like GDLS Canada in London, Ontario exist on its own as a solely Canadian venture? Justin Trudeau has questioned the largest export defense contract in Canadian history in the wake of failed Saudi relations, which would ultimately lead to the plant''s demise if followed through to all of his virtue signaling desires. Economics trumps Virtue.
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Indeed, but she is also Queen of Ontario, see; office of the Lieutenant Governor, and upon De-Confederation as per my plan, would remain Queen of the Dominion of Ontario, although I would actually free Northern Ontario from Queen's Park and just go back to pre 1867 and be the Dominion of Upper Canada. You obviously don’t appreciate the gravity of treaties. The government of Canada has treaty obligations to Indigenous peoples. If the federal government shut down, the infrastructure and communications to remote communities would be seriously threatened. Some provinces and territories don’t have the capacity on their own to provide the policing, health, and other essential services. What’s more, what’s the upside? You think that wealthy places should abandon poorer ones in your Social Darwinist survival of the fittest world. Canadians wouldn’t let that happen.
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Not that I am saying that Canadian pers were not valiant in their execution of their duties in Afghanistan, in what was a no win situation in the end, but to say that Canada's contribution was significant to the overall operation above the tactical level, I would have to disagree, basically sent a single battalion into action, ill equipped, vastly outnumbered and surrounded, and then just left them there to take a beating, with only one significant and very limited win at the White School House on Operation Medusa, after concentrating all their forces to seize a small compound, other than that, easily replaceable by the Americans, to wit, a token force, as all Canadian deployments are since the end of the Cold War. I disagree. The training of police and rebuilding around Kandahar was significant. I think the US liked having our support. There was also combat. Edited January 7, 2019 by Zeitgeist
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7, 2019 Author Report Posted January 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Not that I am saying that Canadian pers were not valiant in their execution of their duties in Afghanistan, in what was a no win situation in the end, but to say that Canada's contribution was significant to the overall operation above the tactical level, I would have to disagree, basically sent a single battalion into action, ill equipped, Agreed...few would question the commitment of JTF2 and other Canadian Forces deployed to A-stan, but they were sent there with the barest of kit and logistics support, culminating in the political crisis of a high number of KIAs compared to other NATO units. It seems that Iltis G-wagons were ill suited for the mission ! Justin Trudeau faces the same choices that other Canadian PMs have faced in this regard...having to sell less as really being more. Economics trumps Virtue.
Zeitgeist Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Easy there....that's a whole different kettle of fish. I though we were specifically discussing the current and historical commitment to an organic, Canadian military industrial base. In other words, would a plant like GDLS Canada in London, Ontario exist on its own as a solely Canadian venture? Justin Trudeau has questioned the largest export defense contract in Canadian history in the wake of failed Saudi relations, which would ultimately lead to the plant''s demise if followed through to all of his virtue signaling desires. Thanks for keeping this thread on track.
Dougie93 Posted January 7, 2019 Report Posted January 7, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: You obviously don’t appreciate the gravity of treaties. The government of Canada has treaty obligations to Indigenous peoples. If the federal government shut down, the infrastructure and communications to remote communities would be seriously threatened. Some provinces and territories don’t have the capacity on their own to provide the policing, health, and other essential services. What’s more, what’s the upside? You think that wealthy places should abandon poorer ones in your Social Darwinist survival of the fittest world. Canadians wouldn’t let that happen. The upside is that each de facto sub nation within Canadian Confederation could and would be governed far far better to the benefit of all, rather than as now with this abomination of a federal government forcing us altogether even though in most cases our interests and desires are contradictory, in terms of remote communities under federal jurisdiction, Nunavut, NWT, and Yukon, I would offer them self determination, to include joining one of the other Dominions as with Labrador, grouping together to form their own Dominion, or go it alone. In terms of the viability of these extremely remote communities, if they are not self sustaining then they are a fool's errand, but if they insist on remaining where they are, I would suggest they seek assistance from either the United Kingdom or the United States, I honestly have absolutely zero interest in governing the arctic, the Americans can have it for all I care, since for all intents and purposes, it is already their responsibility, it's not like we can actually defend it, and what you cannot defend is not actually yours, under international law. Edited January 7, 2019 by Dougie93
Recommended Posts